Talk:Timeline of Church History
Please note: On this and all Timeline articles, entries should be simple and brief and read like newspaper headlines. There should be no citations or commentary included in entries. Place that sort of material in new articles (which can be linked to from here). External links contained in entries (e.g., to Wikipedia) should only be included if doing so would significantly illuminate the meaning of the entry. (The idea is not to link nearly every possible word, but only those which have significant meaning to the history of Orthodoxy.)
- I looked at that but couldn't make heads nor tails of it. From another look just now, I think that even if I did master it, the complexity would end up inhibiting contribution from others. --Rdr. Andrew 11:53, 7 Feb 2005 (CST)
- Yep, looking a little more deeply I can see that it might be more trouble than it's worth! Fr. John
It is very good, brief at the same time, useful and helpful Timeline of Church History. However I am not able to print it.Please advise how to do it. Aleksiy
- Hi Aleksiy, this site uses a special stylesheet for printers, so that no "print-friendly pages" are required. Check it out, and let us know how it goes. Yours in Christ, Fr. John
I corrected the date of the Glastonbury mission of St. Joseph of Arimathea, and provided the correct information for the latter date with regards to the Church in Britain. Aristibule
I think you've got a great resource here, and I have been exploring constructing something similar using EasyTimeline. I've found that once the timeline is up, it isn't so hard to maintain. Feel free to drop me an email if that is something you'd be interested in and I'd be happy to assist with development. I do of course, also understand the competing need for simplicity of design - so no hard feelings if you don't take me up on the offer. Meanwhile, check out a useful resource one user has developed that can assist in timeline design from scratch: http://newped2.auckland.ac.nz/exe/exe/timeline/form.html. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kidwellj (talk • contribs) .
The year 0
Hi! Some timelines will show Christ's crucifixion etc as 33AD. However, I believe that in the Orthodox Church we are of the thinking that if Christ is born around -6BC and died at the age of 33 then the date of 33AD should be revised (mathematically 33 + 6 = 39years of age.
Father John, would you be so kind as to offer a discussion on this. User:Ixthis888
Gospel of Matthew
According to a resource I have recently purchased, the Gospel according to Matthew is dated ca 80AD - which is significantly different to the dating listed on the site at present. Since it is an existing record, I do not wish to change the information without seeking the appropriate discussion and/or agreements first (as opposed to posting my own new information). Regards, Vasiliki.
- The dates of when each Gospel was written are often a matter for great academic debate. The Orthodox Study Bible dates it at 50-75AD, which is probably where the date in the article comes from (Mark is dated 65-70, just before the fall of Jerusalem; Luke at 70-80 and John at c.96 - Matthew, then, is the most vaguely dated.) — edited by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 20:04, January 10, 2008 (PST)
To the person who edited out some stuff
I first wanted to thank you for taking the time to 'edit' my contributions and I apologise if this has caused you stress but I did want to point out that I disagree with your reasons for removing various bits of my text.
The first example I would like to make is the removal of 'Old Testament' - if we are discussing the Timeline of Church History - then the ORTHODOX perspective is that the 'Church' is the Body of Christ (God) ...you can NOT exclude the development of the Church through the Holy Prophets ...
The second example I would like to refer to is the removal of my original text and making the Martyrdom of St Stephen the focal text. The purpose of that line entry was not to signify the death of a Saint rather the FIRST DOCUMENTED case of a Christian death - do you see what i am trying to say? Even though it is the same thing it is not. If the focus is Church history then it is the fact that someone martyred for the first time that is more important ...not the fact who it was ca. 30 Martyrdom of St. Stephen the Protomartyr
- I wouldn't want to speak for Fr Andrew, but I suspect his motivations were affected by a combination of space, encyclopaedic look and feel and common understanding of the term 'Church history'. While the proper understanding is that the Church was around through human history, few would have this as part of their natural understanding of Church history, which would have the Church being founded by Christ or at Pentecost (and naturally, probably the latter); it would be far too unwieldy to change the article name to "Timeline of Post-Christ Church History", for example.
- Of course, this intertwines somewhat ironically with the next point - the first martyrdom would have occured in the Old Testament or at the Holy Innocents, not at St Stephen, who would have been significant as the first deacon-martyr. — edited by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 20:04, January 10, 2008 (PST)