Talk:Bride of Christ

Old news

This could really use some clean-up. I'm not sure how to set things in motion to do so...I'm a bit sorry that its a bit unclean so I'll clean it up

Agreed, particularly this part: Paul calls this a mystery because marriage between a man and a women is a prophetic act of the depth of our relationship with Jesus. This love surpasses our knowledge (Ephesians 3:18). --124.170.162.165 (talk) 06:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Contraception

I have heard this doctrine being used to justify opposition to contraception, this should be looked up or double-checked. 67.68.65.192 (talk) 12:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Wat. How it can? JosiahHenderson (talk) 06:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about eh contraception argument, but I agree with the first comment that this could use some clean up. The part that's pointed out above is, though an orthodox opinion, it's not a fact but speculation as to Paul's intent. Also, when referencing "Ekklesia" (sp?): it does directly translate to "called out ones" however, that is not its use. If you look at the usage in Josephus and other first century works, you'll find that a better rendering is "congregation" or "assembly."

Barclay-Newman give this definition: [UBS] evkklhsi,a, aj f church, congregation; assembly, gathering (of religious, political, or unofficial groups) Obviously "church" is not the best rendering since it's origins are from the German "Kirke" meaning "Lord's house" (I think... that should be checked). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radeoflier (talk • contribs) 18:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Origen and Bernard

I think this article could benefit by some mention of Origen and Bernard of Clairvaux as these two figure pretty centrally to concepts of sponsa christi in my opinion, as does the Song of Songs. I will try and draft something up when I have time, but some coverage of this would give this article more depth. Lots of references for this stuff too DRosin (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Church is NOT the Bride

You are giving undo weight to one POV. World Mission Society Church of God has another definition for the Bride as God the Mother coming from Matthew 9:15 Jesus answered, "How can the guests of the bridegroom mourn while he is with them? The time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them; then they will fast.

Mark 2:19 Jesus answered, "How can the guests of the bridegroom fast while he is with them? They cannot, so long as they have him with them. Both pointing to God's people as Guests which is distinct from the Bride

Revelation 22:17The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" And let him who hears say, "Come!" Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life. Revelation 21:9-10 One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, "Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb." 10And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God. Galatians 4:26But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother

Also, if were going to put incorrect interpretation like the Church, some Catholics think the Bride is Mary and shepherds Chapel preaches that it is the 144,000--99.201.24.216 (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not POV, it is theology. If you do know a theolologic school of thought which challenges the common understanding that the church is the bride, please feel free to add that and the respective references also. Simply stating "but this is not correct" is no argument.--Turris Davidica (talk) 08:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

This article has deteriorated since a year ago. /Expatinsweden (talk) 22:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

How can it be the Church? These statements were supposedly made while Jesus was alive, that is before his crucifixion. The Christian Church could not have existed before the crucifixion because "Christian" is a reference to the crucifixion.

Qemist (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

No, that's one POV of many or do you insist there is only one POV in theology. Rev 21:2,9 is enough for me. It clearly indicates that the NEW JERUSALEM and not the church are the BRIDE of the lamb (Christ). The congregation of believers form the BODY of Christ. Other POV: http://www.biblical-data.org/BOX/bodies_and_brides.pdf --41.151.48.42 (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to boldly add information regarding alternative points of view. This article appears to already consider many POVs and offers them without preference to any one, but if you believe there is an omitted POV, I'm sure everyone in this discussion would encourage you to add it. On the other hand, it is against Wikipedia's policy on neutrality to omit widely held theological points of view that others perceive as incorrect for the same reason that we wouldn't want to omit any points of view you believe are true. In the end, it's a matter of theology, and like you pointed out, there will always be competing POVs. BU Rob13 (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Mary Magdalene

Part of my edit was removed considering Mary Magdalene they said gnostics do not believe she is the bride, however whenever I met someone who was gnostic they have said she was. I don't want to enter into an edit war over this, but I think we need some sort of consensus over whether this is Dan Brown/Lewis Perdue make believe.-174.45.184.184 (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

