Talk:First Epistle to Timothy

message: Hi Hatsoff again. Again I do not know anything that suggests either of these are relevant to Pauline authorship, though if you have relevant references I will gladly learn and stand aside but until then I suggest we remove them. We do need a credible source to a) support their inclusion and b) to explain what their significance is. Hope this proposal is acceptable to you. Mercury543210 (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tatian and Basilides have the same sort of relevance that Marcion does, only to a lesser degree.  Both rejected 1 Tim as Scriptural.  Why?  I agree that we need more information on both witnesses, but for now it serves a legitimate purpose in establishing that the ancient testimony was by no means unanimous.--Hatsoff (talk) 22:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does it say they rejected 1 Tim? I've never read that anywhere, can you add the relevant ref(s)? thanks. Mercury543210 (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It comes from Jerome's preface to Titus, which is not online, to my knowledge.  You can do a Google search, though, to verify the info.  It's mentioned by--if memory serves--Richard Heard (religion-online.org).  At some point I'm going to get a Roman Catholic priest I know to dig up the actual primary source and translate it for me.--Hatsoff (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Basilides (but not Tatian) may also be mentioned by Epiphanius.--Hatsoff (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks - I'll do some digging.Mercury543210 (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Tatian, unlike Marcion, definitely knew of the Pastorals.  The thing is, though, he rejected 1-2 Timothy, which makes his witness quite relevant.--Hatsoff (talk) 07:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tatian 

message: Basilides - only a few fragments from his extensive works survive. He is known to have quoted Romans, 1 Peter and possibly Mark. There are no other known fragments to witness to which books he knew. I'll add the full ref to Layton's paper on Basilides site, and remove the ref to Basilides here. I hope you agree with these edits. Mercury543210 (talk) 00:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After looking it up, I found that it was Tertullian (not Epiphanius, as I speculated above) who also discusses Basilides.  Robert Grant wrote the following:  "The Pastorals have certainly been regarded as Paul’s since the latter half of the second century, for they were so used by Theophilus of Antioch and Irenaeus of Lyons and are to be found in the Muratorian list. Before that time they were open to criticism. From Tertullian we hear that the Gnostics Basilides (c. 130) and Marcion (c. 140) rejected them, though his statement may mean no more than that both did not know them. According to Jerome, Tatian (c. 170) accepted only the letter to Titus." (web link:  http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=1116&C=1234 ).  You can find similar remarks all over Google.--Hatsoff (talk) 07:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: As I mentioned before, I'm working on getting a translation of the original Latin works.  I just need a couple of weeks.--Hatsoff (talk) 07:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basilides 

message: Given the current view that Polycarp quotes Timothy should we remove/qualify this speculation? Mercury543210 (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Polycarp does *not* quote 1 Tim, nor any other NT work.  The problem is that a few lines from the Pastorals are also found, garbled, in Polycarp to the Philippians.  So, which came first?  Did Polycarp draw from the Pastorals, or did the Pastorals draw from Polycarp?  Or are the allusions purely coincidental?  *That* is the speculation, here.--Hatsoff (talk) 07:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually both Berding(1999) and Holmes(2005) explicitly state that Polycarp used Timothy. In fact Berding goes further '...it can be plausibly argued that Polycarp (rightly or wrongly) understood Paul to be the author of these two epistles [1+2 Timothy].' Hence I think it fair to edit the reference, and associated parts. Mercury543210 (talk) 20:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, as mentioned before, Grant is a modern source insofar as he is not ancient.  That he wrote 45 years ago and not 5 years ago makes no difference; he is still a part of the modern era.  Second, a quotation is only a quotation if the author makes it clear that he is quoting another source.  Polycarp does not do that.  Rather, we only find similar passages in both Polycarp and 1 Tim.  Who is quoting who is therefore a matter of speculation.  Now, that speculation can be narrowed down quite a bit, as apparently most evangelical scholars claim to have done, but it is still speculation, and therefore more prone to error than conclusions based more directly on hard data.  It is not POV to note this.--Hatsoff (talk) 23:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Hmm.  I've got access to most of the journal citations, but the books you've mentioned I cannot read online.  Any chance you could scan some of the relevant pages and shoot them to me in an email (or via yousendit.com)?  If I could read what you're reading, it might help us come to a compromise.--Hatsoff (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Scholarly judgment is opinion.  And Bible "scholars" disagree on everything, particularly starting with what the axioms are that govern scholarship (all logical proof must be traced to axioms, self-evident truths).  So-called Biblical scholarship is saturated with opinions which might be rated on a scale of 0-10 as to how sure the "scholar" is of a particular opinion (0 = totally in dark; 10 absolutely as sure as that the sky is blue; 5 = best explanation which comes to mind).  And what further muddies the scholarly water is how Biblical critics & theologians can be so sure of things for which they have no proof at all.  They may make suppositions, then procede to act like such were established fact.  But how many assertions are supported by even 2 reliable contemporary sources?  The same problem pervades ancient historians.  Often those who know the least, know the most.  (PeacePeace (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grant ref 

