Contents

Talk:Believers Eastern Church

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

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Christianity Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. India: Kerala Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Kerala (assessed as Mid-importance). This article needs a map. Please work with the Maps workgroup, to create and add a map to this article. Once the requested map is added, remove the map-needed parameter.

"He proposed the "7 Church Ages Theory" in which he placed himself along side Biblical forefathers such as Martin Luther and Charles Wesley, and even the apostle Paul of the Bible."

This part of the article is completely untrue as far as I am aware. I have access to all of William Branham's recorded sermons, and have never found anywhere where he places himself alongside these people. I believe the author of this article is talking about the messengers to the 7 church ages, the first of whom Branham identifies as Paul, up to the 6th (John Wesley). This is all laid out in "An Exposition of the Seven Church Ages" by William Marrion Branham, (Printed by Voice of God Recordings) but he does not name the 7th church age messenger. Malachi456 08:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. This article has a lot of errors! More then I've ever seen in a Wikipedia article! Someone needs to cite the sources for a lot of it. Until then I'm going to do some serious heavy editing. Anything I remove I have no sources for so I can't source it otherwise I would. Strawberry Island 18:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed: "Alleged Pagan references have appeared in the sect, for example, a song in their hymnbook (Believers Songbook) called "Blessed Be Your Eyes." The line "Blessed Be Your Eyes" is part of a Wiccan-Pagan ritual called "The Fivefold kiss.""

There is no way to prove that this is alluding to any kind of "pagan" or "Wiccan" ritual. However one could make the strong argument that this is actually a reference to:

MATTHEW 13:16 KFV But blessed [are] your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear. or LUKE 10:23 KJV And he turned him unto [his] disciples, and said privately, "Blessed [are] the eyes which see the things that ye see:" and MATTHEW 11:25 KJV 25 ¶ At that time Jesus answered and said, "I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes."

Here is the entire text of the song

Believers Songbook: Song 393 BLESSED BE YOUR EYES F Blessed be your eyes, For they see the things of God, That were hidden from the wise, And revealed to those who'd learn. I'm so glad He touched my eyes, That I might see.

--Stjetters 23:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its CSI Bishop who had consecrated the founder of Believers Church as a Bishop and allowed Believers Church which was a Pentacostal Church to be converted as a Episcopal church. This created a lot of controversies in the media and the various fractions inside the CSI church. I don't under stand how this become irrelevant here. Continued one sided reversal of the article will force me to request the moderators for an edit block of the page. Benedictdilton (talk) 05:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These kind of actions are not good for this article. I feel this section is hundred percent related to this article. Please mention why you think it should be removed else I will recommend it for a edit ban Benedictdilton (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's fairly confusing to readers that a CSI controversy be listed mainly on another church's (Believers Church) page, especially when no mention is made of it on their (CSI) Wikipedia page. I think it would be clearer to readers if this controversy was detailed on the CSI page. Then, a link to the CSI section detailing this controversy can then be added on the Believers Church page. Benedictdilton - would you be able to write this content on the CSI page. You seem to be knowledgeable about this issue.LoveYourNeighbor1 (talk) 16:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Believers Church become an Episcopal Church only after the K P Yohannan was consecrated as a Bishop by the moderator of CSI Church. Till that time Believers Church was known as a Pentacostal Church. Hope you under stand why this article is relevant here. Benedictdilton (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware of the procedure for a person to become a Bishop in an episcopal church. All norms were floated to make Mr K P Yohannan a Bishop. Why you want to hide that fact from the public? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benedictdilton (talk • contribs) 22:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removing this section for lack of good sources and relevancy to Believer's Church, and general notability beyond a couple opinion pieces.

"Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." WP:NEWSORG

The two articles linked are highly slanted opinion pieces, with lack additional sources to back them up. The articles represent opinion of the writer more than actual fact.

Further, the controversies section is not written in a neutral point of view. It written to suggest K.P. had hidden "motives". The Believer's Church page is not the place for rumors.

