Talk:Christian symbolism

Christian symbolism is within the scope of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry and vexillology. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Heraldry and vexillologyWikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyTemplate:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyheraldry and vexillology articles

Christianity: Catholicism / Eastern O. / Anglicanism Top‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Catholic Church portal This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (assessed as High-importance).

Text and/or other creative content from Christian symbolism was copied or moved into Staurogram with this edit on August 7, 2016. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Archives

Archive 1

POV

I removed the NPOV banner and it was restored due to excessive coverage of the Jesse Tree. By my count there are exactly two sentences about the Jesse Tree in the entire article. What is the POV dispute? I read the talk page and archived it as every thread was from last summer or earlier. Now, what is the real issue here? -- SECisek (talk) 03:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

according to Wikipedia policy:

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

I believe the emphasis on the Tree of Jesse violates this. Certainly there are other symbols that are more prominant and deserve better coverage. Bytebear (talk) 03:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, in principle I do not disagree with you. Since you feel it is unbalanced, what do you propose? -- SECisek (talk) 03:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to decide what this article is about. If I were a non-Christian, I would think the Tree of Jesse was a central tennant of the faith, but I do not believe that to be the case. I would focus on the Cross and Crucifix, the trinity symbology, but also things like the stations of the cross, even go into Easter and Christmas symbols. I don't know the subject matter as well as some, but I certainly think of these symbols when I think of Christianity. I had never heard of the Tree of Jesse prior to reading this article. Bytebear (talk) 03:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing wrong with your comment. I agree and will try to do some work on this article, perhaps a full rewrite. -- SECisek (talk) 03:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it may be just a matter of adjusting the headings so things are easier and more clearly defined. Bytebear (talk) 03:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No you are right, this is a poor article. A major overhauled was acomplished. -- SECisek (talk) 03:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used to edit for Wikipedia as I have a Th.D. in Early Church History, but the POV is so strong and factually wrong, that most of my edits were edited away by those with a POV that was not based upon historical fact. Anyway, I want to comment that the idea that Christian graves were marked by pictures of Christ etc. from the earliest times is utter nonsense. I have visited the catacombs in Rome and traveled throughout Asia Minor and this is a falsehood. Furthermore, many of the so-called symbols of the cross that many claim (like X, the Greek letter Chi which begins the word chiliasm, in fact, were symbols of the millennial hope of the resurrection according to both Catholic and Protestant scholars. If someday, Wikipedia is willing to actually accept what really happened, I would edit again. HistoryTHD. (cogwriter@aol.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.28.253 (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss things a little bit more!

First off, the whole bit about the Tree of Jesse was actually ancillary and subordinate to a discussion of the Christmas tree, and the discussion of the Christmas tree was not to pretend that the Christmas tree is an important or basic Christian symbol (in fact, the opposite is specifically disclaimed), but as an in-depth examination of one particular semi-random symbol to examine the general methods of symbolism.

And Secisek's edits were rather unfortunate, in that the first section after the introduction seems to give the impression that the the majority of Christian symbols were plagiarized from other traditions. AnonMoos (talk) 06:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not my intent at all. The article is clearly a work in progress. Wikipedia sholuld not be "semi-random" or have lengthy passages that are acknowledged to not be about the the subject of the article. The Christmas tree section was totaly out of place here and I believe I have laid the ground work for the article to move forward: 1. Pre-christian symbols. 2. Early Christian. 3. Symbols of the Church. Add relavent material to each secion. Please let's all just try to keep it relavent. There was no discussion here since last August. It is December. I felt given that fact I could be bold. Instead of complaining about the cuts, be bold and add cited material that will help this article reach B and GA status. Best. -- SECisek (talk) 06:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Secisek's edit was in good faith, and I will remind you to follow WP:OWNERSHIP guidelines. Bytebear (talk) 06:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun the process of making citations. Most of what was kept was easily cited with source around my house I will continue to develop the article. Please contribute where possible. -- SECisek (talk) 06:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh?

