User talk:Joshuagross/archive1

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Joshuagross/archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- KHM03 ^(talk) 11:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Epistle to the Romans

I'm not trying to cause trouble or be malicious; Paul's doctrinal points can be well understood without cross-referencing Bible accounts that post-date the Epistle and may not be historical.--Jbull 23:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I left your first paragraph.

If you don't think Acts is historically accurate, why bother with Romans?

This is an encyclopedia, not a place for theological musings. The article on Acts should deal with Acts on its own terms.

Paul believed Acts was historically accurate...

Wait a minute--Acts was written decades after Romans. There is no evidence that Paul ever saw a copy of Acts.--Jbull 23:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your willingness to discuss edits and seeking to understand my point. I appreciate this showing of good faith, and I hope to show the same spirit of cooperation myself.

You wrote:

My point about Acts and Romans is that they are part of the same book - the Bible. Romans is meaningless without the rest of the Bible, as is Acts. I'll leave the article as is but our disagreement stems from one thing: it seems that you do not treat the Bible as the Word of God. I find it rather pointless to deal with Romans at all (or at least something as small as quoting Acts) if you don't believe it's the Word of God, which Paul himself claims many times that Romans is (verse 1). To clarify why I say that Paul believed Acts was part of the Word of God, look at II Timothy 4:13, where Paul tells Timothy to bring him the books and parchments. II Timothy was the last book written, after which Paul (by inspiration of God, not his own opinions) organized the books of the Bible as we have them today. I don't know where you're coming from so I'd like to learn more. Cheers. Joshuagross 00:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

In response, I would say:

Whether or not the Bible is the Word of God is a matter of faith. This encyclopedia is intended to give an unbiased, non-point-of-view.
Most scholars believe that II Timothy, like all of the Pastoral Epistles, was not actually written by Paul.
Paul did not organize the books of the Bible, as much of the New Testament was written after Paul's death.
The Bible as we know it was not compiled until the Catholic Church finalized the canon in the 4th Century AD.

--Jbull 02:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comment on my user page, I added back your reference to the prominence of women in the concluding verses of Romans.--Jbull 03:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly agree with Jbull. There is not much evidence that Paul would of compiled the New Testament considering the following factors.

The book of Acts records Paul appealing his case to Caesar. If Acts correctly records the governors of the province of Judea, then this would have occured during the reign of the Emperor Nero. The timing on this section works out almost perfectly with 66 A.D. (or C.E. if you prefer). 66 was the year that Rome burned and began the first persecution of the Christians. According to Christian tradition, Paul was beheaded during this persecution.
Many books of the New Testament are presumed to written after Paul's Epistles. In fact, most scholars hold that Paul's Epistles were written before any part of the New Testament. For instance, Revelation records some persecution presumably by the Romans. That is, its author mentions being exiled to the Island of Patmos.
The order of the New Testament was determined primarily by the First Ecumenical Council at Nicea. Similar lists had existed prior to the Council, but this was when the New Testament reached its current components.

I do, however disagree on the point concerning the Pastoral Epistles. Many scholars would agree that the Pastoral Epistles were not written by Paul, but I would not say that most scholars agree on this. Anpetu-We 17:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joshuagross, I would like to apologize for comming across in the wrong way. I personally beieve the Bible to factual and reliable document especially on issues of doctrine. In fact, I believe in sola scriptura on all issues of doctrine. However, in the passage to which you are refering, Paul is requesting parchments. That's all the account says. We don't know what these parchments are. I do agree that they are likely some Biblical source, perhaps Mark's Gospel, but their exact nauture all the same remains unknown. I would also like say that even though many scholars do not hold the Pastoral Epistles to Pauline, I do. I am a beginning scholar of Greek, but even I can see that there is a similar writting style from Romans through Philemon. So I agree with you on that point. I also agree on the organization of the New Testament; it follows a theological pattern. The people who compiled the New Testament likely had this in mind. Again I apologize for any misconceptions I may have brought about. Your interest in doctrine and theology intrigues me as well as your educational background. I was home-schooled as well and am a fellow arrowman. I would like to talk with you more on the subject of Romans and would be interested to know whether or not you will be attending the National Order of the Arrow Conference this summer.

Yours in Brotherhood,

Anpetu-We 22:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joshuagross, I appreciate your cordiality. Most people on Wikipedia are not so kind. It is good fruit of the Spirit to see in another believer. I have to confess I am not familiar with right decision. If you could enlighten me on this, I would be grateful. I enjoy meeting anyone who has a passion for the Scriptures and who has mind of their own to analyze them critically without discrediting them as God's Word. You are "Like a tree planted by streams of water, which bears fruit in season and whose leaf does not wither."

Made New by Him,

Anpetu-We 02:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joshuagross, thank you for information on "The Mystery." On the note about my username, Anpetu-We is my Lodge of OA. We are chartered to the Greater St. Louis Area Council, which by the way is the only council that has two lodges (long story). I don't use my real name on Wikipedia for safety reasons. On Wikispecies, my username is Cryptobranchus. Its the genus name for a rare salamander found the Eastern United States called a Hellbender.

Your Humble Servant,

Anpetu-We 13:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs with particularly long titles

Hello Joshuagross,

Fair question. I was just trying to clean up a bit. The most recent add appeared to be a medley, which is against the rules descibed in the article and on the talk page. I also deleted a song by "E-Bizzle 'n' Mizzle," I did this to be consistient with the removal of their other song by a previous user. The group seems to be either not notable or made up. If you Google them the only non-wikipedia ref. is a footnote on someone's MySpace page. If you think I'm wrong in either case verify it and revert away.

Best, -MrFizyx 17:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Illest

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. (aeropagitica) (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mumps

Agreed that your edits help the date formatting. However, it sure is ugly that you need linking to get date formatting. Thanks for working on that page. Especially: thanks for adding references.

I have been thinking of converting the whole timeline into a table with columns for states and rows for dates. Know what I mean?

As an aside, you might want to read The Lost Gospel of Q to advance your understanding of the New Testament. Heathhunnicutt 22:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the Talk:Mumps page, I wrote a bare example of what I imagine an 'outbreak table' might look like. See what you think. Heathhunnicutt 00:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]