Especially for living persons, reliable sources must be used.

"Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person." WP:SOAP

Quote: "Stunned the christian community"

Again, a single opinion piece doesn't substantiate this claim.

"declared that Believers Church is not a part of Church of South India."

This is written like a controversy, but the article mentions that there was simply reaffirmation that Believer's Church and CSI are separate entities.

HappyPmachine (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reference given on this section is of news published by 2 reputed news papers in India. If my dear friend editor [HappyPmachine] thinks that these source are not trustable then I leave the matter to the moderators and admin to decide. Believers Church should have done a lot of good things quote that with good reference no one is going to remove it. Good reference means some trustable source not the groups website or blog. Uploading the affidavit filed by the group on the court and mentioning it as a verdict of the enquiry of home department is an eye wash. If some one had done some thing wrong then the public should know about it. I request admin and moderators to keep a close eye on the following articles Gospel for Asia, K. P. Yohannan, Believers Church there is a clear indication that a there can be again a massive puppetry as happened in the talk page of K. P. Yohannan.Benedictdilton (talk) 01:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, opinion pieces don't make fact. Also, the content you added here, and on other pages, needs to be written from a neutral point of view. WP:NPOV

Alluding to "hidden motives" and phrases like "which had "styled itself as a Pentacostal Church" turned itself into an Episcopal Church" don't meet that, especially when related to a living person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyPmachine (talk • contribs) 16:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not about a person its about a organization and this topic has been discussed earlier and finalized. One sided revision with out any reference will force me to ask the moderators to put a lock on this page. If you want I can give more reference for the same topic. I am not aganist anybody or any religion. But the facts are facts. Benedictdilton (talk) 20:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the talk page to discuss and work out differences in the article in accordance with WP:Consensus. If you cannot agree, please consider WP:DR.(Please be specific about the issue you perceive. Critical commentary is permitted on Wikipedia, as long as it is properly sourced. Benedictdilton (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be factual inaccuracy in the Controversy section.

• The fact the Believers Church "styled itself as a Pentecostal church" comes with no support. Given that K. P. Yohannan was an ordained minister of the Southern Baptists, which is not Pentecostal, it would require more support for that claim.
• The phrase "only a priest can become a Bishop, and Mr. Yohannan was a pastor" betrays a misunderstanding of the term "priest" and "pastor." Both point to ordained clergy, with the difference mainly being what denomination one is referring to. The Catholic, Anglican, and Orthodox traditions call their clergy priests, whereas the Baptists might call them "pastor." Functionally, drawing a distinction between the two in this situation is misguided.
• The last point about the CSI saying that Believers Church is not a part of CSI is irrelevant both to the Controversy section as well as the article as a whole. Nothing in the article suggests that Believers Church is a part of CSI, so this sentence seems unnecessary.

I vote for the removal of this section based on the previous points. LivingIsSimple (talk) 03:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 June, anonymous editor 174.4.26.61 made several edits, which I reversed. If you look at his/her edits, he/she added that Believers Eastern Church held a Presbyterian polity, which is not in the references that buttress the sentence. Similarly, he/she added that Episcopal polity has "better ecclesiastical governance", which is his/her POV and not suitable for an encyclopedia. He/she also added "The rapture of the church before the tribulation" to the section on Faith and Practice without any reference. These claims need to be supported by sources or else my revert will stand. User:Editor2020, as you frequently review articles related to WikiProject Christianity, could you kindly look at this and add your thoughts? I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 08:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look, but I'm not sure what I can do. Editor2020 (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Below article recently decided court case regarding the rubber plant. I nominate section for deletion due to unverified claims that couldn't be proven in court. http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/kerala/2018/apr/13/harrisons-case-setback-may-cost-kerala-government-dear-in-erumeli-airport-project-1800878.html Dt502 (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Episcopas and thier Dioceses https://www.bec.org/contact/

Tex011 (talk) 05:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]