"Someone I met" is not verifiable, and not a reliable source. Please present any reliable sources, instead of ill-researched hearsay someone who read The Da Vinci Code and nothing about historical Gnosticism. If you look over the Gnosticism article, you will see that the Gnostics taught that the flesh was inherently evil, which means that Jesus having children would have been more offensive to the Gnostics than to orthodox Christians (who generally approved of having kids, and would have used this issue to further argue with the Gnostics if it was ever a historical consideration). Also, the verse from the Gospel of Philip that was quoted, if blindly accepted as historically accurate, only shows that Jesus and Mary Magdelene were not married: otherwise Jesus's disciples would considered it natural for Him to kiss her. Furthermore, the original text is damaged after "her," it is only speculation that He kissed her on her mouth.

The idea that Jesus had kids cannot be found before Holy Blood, Holy Grail came out. The authors of that book (who later sued Dan Brown) admit that it's not properly researched and that it's based on a hoax. Here is a source, and a second one by Bart D. Ehrman. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say one I said every single last one--174.45.184.184 (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Further more I said they were gnostics not that they studied historical Gnosticism. but maybe they all just read Dan Brown agreed and decided to call themselves Gnostic --174.45.184.184 (talk) 04:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Joseph Martin Kronheim - The Sunday at Home 1880 - Revelation 22-17.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Joseph Martin Kronheim - The Sunday at Home 1880 - Revelation 22-17.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on April 8, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-04-08. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng {chat} 16:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Picture of the day

An 1880 Baxter process colour plate illustrating Revelation 22:17 from the Bible, in which the Holy Spirit and the Bride of Christ give access to the Water of Life to those who have survived the cataclysmic events described in the book. The text reads, "And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." The Bride is usually taken to mean the Christian Church, but other interpretations exist.Image: Joseph Martin Kronheim; Restoration: Adam Cuerden

Wikipedia is not a forum, we are not a publisher for new ideas, and it does not matter where users come from or what they believe or what they know.

