Talk:Biblical law in Christianity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Article creation
There has been discussion about the creation of this article at Talk:Old Testament#Christian view of the Law and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Torah-submission. Those discussions contain helpful information.
Much material needs to be moved from the section Old Testament#Christian view of the Law, and a much shorter "summary style" section left behind.
A lot of piped links need to be replaced, which appear something like this: Christian views of the law, and this article needs to be added to the "See also" sections of a large number of articles. Colin MacLaurin 16:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- It should also contain a summary of Ebionites. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Title
Shouldn't the title of this article be: Biblical Law in Christianity? Or Christian views of Biblical Law? 75.15.200.172 18:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think those titles are good ones, but let's wait to see what other editors think too. The current and original title, "Law in Christianity" is ambiguous I agree - for it is not describing Christian attitudes towards secular or governmental law (such as Paul discusses in Romans 10, I think it was), but rather views about biblical law. I think both of your suggestions, Biblical law in Christianity and Christian views of biblical law are good ones (notice case changes). Colin MacLaurin 10:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Christian views of biblical Law might be better, since the Law is usually capped. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that title may be better if changed to distinguish this article's topic from Canon Law, etc. I think Christian views of Biblical Law or Biblical Law in Christianity are equally good. -Namikiw 20:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- After more thought, I think "Biblical law in Christianity" is better, as it parallels Hell in Christianity and other articles, and also it is superfluous to include "views" in the title, because according to WP:NPOV all major views must be presented (in all Wikipedia articles). Colin MacLaurin 11:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- No-one has commented. I am moving this page to Biblical law in Christianity as it is an improvement for now. Further discussion welcome. Colin MacLaurin 10:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- The title, "Biblical law" would be nice, but "Bible" can be used to refer to the Jewish scriptures as well. What do you think? Colin MacLaurin 10:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that title may be better if changed to distinguish this article's topic from Canon Law, etc. I think Christian views of Biblical Law or Biblical Law in Christianity are equally good. -Namikiw 20:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Christian views of biblical Law might be better, since the Law is usually capped. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merge
FYI: After a consensus on that page, I merged the entire article, Christian Torah-submission, into its section within this article. At this time, it puts much more information under this view than others. A balance will eventually be recommended. However, rather than sacrifice information in this view to balance the length of the others, I have placed templates on the others encouraging expansion. -Namikiw 20:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Torah-submissive" and related terms
In reviewing Talk:Christian Torah-submission#Requested move, it seemed many editors thought the term "Torah-submissive" was a neologism (see Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms), and some thought it was used within Messianic Judaism. If anyone believes it is actually a common term, please provide a reference. Even if it is only used within a certain community (such as Messianic Judaism), it could still be mentioned as "The term 'torah-submissive' is used by Messianic Jews to describe themselves." However if not, I propose removing all references to it in articles. It may be simply intended as a descriptive phrase (Wikipedia:Assume good faith), and if so I suggest rewording, as it has a formal 'ring' (tone) to it. Colin MacLaurin 11:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