message: To User:Mercury543210- You have strongly objected that we allow for the suggestion that Polycarp may not have known 1 Tim, or that 1 Tim may have drawn from Polycarp instead of vice versa.  Yet I think it would be POV to treat this as a settled fact, rather than an open question.  Berding wrote in 1999 that "Polycarp...almost certainly quoted from 1 and 2 Timothy" (Vigiliae Christianae; Nov99, Vol. 53 Issue 4, p350).  For those who argue 1-2 Timothy instead quoted from Polycarp, he writes that "scholarly opinion is now against them," continuing, "That Polycarp is literally dependent upon 1 and 2 Timothy is now generally accepted" (p351).  However, I see two problems with this.  First of all, Berding trained at overtly evangelical institutions, and thus may have a skewed view of the state of scholarly opinion outside of his religious niche.  Second, his statement is vague as to the confidence of the alleged scholarly consensus.  For example, the great majority of Biblical scholars hold to Markan priority, but few would go so far as to call it a foregone conclusion.  So, whether or not there is a consensus that Polycarp quoted 1-2 Tim, it's still a matter of speculation with a significant degree of uncertainty.  One of your own sources, Michael Holmes, alludes to this in a recent article:  "Polycarp...is quite familiar with I Peter and I Clement, and also uses I Corinthians and Ephesians. He probably made use of 1-2 Timothy and I John, and perhaps Romans, Galatians, and Philippians" (Expository Times; Nov2006, Vol. 118 Issue 2, p55).  Notice that he is careful to qualify his statement with "probably," and differentiates between the probable use of 1-2 Tim and 1 Jn, and the more certain use of 1 Pet, 1 Cle, 1 Cor and Eph.  That is exactly the sort of language I think should be used in this wikipedia article:  We can stress the probable use of 1 Tim by Polycarp, but not so far that we mislead readers into thinking the matter is settled absolutely.--Hatsoff (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polycarp's alleged use of 1 Timothy 

message: The quote just before the table of contents is out of place because this article does not discuss orthodoxy or heterodoxy. I tagged the quote with a "Fact" tag, because it would also be desirable (if this quote remains in the article) to know who authored the quote. If the quote remains in the article, it should be moved somewhere more appropriate. I do not, at first glance, see an appropriate place for it. Wideangle (talk) 01:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The "baffling" quote

message: I question the tone of this whole section.  It seems to be filled with commentary that is not needed.  The whole section that I quote following just isn't needed, and should be moved to the "authorship" section or removed entirely.
"It is a notably a hotly debated issue in the church as to what Paul meant in this book in regard to the women’s role in the church.  What provoked this reversion from Paul’s revelation, in Galatians, that in Christ Jesus there is no male or female, to this banal legalism? Had the women, having been led to expect an imminent end of the world, begun to abandon their “wifely duties”? Some feel he clearly teaches that women are not to have authority over men in the church structure (1 Timothy 2:12) and that this is why he clearly excludes them from the roles of Elder/Bishop and Deacon in chapter three. People who hold to this stance point out that Paul’s use of the phrase “Husband of one wife” is gender specific and excludes women from that role. They would point out that in the Greek text it literally reads "Man of one woman".[citation needed] "μιασ γυναικοσ ανδρα"(1 Timothy 3:2)[27] However, more liberal scholars debate this, arguing that this is a product of the time in which Paul lived and it is a cultural reference not meant to be eternally binding on the church.[citation needed] Many churches have now embraced the ordination of women based on this modern outlook.[citation needed] The treatment of this issue has also been pointed to as evidence that I Timothy is not Pauline, noting "the freedom granted [women] in the aspostolic age to exercise the gifts of the Spirit, [and] Paul's insistence that in Christ there is neither male nor female, [which] had brought them into quick and widespread public activity." TIB 1955 XI p. 349. TNJBC also points out that the reasoning in I Timothy (the fall was Eve's fault) is non-Pauline: “Paul himself prefers to assign blame to Adam (as a counterpart to Christ – see Rom [Romans] 5:12-21; I Cor [Corinthians] 15: 45-49…)” TNJBC[28] 1990 p. 897"
Shadowmane (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO the debate on Pauline theology relevant to women's role in the Church is not fueled primarily by an exegesis of what Paul meant in 1st century AD, but by a wish to be politically correct today -- thus anachronism is likely to invade the discussion.  Yes, for Paul in Christ there is neither male nor female; the sexes are intrinsically equal, but equality of essence does not imply equality of function (as in the Trinity the Son obeys the Father, and the Son sends the Holy Spirit).  Prophet Paul also says that in Christ there is neither bond nor free, and he believed in emancipation of slaves per Philemon; yet in giving admonitions for how to actually live in his age he directs slaves to obey masters, wives to obey husbands, and women to be silent in the congregation, neither to be teachers of men in a church setting, though he may have approved of Priscilla giving theological advice to Apollos privately.    (PeacePeace (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Key Themes and Words 

