Disputatio:Religio Christiana
Sententia prima[fontem recensere]
Care usor ignote 254.23.75, sententiae significationem mutasti. Sententia primum fuit (Anglice conversa): 'who—having been predicted by the prophets, having been announced through Gabriel the archangel, having been born out of Maria—proclaimed himself to be God of God and Israel's awaited savior'. Nunc sententia est: 'who proclaimed himself predicted by the prophets, announced through Gabriel the archangel, born out of Maria, himself to be God of God and Israel's awaited savior'. Cur est sententia secunda melior? Did Jesus himself make all five claims? or only the last two? And why the double 'himself'? IacobusAmor 04:02, 30 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
- I reverted: OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:48, 30 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
- OK with me! Btw, I'm not sure even about the last two claims. Was it Jesus himself who claimed to be the messiah? or his followers, who (after he'd died) claimed he was? IacobusAmor 17:22, 30 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
- Of course it depends on how honest you consider his followers to have been about what Jesus himself said, but see e.g. Matthew 16:16-20, 26:63-64, John 10:24-33, etc. As for 'God of God' wouldn't that rather be 'God from God'? —Mucius Tever 18:55, 30 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
- Now that you mention it: those narratives depict a man who doesn't actually "proclaim" that he's the christ: he gets others to say or suggest it, and he then implies that they're right, or asserts claims of special powers bestowed by a divinely paternal source. He doesn't himself "proclaim" that he's the messiah. ¶ De: "'God of God' wouldn't that rather be 'God from God'?" The phrase Deum de Deo comes directly from the Creed, and its translation in the Book of Common Prayer has been 'God of God' for at least 449 years (http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1559/Communion_1559.htm). IacobusAmor 19:27, 30 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
- Of course it depends on how honest you consider his followers to have been about what Jesus himself said, but see e.g. Matthew 16:16-20, 26:63-64, John 10:24-33, etc. As for 'God of God' wouldn't that rather be 'God from God'? —Mucius Tever 18:55, 30 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
- OK with me! Btw, I'm not sure even about the last two claims. Was it Jesus himself who claimed to be the messiah? or his followers, who (after he'd died) claimed he was? IacobusAmor 17:22, 30 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I was wondering that. I certainly can't remember where he said he was God of God. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:55, 30 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
- This may be another topic, but: if you compare our text with that of the English Wikipedia, you'll see major divergences, and not just with the first sentence. It wouldn't be surprising if our whole article doesn't betray a subtle but nontrivial POV, most likely a Roman Catholic one—correcting which is a project for another day! IacobusAmor 17:22, 30 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I was wondering that. I certainly can't remember where he said he was God of God. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:55, 30 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
"Christianitas" is an Anglicism[fontem recensere]
The religion of "Christianity" in Latin was called "Christianismus", not "Christianitas". "Christianitas" is a Medieval Latin term defining Europe as the "Christian community" or nation. The use of "Christianitas" to define the religion of Christianity is a modern Anglicism.--2.44.70.165 11:03, 13 Martii 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, as with many concepts that have a long history, this one is complex. If you're proposing using Christianismus as the lemma for Christianity, what word are you proposing to be the lemma for Christianism? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:55, 13 Martii 2018 (UTC)
- By the way, have you noticed that Christianismus at the moment redirects to Religio Christiana? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:58, 13 Martii 2018 (UTC)
- Seems to me the minor article en:Christianism isn't too relevant to our choice of the most suitable Latin terms in this major article! If "Christianitas" isn't an appropriate lemma, or only with caveats, it could be eliminated from the first sentence. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:13, 13 Martii 2018 (UTC)
- The distinction between "Christianity" and "Christianism" pointed out by IacobusArmor is, in turn, another Anglicism. Basically, modern English language switched the meaning of the two terms. While in Latin Christianismus is the religious doctrine and Christianitas the state of being Christian, modern English has "Christianity" as the name of the religious doctrine and "Christianism" as the state of being Christian. I think that this switch evolved because of the Old English "Christendom", a third term for Christian things in English which is, based on the suffix, synonymous of the term in -ity, and yet used differently. English uses "Christendom" in the sense of Latin Christianitas, i.e. the community of Christians and specifically the Medieval Christian civilisation of Europe.--5.94.38.18 11:06, 16 Martii 2018 (UTC)
- Seems to me the minor article en:Christianism isn't too relevant to our choice of the most suitable Latin terms in this major article! If "Christianitas" isn't an appropriate lemma, or only with caveats, it could be eliminated from the first sentence. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:13, 13 Martii 2018 (UTC)
- By the way, have you noticed that Christianismus at the moment redirects to Religio Christiana? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:58, 13 Martii 2018 (UTC)