Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 November 14
| Humanities desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < November 13 | << Oct | November | Dec >> | November 15 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
November 14 edit
What Christian denomination sect has beliefs and practices that are closest to what is currently known about early Christianity? edit
Considering the many Restorationist denominations of Christianity, as well as restorationist movements among mainline denominations, I was wondering: what extant sects or denominations have beliefs or practices that are closest to what is currently known (from a scholarly perspective) about Early Christianity? As in, what currently existing Christian sects most resemble Early Christianity? And have there been restorationist Christian groups that aim to follow early Christianity, based on what is known from historical and scholarly research, as opposed to their own interpretations of what early Christianity was like? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- Christianity diverged very early on, so there is not "one original form". See e.g. Gnosticism, Arianism, Apostolic Age, Jewish Christianity, and so on. The Nicene Creed, which was one of the more successful attempts to find a common base, only was formulated during the 4th century, about 10 generations after the period described in the gospels, and after Christianity had entered a symbiosis with the Roman empire. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- Not sure that some of the links in your answer are entirely helpful -- for example, Gnosticism was a trend which intersected with Christianity (there were both non-Christian and Christian forms of Gnosticism), but there's little evidence that earliest Christianity was Gnostic. Arianism originated in the 3rd century A.D. AnonMoos (talk) 10:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- Narutolovehinata5 -- during Jesus' lifetime and probably a decade or two afterwards, the majority of followers of Jesus were Jews who still followed basic rules of Jewish law, and who didn't consider that they had ceased to be Jews by following Jesus. Non-Jewish converts to Christianity probably didn't start to significantly outnumber Jewish followers of Jesus until after the disruptions caused by the First Jewish Revolt... AnonMoos (talk) 10:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed. See also Council of Jerusalem, which is believed to be the moment when Christianity made its major divergence from "Jewish sect" to "Missionary religion". Schulz's point is very valid; there is no one universal "Early Christianity" that meets the requirement of "The one way Christianity was first practiced before it broke into various sects". It has been distinct sects from very early on. Wikipedia has an article titled Early Christianity which covers some common beliefs and practices, though it itself should direct one to Diversity in early Christian theology which covers how not unified the early church was. --Jayron32 13:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Client vs supplier vs sponsor edit
What exactly are the differences between the roles of client, sponsor and supplier organisations? 193.240.153.130 (talk) 14:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- In what context? Generally speaking, a client provides the demand and the supplier provides, well, the supply. "Sponsor" means different things in different contexts. In common parlance, it's used to describe non-profit organizations that facilitate the sponsorship of charities. Matt Deres (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- In infrastructure projects. 193.240.153.130 (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Since the article didn't say that: Whom exactly are they named after?--Herfrid (talk) 16:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- "Ancient Angels: Conceptualizing Angeloi in the Roman Empire" by Ragnar Cline (2011) says Praetextatus was "an early bishop of Rome", but that can't be right - apparently that is a misreading of Gregory of Tours who talks about Praetextatus of Rouen. Possibly that error originates with John Henry Parker's 19th-century book "The Archaeology of Rome: The Catacombs", who mistakenly says Gregory of Tours is talking about a bishop of Rome. The catacombs certainly predate Praetextatus of Rouen so that's no help. "Rome: An Oxford Archaeological Guide" by Amanda Claridge (2010) says that Praetextatus is otherwise unknown but was presumably a Roman aristocrat who owned the site. There is a well-known Roman named Vettius Agorius Praetextatus, but I can't find any evidence that he is connected to the catacombs. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
"Praetextatus" is not necessarily the name of an individual. The term was also used for the ones who were wearing the toga praetexta, often young men over the age of 14 as a sign of their manhood. By association the term "praetextatus" came to mean "a youth in the age of manhood". See the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law, Volume 43. Dimadick (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- True, but it had certainly become a name for individuals in post-classical Rome, and all the other catacombs are named after people, so it seems pretty likely that this Praetextatus was a person rather than a description. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
The article states that the famous quote appears in an "occupatio section" of the relevant letter, but our "occupatio" links to a totally different, legal (!) subject. What is meant by "occupatio section" here then?--Herfrid (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)