message: In light of the current debate regarding the rights of LDBT to marry (aka "Gay Marriage") isn't 1st Timothy 4:3http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/1tim/4.html a very "Key Theme"? Here is a biblical verse specifically admonishing those who forbid others to marry! Other parts of the bible do appear to condemn homosexuality, but without any direction as to what a Christian should do about that other than to avoid being homosexual themselves. Yes, "they shall surely be put to death", but it does NOT say "put them to death". Yet here in Timothy, we see a specific direction that we should never forbid anyone to marry. Shouldn't this be highlighted in the entry especially in light of the current debate?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.170.153 (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all I would not conflate the two issues.  It is my understanding that the different teachings regarding marriage reflected the gradual realization that The End was not coming as soon as Paul had expected. A Georgian (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Many (most?) Christians believe the bible to be the perfect word of God and that God guided the writing of those authors who penned its books. The idea that Paul was "wrong" is very reasonable to me, but my world view isn't the only one out there, and to suggest that he is wrong about marriage while at the same time holding up the anti-gay quotes from Lev and Rom is inconsistant. They either all count or they all don't. Cherry picking to validate a specific world view is less reasonable than assuming human falibility of biblical authors. Of course, many Christians also cherry pick verses from Lev to justify a stand against marriage equality. Again, the point I'm trying to make is that this verse specifically admonishes Christians never to forbid people from marrying. You don't have to like that, but it is right there in black and white, and it really seems to me that it is a key point, given the current debate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.170.153 (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In the Bible I find no reference to "homosexuality," but to practices like men lying with men (i.e., putting the penis into the anus of another man); e.g., Leviticus 18 which indicates that this act leads to divine abomination & a people even being expelled from their land (vomited out).   I find no condemnation of men preferring the company of men or women perferring the company of women.  It is the physically abusive acts men on men & women on women which are condemned.  But marriage of course per the Bible (& probably universally in human thought until very recently) referred to a relationship between man and woman.  As 1 Cor 7 starts out, let every man have his own woman, and let every woman have her own man (husband/wife).  (PeacePeace (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forbidding to marry 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Epistle to the Romans which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 16:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: Statements like "most scholars say" are generally unfounded claims & should be changed to "some" at least for NPOV.  Likewise, references to "modern scholars" are generally unreliable when they don't define what "modern" means.  Do you start with the Renaissance for modern?  And I have made a couple NPOV changes in the article.  Generally sources that make claims like "most scholars say" are unreliable at that point, having provided no proof for that claim, nor defining what a scholar is.  Thus such source may be dismissed as unreliable at that point.  And who has carefully taken a poll?  Who has polled Roman Catholic scholars world wide or Eastern Orthodox scholars or Chinese Christian scholars.  Whenever you read "most scholars say," think "very likely baloney."  (PeacePeace (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia does not exist to promote your own personal views and whims. It exists to promote what reliable mainstream sources (as defined in Wiki policies) say. Reliable sources may and do inform readers of the state of scholarship. Doing so is an important function of academic writing. "Modern" here just means current, mainstream, and academic. Antinoos69 (talk) 04:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

