Talk:Epistle to the Colossians

message: If 60% of scholars don't believe Paul wrote it, why does our analysis simply assume it was written by Paul? I'll put an NPOV notice up. john k 20:23, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Where are you getting your figures?tooMuchData 18:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: John's comment

message: The extensive quotations have been questioned regarding copyright infringement.  None were "copied and pasted"; all were attributed.  In the case of the Clarke quotations, since they are from a 1831 publication, I don't think there is any potential for infringement.  The quotations from The Interpreter's Bible are from a 1955 publication; that is the most quoted source.  There are a few quotations from The New Jerome Biblical Commentary published in 1990, but I don't think they are exensive enough to create a problem. A Georgian (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The quoted material is referenced, so I do not perceive confusion re: sources.  It is accurate that whole paragraphs are quoted, and that there are many quotes.  I do not know what the rules are for lengths of quotes and number of quotes.  If there are no copyright issues I don't see the point of paraphasing them. A Georgian (talk) 13:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that Wikipedia is aiming to be an encyclopedia, not a place to republish existing material. See the  Wikipedia guide on quotations. I'm happy to help get the article into shape for Wikipedia, but it does need some work. Sam Rae (talk) 13:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I appreciate your help.  I'm going ahead with my summary of the three commentaries I'm using. When I finish, I'll go back through and try to become expert in form.  Providing this information, albeit published (good luck getting Clarke's 1831), none of it is availble on the Internet, and were it, the reader would have to plow through ALL the material, rather than my admittedly lengthy summary of it.  A set of The Interpreter's Bible will set you back about $750.00. Another source of my confusion is that I encounter much longer articles elsewhere in wikipedia, and whenever I've tried to insert original material, it has generally been deleted precisely because it is original.  Anyway, thanks again; see you down the road. A Georgian (talk) 17:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I read the link you provided on quotations, and agree that mine certainly raise guideline issues.  A Georgian (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  copyright 

message: That's 60% of CRITICAL scholars not all scholars. This figure is rather misleading as it excludes those non-critical scholars who nearly all support Pauline authorship. Critical scholars usually question Pauline authorship. If you have two parties one orange and one yellow and I said, "Sixty percent of the yellow party voted yellow that would mean that %40 voted orange and to make this example accurate the orange would all vote orange meaning that 99% of the orange party and 40% of the yellow party voted orange.
I'm going to remove the link to "Nick Whyte's Commentary on Colossians". It's not a commentary, just a couple sentences about personal issues and it states that Colossians is "pretty good". It's of no use.
--Victoria h 06:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: you have completely misunderstood the point: nearly all scholars note this, and they do, as the examples shown. This doesn't include your personal opinion, my friend. And the article doesn't say that just because the style is found nowhere else in the NT it's Paul's; it says that it's found only in Paul and nowhere else. Please re-read.  Cornelius (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  so, a new and unique definition of "universally" ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.249.235.44 (talk) 05:54, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  link and authorship 

message: The page was terrible. I overhauled it, and now it's just bad. Anyone care to pitch in? Leadwind (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: re: deleting TIB, 50-year old source - How does being 50 years old disqualify a source? A Georgian (talk) 19:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no reason to use a 50YO source when more recent sources are readily available. Leadwind (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: They're still reliable sources though, aren't they? It's not like this is one of the natural sciences, where the 4th edition of a text is 100% useless by the time the 6th edition is out. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 05:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If 50YO sources contradict current scholarship, then they're outdated. If they agree with current scholarship, they're redundant and we can better cite current scholars. We could make an exception for older works that are seminal and that are still held in high repute. If you want to make this article better, crack open a current source on Colossians and cite it. I did. Leadwind (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 50YO sources are not necessarily outdated because current scholarship uses the same data, and is simply someone's more recent opinion about the same thing. Biblical studies takes decades to develop new perspectives and even more time for new methods, so just because an older source is presented, doesn't mean the newer stuff is "more true". The rhetorical arguments remain the same for the past 50+ years, as no new evidence that could relate to Colossians has come since basically the Nag Hammadi codices (1945). Cornelius (talk) 22:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  overhaul 

message: Why are there sources cited from the Jesus Seminar? They are definitely not mainstream in scholarly communities; they like to figure themselves as cutting-edge, but they're usually off the deep end of fringe, and they accept no criticism: even by their own members, in fact, as their system of votes and entire methodology seems able to turn-out results against the majority of votes at some times, and the opposite at others. This article needs a rewrite.tooMuchData 18:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Jesus Seminar deals with gospels, not epistles. Its stance that Jesus was not apocalyptic is controversial, but mostly it just popularizes contemporary historical criticism. Anyway, I didn't find any JS material in this article. Also, please register and sign talk pages with four tildes. Leadwind (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus Seminar 

message: After all I am sorry to state that not only the page is poor - the bibliography is even worse. Maybe someone can help me out.. I don't get the clue about the second "source" there: "(Karissa), "The World we cannot see"". If there is no verified bibliographical information on that one, I am afraid we have to delete it. --Inawe (talk) 13:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the job Leadwind! --Inawe (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor Bibliography 

message: In the Doctrinal Sections section it says that all things were created through and for Christ and that the universe is sustained by Christ. And then it reads "God had chosen for his complete being to dwell in Christ." Shouldn't the article somehow discuss these highly enigmatic statements? I.e. what does it mean that something is created "through and for" someone? And how can we understand that the universe is sustained by Christ? Sustained in what sense? energetically? morphologically? Have any thinkers, scholars or scientists published discussions or theories about how it this this could be understood? And I am particularly confounded by the last sentence about God dwelling in Christ. I do realize and appreciate that such opaque scriptural passages might become clearer to the one who meditates on them and requests divine spiritual guidance in absorbing this information, and that perhaps the writers of these passages intended them to be hidden gems to be unveiled to such people who truly exert themselves to integrate the meaning and significance of them. But since this is an encyclopedia, we would be amiss in not presenting relevant discussion on the questions that the passages will naturally spawn and that has been appropriately published. __meco (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does this odd wording mean? 

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: Greerings! Regarding this revert with the edit summary "deleted unsourced statement.": The statement cites the primary text, which reads, for example in the New International Version:
22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, 24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving.
This is a notable passage because it concerns the debate over whether the Bible supports slavery, as already mentioned at The Bible and slavery#Epistles. -- Beland (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slaves to obey their masters