Talk:Disciple (Christianity)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
| This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page.
|
||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
This page was listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion in May, 2004. The result of that discussion was to keep the article. For an archive of the discussion, see Talk:Disciple/Delete.
I've tried to make this article more encyclopedic by clearly deliminating the various uses of the word disciple. I don't see this as an disambiguation page, but I found that structure very useful. --Acjelen 01:25, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, this really doesn't seem to be a dab page, in my opinion either. Maybe we should remove the template? - grubber 17:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
There's no reason to delete it, and expanding on it is a good idea. For instance, a separate extensive definition of "Disciple" as a verb.
Contents |
[edit] Added cleanup tag, removed disambig-cleanup.
I think that this page would work better focusing on the religious connotations and Jesus's disciples, even though this page becomes moderately misnamed then (though the disambig page I just created could then be moved here, and a "disciples of Jesus" page created). The dictionary definition stuff seems somewhat superfluous at the moment. SnowFire 05:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- On second thought, the amount of "disciple" related content that isn't Christianity-related on this page is pretty darn small, which reduces the argument for keeping this page as an encyclopedic overview of Christianity. Perhaps this page should be moved to Disciple (Christianity), and the disambig page I just created should come back here again. Any thoughts? SnowFire 13:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Wow. This article looks a lot better now. Anyway, I figured I'd bring this over here; I removed the following line-
- This deepest sense of discipleship is espoused by writers such as Lee C. Camp in his book "Mere Discipleship".
This seems a bit hyperbolic, almost like an ad. Mr. Camp only gets around 430 hits on Google, so he doesn't seem that important, even if his book was good? Maybe I'm off, but just saying. SnowFire 00:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Great Commission
Odd that there is no mention (as of today) of the clause, "and make disciples of every nation" which is part of the Great Commission as recorded in Matthew 28:18-20. DFH 14:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Rectified in the new see also section. DFH 16:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- I also made a connection in the discipleship section
[edit] Use of the word disciple in the book of Acts
Perhaps it is worth mentioning that the word disciple occurs numerous times in the book of Acts to denote the early followers of Jesus, i. e. Christians . See for example, Acts 11:26, part of which reads, And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. DFH 16:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- In my mind, a section covering both the Great Commission and "the disciples" in Acts would benefit this article. -Acjelen 20:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Discipleship Paradigm ?
The exact phrase "Discipleship Paradigm" only had 697 hits in Google. Such a low hit count would make me question whether the term should even be mentioned in this article, especially as no citation was given. DFH 16:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- It seems to me that neither the subsection in which the phrase is mentioned, nor the following subsection meet Wikipedia's NPOV criteria. DFH 16:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- I have therefore just removed both subsections. For details, look at the article's history. DFH 16:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Love one another
Acjelen, as for the link you reverted back into my edit (perhaps you did this by accident?), "Love your neighbor" is not the same topic as "Love one another". If you want to discuss why you want to replace it, please do so before replacing it again. I removed it from an initial anonymous edit for which there was no discussion of why it was added.
- Um, Chrismon, I'm not sure what differences you mean between our last two edits. -Acjelen 02:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The four
I've always been reluctant to have this article split the listing of apostles. Nonetheless, the gospels emphasize an initial calling of three to five apostles, so I can see a justification. I would like, however, the treatment to be brief. All of the apostles (and, in fact, all of the named disciples) have their own articles. -Acjelen 02:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Weasel Words
I debated whether to put up a NPOV dispute or a weasel words dispute, but decided that, in my opinion, most of the NPOV issues would be removed along with the weasel words. Things like "...the faith of all modern Christians worldwide." There are a fair amount of these things that I think need to be clarified in this article (ie: ALL Christians? Improbable to the point of untrue. Which ones specifically? Worldwide? Where worldwide?). Thank you Finn zee Fox 04:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'll admit that the Discipleship section is too flowery in its language, but are you suggesting that the Disciples are not the forebearers of the rest of Christianity? -Acjelen 18:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
You raise a good question against my wording. I really was just trying to point out the "flowery" language (as you so well put it) and perhaps I used a bad example. However, I do think that it's best to avoid vague, sweeping statements like "all" because I bet you could find at least one branch of Christianity that claims not to identify with the original disciples. Finn zee Fox 06:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you would consider putting up the dispute after discussing it instead of the other way around? Your only claim in its defense is that the words are "flowery", but you give no definition of what that means. One definition I've read of "flowery" is "Full of ornate or grandiloquent expressions; highly embellished: a flowery speech." I have edited, or even authored, a decent portion of the Discipleship section, and while I admit I try my best to give a good, historically hermeneutical description, to give a feel for the interplay of ideas and force that make a disciple different from someone who is not, I do not find terms like "socio-political" do be particularly "grandiloquent". As I read through it now for the first time in a while, I think I could concede that the phrase "the very heart of the ministry of Jesus" is a bit flowery. Changing "heart" to "center" (which I just did) might kill a few flowers :) Other than that, however, I'll need your help in seeing this section as "flowery". As for Acjelen's comment, I agree with his inference. In all my reading on historical theology, I have never come across a Christian sect that does not find the disciples as the pioneers of their sect. Often, many sects (From Catholics and Orthodox to Baptists and even Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses) see themselves as some sort of directly authoritative, spiritual descendants of the original Disciples (particularly the Twelve) as part of their claim to legitimacy. Chrismon 07:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Something else comes to mind, is the POV claim because the POV is Christian? Do you think it gives a particularly (christian) sectarian POV? I would submit that since this is the "Disciple(Christianity)" page, a Christian POV is appropriate. If you think it is unduly sectarian, please explain. In my contributions I tried my best to convey a literary and historical view of the text -- things which, in my studying, I have found to be generally agreed upon by biblical scholars/historians (though, not necesarily theologians). Chrismon 17:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