True-to-the-pope Roman Catholics are not true-to-The Lord Jesus Christ-Christians; why are they included on the Christianity page? Is there no distinct page for Roman Catholics? Are Christians included there? Invmog (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah...that's not offensive at all. Catholics are Christians. We are "true-to-The Lord Jesus Christ-Christians" and we take offense to being called otherwise. And even if we weren't Christians, it doesn't matter because wikipedia only reports what reliable sources say, not our own opinions, and reliable sources say that Catholics are Christians. End of story. If you have a suggestion for improving the article, then provide it. Offensive comments like that are not welcome here, nor, according to St. Paul, are they very Christian. Farsight001 (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since when does being "true-to-the-pope" contradict being "true-to-our Lord"? Christ clearly built a Church and placed His Church under the authority of St. Peter. Not only are Catholics Christians but they are the only true Christians, for those who reject the authority of St. Peter and his successors (i.e. the pope) are cut off from the Church. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 15:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tomb Paintings section

Under the Tomb Paintings section there is a paragraph that starts:

In its modern image, usually depicted as bumper stickers and t-shirts and a miasma of other modern items, it carries a strong and puzzling visual connection to the Odal, an ancient Norse rune often associated with the Norse god Odin.

What in the world is it? It seems the author was speaking about a specific item, but I can't make heads-or-tails of it. What is modern imagery doing under Tomb Paintings, anyway? --74.241.56.136 (talk) 12:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've cut what seems an irrelevant OR insertion. If you look at Odal (rune), I suppose it is about the fish symbol (oddly not mentioned in the text. The reference, to the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia "Veneration of Images", clearly belongs to the para above. Johnbod (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism?

The portion about the Celtic cross makes a number of interesting claims. However, the claims lack the slightest bit of sourcing. Because the claims in this part are utterly unsourced, they should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.13.122 (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the section on the Celtic cross seems to confuse the Christian Celtic cross and the earlier Pagan solar wheel motif associated with Taranis's cult. The section should be modified to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.173.53.86 (talk) 05:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know there are at least a few christian faiths that believe use of symbols including the cross is akin to worshiping an idol, and I think there could be room for some mention of this on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.119.13 (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The JW's (but they're out of the mainstream). AnonMoos (talk) 10:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Iconoclasm article touches on this topic a bit in its Reformation section, but from a historical perspective. Andreas Karlstadt, Huldrych Zwingli, and John Calvin were the most notable theologians who preached against religious imagery around the time of the Beeldenstorm. Although there are some mainstream denominations that follow their teachings, I don't recall any of them subscribing to their iconoclastic views in the present day. The Aniconism in Christianity article touches on the subject a bit more, and might be interesting enough to link to in the "see also" section. --Dulcimerist (talk) 07:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone want to take the lead on doing something along the lines of my previous post? I believe it would be beneficial to the article, but I'd like to hear other people's thoughts. I've thought of a few different options:

1. Simply add a small paragraph at the end of the Icons section which touches on the Iconoclasm period during the Protestant Reformation, briefly describing some of the details from my previous post (although the actions during the Protestant Reformation weren't confined exclusively to icons).

2. Create an actual Criticism section in the article in order to add Protestant Reformation iconoclasm/aniconism information.

3. Create an actual Criticism section in the article, keep the Icon section specifically about Icons, and move the Byzantine Iconoclasm information into the Criticism section. Protestant Reformation iconoclasm/aniconism information could then follow in this section. (I think I like this option best of the three.)

Although the modern-day aniconistic beliefs of the Amish and certain Mennonite sects could also be included in a Criticism section (along with certain Presbyterian sects), they're pretty much out of the mainstream and might not be beneficial to mention. They're a continuation of the aniconistic movement from the Protestant Reformation, so they might deserve a passing mention, though.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. For now I'll just add Aniconism in Christianity to the bottom of the See Also section, since it's of interest to the article's topic. However, I won't make any of the modifications mentioned above without input and opinions from other Wiki users. Thanks! --Dulcimerist (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christian symbolism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051026173201/http://www.kwu.edu/campuslife/woodcarvings.htm to http://www.kwu.edu/campuslife/woodcarvings.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eye of Providence

In some interpretations it's associated with the Christian Trinity (because of the enclosing Triangle), but ca. 1800 it could also be associated with Deism and/or Freemasonry. while in the 20th century it became a Cao Dai symbol... AnonMoos (talk) 08:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]