text: You are incorrect. All that is required is a reliable source making the particular claim. Among the sources provided is a textbook published by a respected mainstream publisher. Furthermore, and this is obviously an aside, I hold a degree in biblical studies and know perfectly well that the sources' claim is correct. Expert opinion is precisely the sort of thing Wikipedia reports. You are obviously confused, uninformed, and biased. Antinoos69 (talk) 09:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a single point here. I have restored the original era setting in line with WP:ERA as some editors have introduced a mixture of era conventions so it should be harmonised anyway in terms of WP:ERA.--CouncilConnect (talk) 12:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

text: You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Reread the latter part of my last post, let it sink in, and get back to me, if you must. You are making unreasonable and uninformed demands. What you want generally doesn't exist and fails to reflect how the humanities actually work. Multiple mainstream and respected scholarly sources have been cited. Move on. If you only like what your pastor and religious presses tell you, then stick to them and leave Wikipedia alone. Perhaps Conservapedia would be more your speed. Antinoos69 (talk) 09:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Please! You are trying to provide "alternative facts" by presenting the scholarly consensus as something other than what it is, as a mere "viewpoint" among many. You are incorrect. The first two paragraphs of the article contain four reliable sources stating what the scholarly consensus is. They are all in agreement. You haven't provided a single reliable source, or any source at all, claiming the consensus is anything different. So we don't even have viewpoints, plural, from which to choose. There is just the one. Wikipedia provides what reliable sources say, not what Wiki editors think or would like to be the case. You are just making things up—incorrect things, in this case. So either abide by Wiki policies or move on. You are being disruptive. Stop it. Now. Antinoos69 (talk) 07:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

text: I tried to explain that your expectations are unreasonable and that you don't understand how scholarship in the humanities works, but you proved impervious to reason, good sense, and instruction. I therefor have no choice but to indulge in distasteful Wikilegalism. I call your attention to WP:RS/AC, Wiki policy on academic consensus. Can we now be done with this nonsense? (Btw, I provided exactly one of the sources, each of which constitutes a reliable source on Wikipedia on academic consensus, whether you like it or not.) Antinoos69 (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

text: You're kidding, right? Or are you trying to make me think you're a complete idiot? If so, you're succeeding brilliantly. The policy does not require that cited sources on academic consensus be review articles but merely suggests that review articles "can help clarify academic consensus" (emphasis added). What the policy does require, however, is that, "[s]tated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors," and that "[a] statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view." Books, textbooks, and whatnot that also qualify as reliable sources may also be used, quite naturally. Clear now? Here, given the enormity of the scholarship, review articles won't be of any help, btw. Now, indeed, let's be done with your absurdities. Antinoos69 (talk) 06:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

text: That was even more bizarre than your wild misinterpretation of Wiki policy on academic consensus. It also fails to address my argument regarding that policy—which I can only imagine you are now conceding, in your fashion. Unfortunately, you are continuing to attempt to water down the clear academic consensus on this mater. You can only qualify the sourcing for this consensus, in accord with Wiki policy, by challenging it. You can do that only by providing no less reliable sources explicitly stating the scholarly consensus is something different. You will have to keep in mind WP:RS/AC, WP:SCHOLARSHIP,  WP:SOURCES, and WP:AGE MATTERS (and fell free to roam about on those pages). Good luck with that. If you can manage that much, an enormous "if," then we can take a different approach. Just be sure to present any results of your research here before attempting to edit the article, as I very strongly suspect there would be major problems with anything you would think you've found. Make sure to provide the relevant passages from your sources in full quotation, along with full source citations, so that the sources and claims can be easily evaluated here. Antinoos69 (talk) 06:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

text: I'm going to make this as clear and forward as possible. I don't need to go in much detail since Antinoos69 has already explained how Wikipedia works. @66.215.220.110 I'm not going to argue how reliable the sources are since you clearly don't understand the idea of consensus. Wikipedia doesn't care how you feel. Wikipedia only cares about is facts and reliable sources to prove those facts. Yes, there will always be NPOV issues but we as editors have consensus building. That's how certain disputes get resolved, sometimes not in the best of ones personal interest but the interest according to the Wikicommunity. So if you have some sort of WP:AGENDA, you won't last long as an editor on Wikipedia. At this point, if you want to change the current wording of the article, you will have to receive consensus and I don't see that happening anytime soon. You've already violated the WP:3RR rule so if you revert again, it's a block for you. Understand this, you're not the first nor will be the last to start these kind of disputes. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 07:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

