Talk:Denial of the virgin birth of Jesus

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Denial of the virgin birth of Jesus article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

What's the difference[edit]

How does Socinianism differ from Psilanthropism? Should the two articles be merged? 24.126.199.129 05:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psilanthropism denises the divinity of Jesus; Socinianism does not - it states rather that Jesus' life began when he was born and that he was not a pre-existent part of the Trinity.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.186.172.75 (talk)

Yes, that distinction is correct. History2007 (talk) 08:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMMONNAME[edit]

The main problem with the article in this state is the content, sourcing and focus. The title is something of a second issue. The term "psilanthropism" is not uncommon, it was a thing in the days of Coleridge, though not as common in books as simple "Denial of the virgin birth" not to count variants such as "Denied/deny the virgin birth". What's more of an issue is that, going by the more reliable sources, it is something of subset of the larger set of ideas in Christian history which have denied the virgin birth. Therefore I have WP:MOVEd the page Psilanthropism to Denial of the virgin birth of Jesus, per "WP:COMMONNAME and broader scope of article", but of the two is the broadening of the scope of article which is the main issue. Also to discuss the Unification Church and not mention mainstream Christian groups is very odd. A re-titling will hopefully attract more editors and better content and sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:35, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

POV fork[edit]

Of Virgin birth of Jesus? —Paleo Neonate – 09:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with a merge. Obviously the other article should include both support and denial. PopSci (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree Two separate articles will prevent this from becoming undue weight on the other article. I mean, what how would Muslims think if you had a "denial that Muhammad was a true prophet" section on the Muhammad page instead of a "Criticism of Muhammad" article?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:21, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]