A New Beginning Last week ian.thomson removed my first two posts in 2 min and 18 min respectively so that none of the other editors could examine them. Why the haste, ian? Perhaps I should clarify--both my parents were scientists and I was raised to the rigorous rules of scientific methodology from earliest childhood. As an adult I learned to follow the strict rules of theology practiced in the Catholic Church. And I'm familiar with WP rules. I understand WP rules were established because of egregious abuses of open editing. However I've also known scientists to misuse the prestige and authority of their positions; the history of science is filled with serious errors and long delays in correcting them by scientists defending their turf or their biases. We've seen similar problems in the Church. And I've encountered it on Wikipedia. But the rules of No original research, NPOV and Verifiability were not established to suppress information. Some people are expert at rule following, some are creative thinkers; we need both. And sometimes editors must work with what they've got, set aside personal inclinations, give precedence to reality and, if possible, work amicably toward consensus. There are few secondary sources on the Bride of Christ. The most important of them date to the first three centuries of Christianity, making most of them inaccessible. However the subject has been reemerging in recent years. And the primary source which IS accessible is the Bible. I'm a lay contemplative. I came across the verses in Isaiah referring to the Bride over 40 years ago and immediately recognized their connection with the New Testament and Jesus as Bridegroom. Over the years of meditating on the significance of the Bridegroom, the Bride and the Marriage I have formed--gasp--a POV. However, setting that aside, I suggest that all the related citations to the Bride of Christ be listed and reexamined: In the New Testament--and the related verses in the Old Testament. (Note: I am using the New American Bible because I find it best retains the poetic intensity used by the prophets to communicate spiritual experience--as much as the King James Bible's Psalm 23 does). In the Gospels 1. John the Baptist's testimony concerning Jesus that, "he who has the bride is the bridegroom..." is the only mention of the bride in the Gospels.(Jn. 3:29) 2. The Synoptics already listed in the article, of what Jesus responded when asked why his disciples didn't fast when John's disciples and the Pharisees did-- "can the wedding guests mourn while the bridegroom is with them...?" 3. Jesus' parables of the Wedding Banquet and the Wise and Foolish Virgins who were awaiting the Bridegroom (Mt. 25:1-13)with 4 mentions of the bridegroom, one of the wedding banquet. 4. The Wedding Banquet at Cana (Jn. 2:1-11). 5. Jesus never mentions the bride directly in the Gospels (only John B. does). But there can't be a bridegroom without a bride. 6. Clarify that the term "the Bride of Christ" is not used in the Bible but is a term that refers to all these related verses. In Revelation 1. Rev. 3:12--the first mention of the New Jerusalem. 2. "The Time of the Wedding of the Lamb has come and his Bride has made herself ready." (Rev. 19:7 and 8) 3. Note in Rev. 21:2, 9-10 these three verses use 4 distinct names to describe the bride: "the holy city; new Jerusalem"..."I will show you the bride, the Lamb's wife." i.e. city--Jerusalem--bride--wife. (see below) 4. Rev. 22:17 "And the Spirit and the Bride say, "Come"....." In the Epistles 1. In Ephesians 5:21-33--in Paul's discourse on marriage he compares human marriage to the relationship between Christ and the Church--saying, "This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the Church" (5:32). 2. As already mentioned in the article, 2 Cor. 11:2 3. In Galatians 4:27 Paul makes an all important reference to the Old Testament--to Isaiah 54:1. However for Jews 2000 years ago the image of God as in a spousal relationship with the people of Israel is something they were familiar with. In the Old Testment There are occasional references to the spousal relationship between God and his people--Hosea is the most heart-wrenching of them because it speaks of the people's infidelity. And there are occasional references to the bridegroom and the bride in Jeremiah 2:2; 7:34.......oh, dear, the last bus is about to leave. I must finish this tomorrow.----Margaret9mary (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)205.167.120.201 (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC) A Prophecy to be fulfilled If we consider the prophecies concerning Jesus in Isaiah, they were "on the books" [or scrolls, rather] for 700 years without anyone recognizing them as referring to the awaited Messiah. Since the Bride of Christ is a prophecy yet to be fulfilled it's not surprising that very little has been written about it. However we can examine the existing evidence, an important part of which is found in the Old (Hebrew) Testament. References to the Bride, or any bride, both in the Old Testament and the New are very sparse. And so, although the theology of the bride and the marriage grew quickly in the early church at first, it was not continued. There is only one place where there is an extended reference to a bride and that is in Isaiah. Isaiah speaks repeatedly of the "forsaken bride"--and her final vindication. I cited these to you in two of the Songs of the Bride Isaiah 54:1-17 (see v 1 and 6) and Isaiah 62:1-12 (see v 4 and 12). And so it was--the early church began to develop a theology of the Bride and then, mostly forsaking it, left it as a mere honorific. It remained alive but hidden among nuns, and some mystics and contemplatives. And this was necessary. The time for the marriage had not yet come....(in process)...Margaret9mary (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC) The Bridegroom and the bride For nearly 2000 years Jesus has been known to be the Bridegroom on John's direct testimony (Jn. 3:29) To be a bridegroom there must be a bride. Jesus never mentions the bride in the Gospels, but the early church "heard" Him, and from very early identified herself as the bride although it was a "great mystery" (Eph. 5:32). Jesus laid the foundations for the church but left it to grow and develop in its own time. Christian theology took centuries to understand itself. This quality is unique among religions--that Judeo-Christian faith grew (From Abraham-Isaac-Jacob, thru slavery in Egypt and the Exodus, through judges, David and the Prophets, and finally Jesus, who fulfilled the prophets and took the faith beyond the Jewish nation--and that people's experience with God was added to over a period of many generations. The Holy City, Jerusalem in the Old Testament The WP article already cites Revelations in which twice the bride is identified as "the holy city, new Jerusalem...Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife." We can find Jerusalem mentioned repeatedly in Isaiah. At the very beginning of Isaiah it says twice, "This is a prophecy concerning Judah and Jerusalem" 1:1 and 2:1 (That is, male and female--cities are often identified with the feminine). In Isaiah there are repeated references to the servant--for example, Is. 41:8 "But you, Israel, my servant/ Jacob, whom I have chosen/ offspring of Abraham my friend" see also 41:9, 42:1, 43:1, 44:1 and 21, and 48:12. That is, the servant is referred to by various interchangeable names, including Judah, 41:1. And interestingly enough the holy city, Jerusalem is mentioned even more frequently, again with other interchangeable names--Zion, daughter Zion, the city, the bride, the wife, the mother. Reread Isaiah and count them! (for example 33:20; 40:2 and 9; 52:1-3 and 8-9). See also Is. 44:26 "It is I who confirm the words of my servants/ I carry out the plan announced by my messengers/ I say to Jerusalem: Be inhabited/ to the cities of Judah: Be rebuilt." In other words, these are an important theme in Isaiah. Still in process Margaret9mary (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

