Talk:Christianity

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2025

Good afternoon, Christianity does not use black crosses. That's the Teutonic Knights. In Christianity, we always have a crucified Jesus Christ on the cross. And there is no comparison between Jesus and "logos". That's a notion from philosophy that does not match current Christian thinking. Maybe at one time with Aristotle but that's since been debunked since the 19th century. Thanks, Alan from Toronto Canada 174.95.92.131 (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. where in this article does it mention black crosses? Cannolis (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Change needs to be made.

why the lock. Id like to update one part. 25hitme (talk) 05:37, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Unjustified revert

I fixed what was clearly an incorrect phrasing or typo in this article. What was written was "one of more of". I corrected the same to "one or more of". This was reverted and the message I got was that it is constructive? After this the message asked me to "familiarise" myself "with our policies and guidelines". I see the irony even if others don't.

I don't know if this was done without thinking or if WP really does believe that correction of even such obvious typos is unconstructive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotamre (talk • contribs) 04:55, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Purely a guess on my part, but I don't think 'of' and 'or' were the problem. It was probably the rest of your edit. That made a mess of things.Masterhatch (talk) 05:08, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I've gone back to check and compare and it does seem I "made a mess of things" as you put it. Not sure how I managed to do that though, cuz I'd only change the "of" to "or". Anyway, apologies for that and thanks for responding. Would be great if the "of" is changed to "or" by someone. I am not confident to go back to do that myself as I don't have practice for the reference section and might slip up again. Rotamre (talk) 06:07, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Done. Rolluik (talk) 08:18, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

🙏🏻 Rotamre (talk) 10:23, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

The Spread of All religions as Oral History until printing press in 1440

Oral History has been how human beings passed their history for much longer than since the printing press was invented in 1440. Therefore, more credibility should not be attributed to the written word over the oral traditions passed generations by generation through memorization of the stories, telling and speaking about Jesus in Christian gatherings and perhaps w

reading small parts of the story in their gatherings as a Bible did exist in a colloquial Greek fishermens’ dialect but books were rare. And no one could read or write. So the meetings or services of Christianity until the 1400s was based on oral traditions.

2806:2F0:5120:FBB1:DD04:372D:3121:ACB8 (talk) 09:09, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

The Importance of Oral History in the development of the Abrahamic religions. Until the printing press in 1445, al faiths were passed orally.

Too much emphasis is placed on written text to PROVE points regarding Jesus when there was very little existence of writing of amongst his believers nor literacy until almost 1500 years after his death and life. Oral tradition is a valid under utilized manner of determining credibility. There is some secular writing between Pontius Pilot (Mayor of that area of R. Empire) and Caesar Nero that is extremely relevant and mirrors biblical teachings but with a different perspective. They were afraid of sedition and that is the charge Jesus was crucified for by the Roman’s. The Jewish tribe had little to do with it but regarded Jesus in the same general manner: a disrupter of the statue quo and their authority. 2806:2F0:5120:FBB1:DD04:372D:3121:ACB8 (talk) 09:21, 16 September 2025 (UTC)