Difference between revisions of "Talk:Theosis"
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
==Cleanup tag== | ==Cleanup tag== | ||
Perhaps this tag is deserved, but I can't help thinking that it is a leftover from when it was imported. Comments? — edited by [[User:Pistevo|<font color="green">Pιs</font><font color="gold">τévο</font>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Pistevo|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|<font color="red">complaints</font>]]''</sup> at 03:18, September 22, 2006 (CDT) | Perhaps this tag is deserved, but I can't help thinking that it is a leftover from when it was imported. Comments? — edited by [[User:Pistevo|<font color="green">Pιs</font><font color="gold">τévο</font>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Pistevo|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|<font color="red">complaints</font>]]''</sup> at 03:18, September 22, 2006 (CDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Looks like it. Though I would note that the orthodoxize tag was added in August of this year, and that seems entirely different from the cleanup tag. Personally, the only part of the article I would say is non-Orthodox is the East/West part in "comparative considerations." It seems to be saying that Catholicism, whether it be using the Tridentine Mass or the Novus Ordo Missae, is completely valid and even equal to Orthodoxy. That seems pretty skewed. Perhaps I'll change it. [[User:Gabriela|Gabriela]] 22:37, September 22, 2006 (CDT) | ||
Revision as of 03:37, September 23, 2006
I don't think you ought to be using the term 'Yesu' here. You're writing in English and so Jesus would be more appropriate.James 08:56, 6 Apr 2005 (EDT)
- This article has a strange emphasis and cites not-Orthodox texts as Scripture. I'm removing it and replacing it with the Wikipedia article on Theosis, which itself will need some modification. The possible source of this material was [1]. Fr. John 15:23, 6 Apr 2005 (EDT)
- At first I thought this "Church of the East" might be the Nestorians, but when I looked at the front page and noticed the bit about "sacred sensuality", I became much more suspicious. This group isn't even as Orthodox as the Nestorians. --Rdr. Andrew 19:47, 6 Apr 2005 (EDT)
- Oh dear, when I criticised the use of Yeshu, I didn't bother reading the article much as the English was so poor. If I had I wouldn't have bothered with such a minor point. I've actually come across this 'church' before via an online forum, whilst discussing Orthodoxy with a distinctly Gnostic person. They seem like a New Age group jumping on the Thomasite lineage in the East as an attempt to gain legitimacy. Even their grasp of Church history seems very poor.
Cleanup tag
Perhaps this tag is deserved, but I can't help thinking that it is a leftover from when it was imported. Comments? — edited by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 03:18, September 22, 2006 (CDT)
- Looks like it. Though I would note that the orthodoxize tag was added in August of this year, and that seems entirely different from the cleanup tag. Personally, the only part of the article I would say is non-Orthodox is the East/West part in "comparative considerations." It seems to be saying that Catholicism, whether it be using the Tridentine Mass or the Novus Ordo Missae, is completely valid and even equal to Orthodoxy. That seems pretty skewed. Perhaps I'll change it. Gabriela 22:37, September 22, 2006 (CDT)