A QUESTION TO EDITORS CONCERNING WP POLICY

Aparently Ian.thomson removed my original entry and claims that Wikipedia does not accept original research. Does this mean that if there is no published research we cannot examine the original source? And does it mean that we must not see what is before our very eyes? I am not a theologian, I do not do research. But I couldn't avoid seeing that Rev. identifies the bride, the Lamb's wife as the holy city, Jerusalem and that this is found in Isaiah.Margaret9mary (talk) 23:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I am asking that responsible Christian WP editors re-examine Isaiah. I'm familiar with WP rule of not accepting original research and understand the reason for it, for some people were abusing the privilege of editing. But I have also seen the rules of science abused to suppress evidence observable by all (even laypeople)--superficially following the rules of science, but ignoring data for the purpose of power or bias. Good reasoning and a willingness to set aside cherished assumptions has always been essential to understanding reality and even early Christian theology is an example of it. --Margaret9mary (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTBLOG. We do not accept original research, see WP:NOR. You need reliable secondary sources (preferably works by university presses) to support your statements, see WP:CITE and WP:RS. Individual user's interpretations of Bible verses is considered original research.

Also, you did not need to break your post into two sections, you could have just posted it as one section. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your second question: Wikipedia does not discriminate against editors of any worldview, but does discourage original research and personal interpretation regardless of who adds it. Please read WP:No Original Research. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the collapsed section

Wikipedia is not a forum. It does not matter who editors are, what religion they were raised in or believe in, who their parents are, or anything like that. We are not the place to right great wrongs, push new ideas, or interpret primary sources. Talk pages are for article improvement within the guidelines, not general discussion of the subject. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Concerning secondary references for the Bride of Christ

The most important secondary references for the Bride of Christ date to the beginnings of Christianity. Most of them are difficult to access except by specialized scholars. The main theological focus of the early church was on the foundation of Christianity. They were struggling with what Jesus meant, and with what is authentic and what is heretical. The church as the Bride of Christ--for example, the theological meaning of the Song of Songs--was very secondary. In any case, after the ardor of Christians of the early years, the theology virtually stopped developing. Perhaps there were problems concerning the issue of sex--not realizing that this concerns a Spiritual Marriage which is of love. The issue did not disappear but remained half hidden, with nuns considered brides of Christ and among mystics and contemplatives for whom passionate love of Christ was normal. So where can one find secondary references to the Bride of Christ?

What has happened is that in recent years there has been a renewed interest in the Bride of Christ. Much of it concerns the role of how to be a follower of Christ, and is focused primarily for women. There are a few books but they are quite speculative.

So do we have anything accessible? We have the primary source which is the Bible, which is very accessible.

Take for example--in John 3:29 John the Baptist gives his testimony that "he who has the bride, is the bridegroom." Jews of 2000 years ago would recognize this from Jeremiah, who in anguish warns 3 times that the Lord says, "I will silence from this place the cry of joy and the cry of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride." (Jer. 7:34; 16:9; 25:10), yet reaffirms "there shall yet be heard the cry of joy, the cry of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom, the voice of the bride (Jer. 33:10-11) and Joel: "let the bridegroom quit his room and the bride her chamber (Joel 2:16c) The spousal relationship between God and His people is something one comes across unexpectedly in the Old Testament.--Margaret9mary (talk) 23:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