text: 66.215.220.110, providing the academic consensus on this matter, with proper sourcing, cannot constitute "bias." As I stated in my last message, if you think that consensus is incorrectly stated by biased sources, the burden is on you to provide reliable sources explicitly contradicting what those sources say. I gave you detailed instructions on how to do that. Were you to manage to accomplish that much, then we could qualify the discussion in many ways, or just remove it altogether. Until then, the ball is in your court. Either put up or shut up, as they say. Your qualifications of those statements are merely your attempts to water them down as the mere opinions of some scholars, when they are actually accurate descriptions of the state of scholarship. That won't do. And Wikipedia doesn't care about editors' personal whims and fancies—or about your anti-LGBT fixations, for that matter. Antinoos69 (talk) 11:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

text: You didn't follow directions. Quote the relevant passages from your sources in full here before editing the article. And you will have to provide better and more complete citations here as well. See, for example, the guidelines in The Chicago Manual of Style. We must be able to identify and differentiate between authors, editors, and publishers, and I have no idea what your "Loc" numbers are referring to. At this point, though, I must point out that study bibles are not proper scholarly sources. Scholars don't go about citing study bibles in their work. Antinoos69 (talk) 09:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

text: You just might be able to save yourself some effort and aggravation if you engage here. Antinoos69 (talk) 05:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Note everyone: 66.215.220.110, your recent edits demonstrate that you cannot be trusted to edit the article directly on this matter, but must first be required to quote and cite your sources in full here. Only two of your citations provide enough information quickly to identify the passages that must have passed before your eyes—two oversights on your part, to be sure. First, let's look at your McKee source. The identified page speaks of "almost all Messianic teachers that I know of and have interacted with," not of most scholars or the scholarly consensus or any such thing. Needless to say, the group of Messianic teachers would form a minuscule part of the community of scholars, if it forms any part at all. Interesting for your apparent ignorance of it, the source does mention that the pastoral epistles "are commonly categorized in the Deutero-Pauline list." Second, let's look at your Wright source. The cited page doesn't actually address what the scholarly consensus is at all. Instead, it merely says that "some" (i.e., "writers") say any one of a number of things, not specifying matters further. You misinterpret that as "only some" scholars, but only in the case of pseudo-Pauline authorship. And both sources are addressed to some narrow group of believers—not even remotely scholarly. Clearly, then, you cannot be trusted to edit the article on this matter without prior presentation and approval of your material here, on the talk page. I had little doubt you would proceed in this manner, which is why I insisted on the pre-approval process. That insistence has now been vindicated. So let's be clear. I will revert all your edits on this matter that do not win prior approval here—provided no one beats me to the punch, of course. Antinoos69 (talk) 08:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

text: The problem is that you fail to realize that your sources don't hold to your viewpoint on the academic consensus per WP:RS/AC—at least not the two that can be easily verified. My previous post explained that with crystal clarity. Reread it until you understand it. Of course, you very well may understand all that and are merely being duplicitous in doing anything you can to promote your preferred "alternative facts." If so, which I deem very likely, you won't succeed. So, again, either put up or shut up, right here. You have yet to provide any sources that actually do offer a contrasting view on the academic consensus on this matter. You may wish to reflect on why you have been unable to do so. Antinoos69 (talk) 03:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

text: You're still not following directions. Given your proven penchant for abusing and misrepresenting sources, I will not be hunting down your sources. You will have to reproduce and win approval for your sources and claims here before editing the article on this matter. I will have nothing further to say to you on that count until you start reproducing your sources and material here. In the meantime, I'll just be reverting you without further comment. As for the different matter of your recasting of your McKee source in terms of the Messianic Faith, that faith is too small a minority to mention in the article. We're certainly not going to get into the positions of every faith (or its clergy or "teachers") here, which is well beyond the scope of this article. You'd be better off finding a source generally addressing what clergy or faith doctrines state on the matter, in very general terms. And note that that would be an entirely different assertion from the one currently in the article about scholars and scholarly consensus. If you pursue such a route, you would have to do so while leaving everything about scholarly consensus alone, and while clearly separating the two assertions from each other. Again, it would likely be best for you to try that here, on the talk page, first. Antinoos69 (talk) 11:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

