Talk:Patristics

message: It would be interesting if we could have a entry on the specialized topic of patristic consensus, which is a method to determining orthodox doctrine in the writings of the Church Fathers. ADM (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Patristic consensus

message: In the article page, Patrology is introduced as a study of the early church founders or leaders.  This I disagree with as Patrology is the Study of Modern and Early Church Saints and particulary the doctors of the church including saint Theresa of Avila and saint Theresa of Lisieux.
MacOfJesus (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Early Church Saints

message: This section should be either revised or removed entirely. If it is to be maintained, then its misinformation concerning St. John Chrysostom should surely be amended. The passage I reference :
"Saint John Chrysostom used Jesus' words in Luke 19:27 to call for the murder of Jews in Chrysostoms Eight Homilies Against the Jews:
'The Jewish people were driven by their drunkenness and plumpness to the ultimate evil; they kicked about, they failed to accept the yoke of Christ, nor did they pull the plow of his teaching. Another prophet hinted at this when he said: “Israel is as obstinate as a stubborn heifer.” … Although such beasts are unfit for work, they are fit for killing. And this is what happened to the Jews: while they were making themselves unfit for work, they grew fit for slaughter. This is why Christ said: “But as for these my enemies, who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and slay them.'”
This is a terrible misrepresentation of what St. John believed/wrote. While no friend of Judaism, he is certainly not called for murder. Nowhere does St. John say that Jews are "fit for the slaughter and therefore we must kill them", no, he states simply that "they are fit for the slaughter" and later "This is why Christ said: 'But as for these my enemies, who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and slay them."
The later part is reference to a well known parable in St. Luke's Gospel. This must not be understood as call for murder, but rather a decree that death and judgment would come upon the Jews at the Final Judgment.
If you want to leave this passage, that is fine, but the way it is presented is very deceptive and the description should be changed at the least.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.198.12.51 (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relations with Judaism 

message: The Patrologia is a stub-length article that seems to be a misguided attempt to start an article on patristics under another title. However, it might instead be a reasonable (if still poorly-executed) article about the specific works called "Patrologia" that it mentions. Can anyone see if it has any merit alone or anything worth merging here? -- Perey (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger of [[Patrologia]] 

message: I think the recent change in format of the four items from Alister McGrath's work from sentence format to list format is fine. However, even before that change was made, I thought the lack of grammatical consistency in the four items makes the list poorly written. The first item is a complete sentence. The second and third items are short phrases. The fourth item is a phrase followed by a long re-phrasing. The phrases, particularly the second and third ones, are too sparse to be helpful to the average reader. Perhaps someone who has access to McGrath's work could fill out these items so that they make a bit more sense. CorinneSD (talk) 01:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obstacles to 21st century understanding 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Patristics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111101020205/http://zoiforos.gr/index.php?option=com_content to http://www.zoiforos.gr/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3825
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051228100326/http://www2.evansville.edu/ecoleweb/ to http://www2.evansville.edu/ecoleweb/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120718055251/http://faulkner.edu/academics/artsandsciences/humanities/patristics/default.aspx to http://www.faulkner.edu/academics/artsandsciences/humanities/patristics/default.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070204065526/http://www.cecs.acu.edu.au/aiep/aiep.htm to http://www.cecs.acu.edu.au/aiep/aiep.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080513171641/http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/Blog/post/Patristics-for-Busy-Pastors-Interview-with-Dr-J-Ligon-Duncan-III-patrology.aspx to http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/Blog/post/Patristics-for-Busy-Pastors-Interview-with-Dr-J-Ligon-Duncan-III-patrology.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080519193737/http://biblicaltraining.org/class.php?class=CH502 to http://www.biblicaltraining.org/class.php?class=CH502
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'm struggling to understand . Specifically this text:
There seems to be an error here. Fessler seems to be arguing for an expansive definition of "patrologia", and a more narrow definition of "patristics". The use of "But" in the phrase  seems to be intended to indicate that Fessler was inconsistent in his usage of these terms. However, if Fessler was arguing for "patrologia" to be a broad term, how is it contradictory for his work on patrologia to have a broad range? I'm mostly concerned about accuracy and clarity, although I should also note that this statement seems to be WP:OR. Daask (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patrologia section 

message: I was trying to remember the name of the Didache. (I found it in the article on Apostolic Fathers.) The Didache is one of the earliest Christian writings that we have -- maybe the earliest -- that was not included in the canons, but was not deemed heretical in most (if not all) of Chalcedonian Christianity. I request that someone who knows more about this, to edit the article on Patristics to add at least a sentence to answer these questions: Is the Didache part of patristic writing? More broadly, are Ancient church orders patristic writings? This improvement would need a citation, which could be some scholarly textbook. Oaklandguy (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the Didache part of patristic writing?