Image talk:ChristianityBranches.svg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While this might seem to be a useful depiction of common thought concerning Christian faiths, it is not NPOV as it favors Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy as being "closer" to the roots of early Christianity (the center), whereas Restorationism and Nestorians are depicted as being "further" from early Christianity.

Additionally, whereas in this depiction the gray line represents early Christianity, the line color does not change until it reaches Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, leading readers to believe that those are direct derivations, while the rest are not. In other words, were this a more neutral image, the line would change color from gray after the first departure, being Restorationism. Moogle 04:10, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have no problem with it, however, all doubt could be removed if we changed "Early Christianity" to "Early Orthodoxy". --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 05:47, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't like it either. Should be changed to a cladogram. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 23:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone explain to me how Protestantism came out of the Church of England. --Tydaj 15:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe that you're looking at it wrong; the image shows both Protestantism and Anglicanism as coming directly from Roman Catholicism. --Funkaloyd 03:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Isn't it POV to assert that Anglicanism is not a subbranch of Protestantism? --Srleffler 07:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
No. In fact, "Anglicanism," per se, should be branched off of both the Oriental Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church, as those are its true lineages. The "Ecclesia Anglicana" existed at least since Augustine founded the See at Canterbury, and the Church in the British Isles (Celtic and Orthodox) existed from about 47 or so, and British bishops were present at the early ecumenical Councils. The English Church, during the Reformation, re-separated itself from Roman jurisdiction.
Nrgdocadams 06:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

Contents

[edit] Transparency & my revert

I'm using IE, and I think many readers are, but I can't read the text in yellow. The background is dark grey. This is a known issue with PNG transparency in IE, as far as I remember, so I found an older version that I could see properly, and hit 'revert', but no changes seem to have happened.

... I dunno what the problem is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blacklite (talk • contribs) 02:30, 2 April 2005 (UTC).

maybe you have the picture cached? --metta, The Sunborn ☥ 11:01, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I guess I did. I thought I'd tried every trick to get it to work again. It looks fine now, though. Blacklite 10:00, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Date of Council of Ephesus

The Council of Ephesus which condemned Nestorianism was in 431, not 413. ——Preost talk contribs July 8, 2005 16:20 (UTC)

I guess you want someone to fix it now? Just kidding. It should be an easy job of moving the number around. --metta, The Sunborn 8 July 2005 18:32 (UTC)
I've made the appropriate fix. -- Vardion 21:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
The Orthodox Churches, Roman Catholic Church, Anglicans, etc., no longer consider the Assyrian Church of the East to be followers of the Nestorian heresy, and this should be reflected in your chart, whcih now equates the Assyrian Church of the East with Nestorianism.
Nrgdocadams 06:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

[edit] Should the diagram extend further down the timeline?

I'm wondering whether or not it would be useful to continue the timeline further down so that we get a more comprehensive picture of the Christian family tree, including movements such as Weslyianism (sp?), Pentecostalism, Mormonism, etc. - Daniel Zylstra (Dec. 13, 2005)

If so, such a timeline should be a completely separate or new image, not an edit or replacement of the old one. -Silence 14:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oriental Orthodox

It is inaccurate to equate the Oriental Orthodox Churches with monophysites. The Oriental Orthodox are miaphysites, not monophysites. The Gnostics are monophysites. The Oriental Orthodox just wouldn't accept the Chalcedon diaphysitism. The chart should be change to reflect this. Nrgdocadams 06:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

Correct. Can someone please change this, and perhaps make it a cladogram as stated above. At the very least the color should change from gray to something else beginning with the claimed lineage of Restorationism. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 21:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
The term Monophysites is in quotation marks for precisely this reason. The article explains the relevant distinctions. The reason why keeping Monophysites in the labelling is useful is because it's so very ubiquitous in English-language scholarship on the subject, but the addition of the quotation marks shows that it's a questionable label. —Preost talk contribs 21:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
However the "Miaphysite" is commonly used to describe "Oriental" Orthodox doctrine. So by putting "monophysite" in quotes it still seems POV when instead "nondiaphysites" or "miaphysite" would be better. There is valid English language scholarship on the subject to use these terms.
"Monophysites" is no longer used in English-language scholarship because it is incorrect. "Miaphysite" is now more commonly used as it is the correct term, while the latter term is considered derogatory. Please change the name to reflect this. I'll see if I have the necessary image-editing tools to do it myself, but I doubt it. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 19:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It is believed that the first country to adopt Christianity as a country was Armenia. Some people believe that these Christians are the forefathers of modern Gnostics. Gnosticism includes the practice of Meditation originally practiced in pre-Christian Israel and now still practiced in the Far East (China, India and so on..) where these traditons were kept.

[edit] Eastern Christians

The dotted line implying that the Eastern christians where all Orthodox then "united" with Rome is not accurate. Maronites for one (though there are others)) have always been both in communion with Rome and Eastern Christians. Furthermore Chaldeans where not in communion with Constantinople before then joined communion with Rome, which could be implied by the diagram. It seems enough points of contention have been raised for someone to download rebuild and reupload into the same file a more correct flowchart. Also the Assyrian Church of the East is at least, at this time, no longer, if it ever was, Nestorian. See the 1994 agreement between the Church and the Vatican, which assigned an equivilant understanding of Christology.

[edit] Naming?

I see an issue with the Oriental Orthodox monophysite name too (they are miaphysite), as well as calling the Western Church post-1054 "Roman Catholicism," when clearly Roman is applied only to the Latin Rite, ignoring entirely the Eastern Rite Catholics; there is of course discussion of this on the Catholicism page, but the diagram needs to reflect the more universal-ness of the ("Roman") Catholic Church.

Also, is the "claim of seperate lineage" necessary? Lxx 03:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links in image

It looks like people have figured out a way to put hyperlinks on an image. This would improve this image a lot, and was the original motivation for the text version of this diagram, as I remember. Compare {{Australia Labelled Map}} and the tool Labelled Image Editor. -Colin MacLaurin 19:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)