If it dates back to the beginnings of Christianity, and the access is limited to specialized scholars, it is a primary source. A secondary source would be a book by one of those scholars explaining the contents, history, and meaning of the primary source. Even if you were one of those specialists, and even if you did have access to those early Christian documents, you could not post your findings on this page and then cite it in the article: you would have to be published by a respected academic organization. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

In No original research, under primary secondary and tertiary sources it specifically says "...primary sources are permitted if used carefully." So should the Bible go uncited because it's the primary source? If it's acceptable the first thing to do is to cite it.--Margaret9mary (talk) 00:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

And then there is Ignore All Rules--Margaret9mary (talk) 00:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:PSTS says that primary sources may be used without interpretation. It says "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation" and "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."

As WP:IAR? points out, ""Ignore all rules" does not mean that every action is justifiable. It is neither a trump card nor a carte blanche."

Ignore all rules is meant to overcome rare contradictions between policies, guidelines, and consensus, it was not an excuse for unscholarly sloppiness that would be to the encyclopedia's detriment. The condition is that ignoring the rule must improve or maintain Wikipedia, and posting unsourced personal interpretations "from" "secondary" (really primary) sources that have even not been named yet does not improve the site. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

As I said, the first thing to do is list the related verses. The letter of the law taken too far can kill the spirit of the law. Paul said it in different words and so do Wikipedia policies P.S. I have just found two books of commentaries--one by Tremper Longman Eerdmans Publ. the other Hans Urs von Balthasar (1991) Explorations in Theology:Spouse of the Word (The Bride of Christ) vol 2. Would you like to purchase and read them?--Margaret9mary (talk) 00:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

You've done more than list the verses.

"Ignore all rules," like Christ's forgiveness, is not an excuse to do anything detrimental.

I've found the Eerdman's commentary, which may be usable. Secondary sources are fine if you only summarize what they are saying, and do not extrapolate, expand, add on to, or combine with other sources for anything not in the source. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Griefing; Harassment; Gaming the System; You might examine two other entries--the Sexuality of Jesus and Bridal Theology for what others consider acceptable editing. Goodby.--Margaret9mary (talk) 01:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Please withdraw those personal attacks or provide evidence for them.

Regarding your accusation of griefing and harassment: This page, your talk page, and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Request board on my watchlist, so I have not been following you around, you've been wandering into areas under my watch, so I am not hounding you. I have not threatened you in the slightest, so any intimidation is purely your imagination. I have not been trying to discourage you from editing at all, I have simply pointed out where your edits went against policies that were put in place to help the encyclopedia. Assume good faith is a cornerstone of this site, and if you don't want advice on how to be a good editor, that's your problem.

As WP:Harassment says: "one editor warning another for disruption or incivility is not harassment if the claims are presented civilly, made in good faith and in an attempt to resolve a dispute instead of escalating one. Neither is tracking a user's contributions for policy violations (see above); the contribution logs exist for editorial and behavioral oversight. Unfounded accusations of harassment may be considered a serious personal attack and dealt with accordingly."

Regarding your accusation of gaming the system: Try reading the site's policies and guidelines for their intentions, instead of looking for a few buzzwords to drop as if they justify your behavior. Wikipedia:Gaming the system includes the following as gaming the system:

• "Selectively 'cherry picking' wording from a policy (or cherry picking one policy to apply but willfully ignoring others) to support a view which does not in fact match policy." - This would include just dropping the policy or guideline title as a buzzword in a context completely unrelated to that policy or guideline.
• "Attempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy, or impose one's own novel view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community."

Withdraw your personal attacks. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

"Griefing; Harassment; Gaming the System." I read these and listed them. Ian.thomson interprets my listing them as a personal attack.

He cites: "one editor warning another for disruption or incivility is not harassment if the claims are presented civilly, made in good faith and in an attempt to resolve a dispute instead of escalating one." Would that he would follow those same rules.

He does however take his interpretion of the rules to an extreme. Citing related verses and describing the connection between them should not be considered grounds for deletion, especially on the talk page.--Margaret9mary (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:Original research is grounds for removing material from articles, attempting to write an original source on the talk page or posting more unsourced original research is grounds for removal of material -- I was extremely polite by only collapsing it.