text: And here you are being duplicitous again. As you know full well, as in your Wright source, one cannot infer from an author's thoroughly indefinite and generic use of some in reference to three different positions what that author's views on the relative prevalence of those positions are. The author has simply chosen not to convey that information. In other words, some can refer to very different degrees of prevalence. In Wright, some just means "there exist writers who … ," indicating the interpretive options rather than whatever consensus there may be. Per both common sense and WP:RS/AC, the source must be far more precise and explicit than that. Antinoos69 (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

text: This has been explained to you in great detil above.  In particular study bibles are not reliable sources for academic views. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Jonathan A Jones. Forgive me for being a little slow on why "particular" study bibles are not reliable sources for this article. The study bibles noted as sources include commentary put together by a well-credentialed team of biblical academics. The Thomas Nelson King James Study Bible boasts 2.4 million copies sold. For many people, it is a very economical and convenient alternative to having to purchase and carry around a set of contemporary commentaries. It would seem rather aloof not to give consideration to such a widely read source of bible commentary. I have read through the Wikipedia policies on "sources" and "reliable sources". I have not seen a specific policy prohibiting the use of the commentary contained in study bibles. So, unless you can be more specific, I would insist that these sources be accepted.66.215.220.110 (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

text: Thank you. While I generally find Wiki block policies and procedures distasteful, they unfortunately do occasionally  seem to become necessary. Antinoos69 (talk) 07:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

text: What drugs are you on? Why must you lie and deceive? The trend at the noticeboard is against your NPOV issues. There is no consensus for your agenda here, which went mostly unaddressed at the noticeboard. I will expect you to revert your recent edits here and at 1 Timothy 1. You must gain consensus for your edits on the talk pages first. You haven't done that. I will be alerting the noticeboard and administrator of your actions. Antinoos69 (talk) 07:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that further input could be useful.  While I largely agree with Antinoos69 on the central issue here, a wider view is generally helpful and can sometimes lead to more imaginative solutions.  In the meantime it would be helpful for the IP to stop repeatedly inserting this content unless and until some sort of consensus to do so is reached. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

text:  I agree that the editing of the article as a whole would proceed better if editors making bold or substantive edits possessed something resembling a bit of expertise on the subject, especially if they wish to insist on their edits. I believe that would be wise self-editing on Wikipedia generally. I also agree it would be helpful for the IP to gain consensus here before attempting to edit the article further, as I've been saying in various places. However, I see no need for any formal RfCs at this time. If the IP would simply reproduce the relevant passages from his/her sources here regarding this whole academic consensus business, as I've been insisting for some time, I am confident any confusion would quickly evaporate, except possibly for the IP. My university library holds none of the sources the IP last cited on the matter, and neither do even some major research libraries I consulted online (though Harvard does), a red flag already. I can consult only one of the sources fully online. Another I can consult only in part. (The results bode ill for the IP.) So it would be eminently practical for the IP to reproduce his/her passages here for proper evaluation and clarification. Antinoos69 (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find his exact sources in the Oxford University libraries catalogue. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Having glanced at your user page previously, I made a point of checking the Oxford libraries, with the same result. Antinoos69 (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me for coming across so blunt. However, for being a couple of "academics" who say they are so concerned about the sources I have used, you seem to be totally inept or unmotivated to find them. All of these sources are available for purchase on Amazon.com, or you can browse them if you prefer. You might get one of your students to help you. Happy Easter!66.215.220.110 (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  To be equally blunt, I'm not going to waste money by buying crap on Amazon, and students have serious matters to tend to. You know what you need to do. I eagerly await your presentation of your sources. Antinoos69 (talk) 05:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: What? No "Happy Easter" in return? Did anyone ever tell you that you have a very disagreeable personality? You have my sources and you know where you can check them out. No need to buy anything. Just use the "Look Inside" feature on Amazon. Ask your students how to do this, since you seem to be ignorant of how this is done. Now, you know what you need to do. 66.215.220.110 (talk) 03:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps I should rephrase matters for you. I will have absolutely nothing further to do with you on this matter until you quote in full the relevant passages from your sources here, nor will I even consider the possibility of assenting to your edits until you do so. I don't believe I can make matters any clearer than that. I find your refusal to do something so simple most revealing. Antinoos69 (talk) 05:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Antinoos69. You are mistaken again and have again tried to control what is not yours to control. I have satisfied my obligation as editor to your challenges by providing my source as shown in the article's history. See WP:CHALLENGE covering the subject. Let me quote, "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied (emphasis mine) by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Therefore, I have fulfilled my obligation as an editor by providing the citations. If you wish to challenge it, look up the source references I have already provided and make your points! 66.215.220.110 (talk) 00:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then I continue to oppose your edits, and you continue to lack consensus for them. Happy? Antinoos69 (talk) 07:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Most scholars say" is generally an unfounded claim 

