Talk:Epistle to the Galatians

message: I think that these two conflict a bit:
"He reminds the Galatians of the "law-free"[citation needed] gospel (see also Antinomianism), he has preached to them."
"Chapter 4 then concludes with a summary of the topics discussed and with the benediction, followed by 5; 6:1–10 teaching about the right use of their Christian freedom. For example, it is clear that some took "freedom in Christ" as justification of antinomianism."
- The second seems to assert that he is responding and correcting those who followed Antinomianism, whereas the first asserts that he preached it.
--Tmcw 03:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  unclear on antinomianism 

message: Should mention verse 3:28, which has been used in several contexts in recent decades... AnonMoos (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 3:28

message: What research is this? Castravalva (talk) 15:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sociology Research

message: I think the most recent change is unnecessary, or at the very least needs to be re-worded. A Georgian (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted it. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you A Georgian (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authenticity 

message: In this whole section there is not mentioned any actual dates for the corresponding theories.  Even if they are speculative I think it would be helpful to put what years are usually offered as being the time of composition.--76.31.242.174 (talk) 01:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added what I could find. Carl.bunderson (talk) 08:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates? 

message: Doesn't exist.  I deleted that reference in the North Galatians section; maybe whoever wrote that meant Acts 6-7 in general?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.122.247.217 (talk) 01:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acts 6:22 

message: Why is this sentence under a section entitled "authenticity"?  This is an assertive statement of a theological dispute that has nothing to do with the authenticity section. Even if it was an uncontested chronological marker, the way the sentence is written does not lead the reader to distinguish the sentence as such. I am deleting this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dondoolee (talk • contribs) 22:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no stake in the statement, it is just that I could see why it was there.  If it is vulnerable because it is unsourced, I agree with you.  That is not the only unsourced item.  I think that once upon a time the statement may have been sourced, but the source removed during its revision history. A Georgian (talk) 01:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  For what it is worth, the source of the statement is: Revision as of 08:55, 29 July 2005 (edit) (undo)Wetman (talk | contribs) (disambiguations; locating Galatia more accurately; reducing multiple linkings;)A Georgian (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: There is no hint in the letter of a developed organization within the Christian community at large.

message: Why does the word "Galatians" redirect to the page on the Gauls, when obviously the vast majority using this term are looking for this page?--Bigh Whigh (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re "Galatians" redirect 

message: What language was it written in originally?  I guess Greek, but Paul was a Roman Citizen, so Latin is not implausible; also the Galatians apparently had their own Gallic language.  Even if the answer to this question is trivially obvious to ancient historians and Biblical scholars, it would be nice to have it stated here for the benefit of those who don't know.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.18.201.28 (talk) 06:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to know this too, it should list the original language of Papyrus 46 and the years in which it got translated to other languages. HearthHOTS (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Language

message: Is the use of this term in the article borderline offensive? Would scare quotes help? The Wikipedia entry on the word states: "... the term Judaizers is typically used as a pejorative."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B017:19D0:F057:99E1:1B1F:42C2 (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The term Judaizers is a technical one in Bible study; I don't see how one could dispense with it A Georgian (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Judaizers" 

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: are you working on this as a class project in a university course? If so, can you ask your instructor to visit teach.wikiedu.org to get your class registered? Wiki Education has a lot of support materials for students doing assignments. --LiAnna (Wiki Ed)  (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is a class project about Wikipedia its administration is very, very poor.  Wikipedia strongly discourages single-purpose accounts, yet that is entirely what is going on here.  Wikipedia strongly encourages good edit summaries, yet these are almost entirely absent. There wasn't even an "advance notice" a few days ahead; the first the rest of us knew about was a sudden avalanche of edits.  This does not endear it to the established community of Wikipedia editors. This assumed "class project" (if it is such) is very poorly managed. The teachers/lecturers have significantly mis-advised their students.  Whatever the pass/fail of the content, the project-admin seems badly substandard. Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

text: Are you the instructor? Can you reach out to my colleague Helaine Blumenthal () at helainewikiedu.org to get you into our system? We offer training modules, assignment scaffolding, and a host of support resources to help you avoid challenges like this in the future if you plan to teach with Wikipedia again. --LiAnna (Wiki Ed)  (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

text: , if you're the instructor, can you let them know about a need to include edit summaries, as well as a preference for secondary (rather than primary) sources? [EC add-on: probably best you reach out to LiAnna's colleague first] Nosebagbear (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Class project? 

message: Cgsjhdbsx hi ex. Bags 2603:8080:2E00:2381:AD94:1097:E882:FBF8 (talk) 02:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Galatians