You went against policy. I undid or collapsed what went against policy and civilly explained how. You overreacted, and refused to accept that you made a mistake and do not know what you're doing here, and fought back. I calmly tried to explain again, and you've accused me of harassing. That is why I bring up "one editor warning another for disruption or incivility is not harassment." You have provided no evidence of harassment, and accusing others of misbehavior without evidence is a personal attack. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

A few points. One, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS sometimes relevant to discussions regarding what is happening in other articles. My own watchlist is over 8,000 articles long, and I cannot keep up with every change to all of them. I do not know the situation of the other pages referred to, but that could well be the case with them.

Regarding the "griefing,..." statement, in all honesty, in a conversation between, to date, only two individuals, it is really hard not seeing that comment directed at Ian, and it is at least borderline personal attack. As per guidelines and policies, article talk pages are to discuss the content of the article, not the conduct of editors.

Now, regarding the statement that some of the most important statements are from church fathers. This is true. However, unfortunately, those church fathers were, in most cases, offering some variety of interpretation to the biblical and other texts involved, and the interpretation of religious texts by religious leaders is, in general, counted as some variety of primary source material, as those individuals are among the "primary" sources of their interpretations. Also, unfortunately, with early Christian history, we do need to in general refer to more recent sources discussing the concept, as someone else might be able to argue that statements by Arius or Simon Magus or maybe someone or some text which I and most others had never heard of before as being so significant and important to this article that it has to be included.

Regarding citing the Bible, in general, I think it probably does merit at least consideration, but there are all sorts of provisos which make that in some cases problematic. Is the book in question universally regarded as biblical, is the translation one that most Christians agree to, or could it be an older and possibly dated translation? Particularly with material from the NT, these questions and others like them are some of the reasons biblical quotes don't get included as some of us, including me, would like.

I am aware of at least a few scholarly works regarding the Bible in general, including a number of dictionaries and encyclopedias. It helps being based in a major city with more than one major divinity school. ;) And I went through the Highbeam Research site just now and found some references there. Some of the more recent reference books I can access also contain some significant discussion of feminist theology, and I can try to review them as well. The fact that Thanksgiving is coming up, and generally closing a lot of academic libraries for the holiday, might make it the case that I can't get them until the week after next, but if people remind me on my talk page late next week that should remind me to go through the sources available to me and see what they contain.

In general, though, unfortunately, I tend to agree with Ian that primary source materials, including the Bible itself and the writings of the church fathers and other early Christians, can be sometimes problematic. The quotes themselves are, in some cases, fairly straightforward, but translation issues and confirmation bias on the part of even academics regarding this topic in general makes it better to stress the more recent descriptive sources over the multiple, sometimes wildly disagreeing, statements in Biblical translations, or sometimes cherry-picked quotes from church fathers by believers to support their own positions, and the like. John Carter (talk) 00:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Secondary references abound in the Catholic POV! This view is sorely neglected in this article and a good reason to keep the maintenance tag until such time as it is fleshed out, so to speak. The Catechism and the Catholic Encyclopedia are both great places to start when researching this. Elizium23 (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the Translation Used

Does Wikipedia have any style guidance as to which translation is used when quoting Scripture? The KJV reads awfully (I think) to anyone who's not immersed in it, and I see little compelling reason to use it here. The quotations themselves are germane, but the Early Modern English really isn't.

If there isn't any guidance, I'd recommend using the NRSV, which is the de facto standard in academic circles.

I'm tempted to just make this change, but fear upsetting some sort of political edit balance (I note that the links go to both the KJV and the NIV'84, which strikes me as a peculiar choice of translations to link to).

Claytonth (talk) 04:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced changes September 2023

An IP editor added new unsourced content to the lead section [1] here on 1 September, which was challenged here. The addition fails both WP:VERIFY, which says that contentious content should be supported by inline references and MOS:LEAD, which says that the lead should be a summary of the body of the article. Another editor removed a religious text primary tag [2] here on 16 September without explanation. I have therefore restored the previous version. TSventon (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)