message: I've fully protected this article due to edit warring.  Wikipedia has forms of dispute resolution when editors can't come to a consensus.  Edit warring is not the answer.  If there are NPOV problems, raise the issue at WP:NPOVN.  If there's a dispute over whether sources are reliable, find consensus at WP:RSN.  If there's a dispute over wording, start a request for comments.  Further edit warring will only result in blocks.  This goes for the other article where you're edit warring, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. While I generally find Wiki block policies and procedures distasteful, they unfortunately do occasionally  seem to become necessary. Antinoos69 (talk) 07:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

text: What drugs are you on? Why must you lie and deceive? The trend at the noticeboard is against your NPOV issues. There is no consensus for your agenda here, which went mostly unaddressed at the noticeboard. I will expect you to revert your recent edits here and at 1 Timothy 1. You must gain consensus for your edits on the talk pages first. You haven't done that. I will be alerting the noticeboard and administrator of your actions. Antinoos69 (talk) 07:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that further input could be useful.  While I largely agree with Antinoos69 on the central issue here, a wider view is generally helpful and can sometimes lead to more imaginative solutions.  In the meantime it would be helpful for the IP to stop repeatedly inserting this content unless and until some sort of consensus to do so is reached. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

text:  I agree that the editing of the article as a whole would proceed better if editors making bold or substantive edits possessed something resembling a bit of expertise on the subject, especially if they wish to insist on their edits. I believe that would be wise self-editing on Wikipedia generally. I also agree it would be helpful for the IP to gain consensus here before attempting to edit the article further, as I've been saying in various places. However, I see no need for any formal RfCs at this time. If the IP would simply reproduce the relevant passages from his/her sources here regarding this whole academic consensus business, as I've been insisting for some time, I am confident any confusion would quickly evaporate, except possibly for the IP. My university library holds none of the sources the IP last cited on the matter, and neither do even some major research libraries I consulted online (though Harvard does), a red flag already. I can consult only one of the sources fully online. Another I can consult only in part. (The results bode ill for the IP.) So it would be eminently practical for the IP to reproduce his/her passages here for proper evaluation and clarification. Antinoos69 (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find his exact sources in the Oxford University libraries catalogue. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Having glanced at your user page previously, I made a point of checking the Oxford libraries, with the same result. Antinoos69 (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me for coming across so blunt. However, for being a couple of "academics" who say they are so concerned about the sources I have used, you seem to be totally inept or unmotivated to find them. All of these sources are available for purchase on Amazon.com, or you can browse them if you prefer. You might get one of your students to help you. Happy Easter!66.215.220.110 (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  To be equally blunt, I'm not going to waste money by buying crap on Amazon, and students have serious matters to tend to. You know what you need to do. I eagerly await your presentation of your sources. Antinoos69 (talk) 05:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: What? No "Happy Easter" in return? Did anyone ever tell you that you have a very disagreeable personality? You have my sources and you know where you can check them out. No need to buy anything. Just use the "Look Inside" feature on Amazon. Ask your students how to do this, since you seem to be ignorant of how this is done. Now, you know what you need to do. 66.215.220.110 (talk) 03:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps I should rephrase matters for you. I will have absolutely nothing further to do with you on this matter until you quote in full the relevant passages from your sources here, nor will I even consider the possibility of assenting to your edits until you do so. I don't believe I can make matters any clearer than that. I find your refusal to do something so simple most revealing. Antinoos69 (talk) 05:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Antinoos69. You are mistaken again and have again tried to control what is not yours to control. I have satisfied my obligation as editor to your challenges by providing my source as shown in the article's history. See WP:CHALLENGE covering the subject. Let me quote, "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied (emphasis mine) by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Therefore, I have fulfilled my obligation as an editor by providing the citations. If you wish to challenge it, look up the source references I have already provided and make your points! 66.215.220.110 (talk) 00:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then I continue to oppose your edits, and you continue to lack consensus for them. Happy? Antinoos69 (talk) 07:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: The "Date" section seems pretty reasonable but contains no sources. Could a knowledgeable editor, or ideally the original writer of the text add the sources for this section to avoid deleting the otherwise good text? Ashmoo (talk) 11:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Date section sources