Talk:Fruit of the Holy Spirit
|WikiProject Christianity||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
Hi, Glad to see you starting an
article; please take my comments as well-meaning. So far, the article does nothing but quote the actual text. An encyclopedia article should state why its important in a broader context, give background information, show its importance and any other points of view. Wikipedia is not a place to simply quote scripture or religious messages, however well meaning they may be. DavidH 03:31, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, there is only one brief paragraph of quotation. The rest is what I wrote.
- Surely the actual Bible verse (Galatians 5:22-23) that lists the fruits should be quoted! It is mentioned at the end, but not actually quoting it in an article about it seems strange... Ben davison 17:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Fruit Of The Holy Spirit
There are Bible translations which identify between 8 and 11 fruit of the Holy Spirit They are:
- FAITHFULNESS &
- SELF CONTROL
Other translations exclude generosity which may be a synonym for kindness and include Goodness. Exclude Gentleness and include Meekness. Also in addition to faithfulness and Self Control, Temprance and or Long Suffering may be found. --InismX (talk) 09:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, those are the 9 Christian fruit. Catholics add generosity, chastity, and modesty. Which, I'm not Catholic, I'm Baptist. But someone really ought to mention that the other three are Catholic only. Jrdaigle1000 02:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I attempted to include something about the Bible's constancy about men being like trees, especially the righteous man. Jesus says that the ax will be laid to the root, there are things about bearing fruit in and out of season, things such as this. Not explaining the fruits of the Spirit in the context of a man being like a tree makes fruit seem like cutesy talk. There is specific teaching in the Gospels about those trees that are not bearing fruit being like the fig tree, or the chaff being thrown in the fire. Also, that a tree cannot bear good fruit and bad fruit, you know a tree by its fruit. A righteous man can only bear Holy Spirit fruit if he has the Holy Spirit, therefore it is called the fruit of the Holy Spirit. I know this is scattered, but I wanted to include this as a starting point for a more clear article. Dancingdoe (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I think there are several areas where I think the article needs work:
- The biblical form of words is the "Fruit of the Spirit" not the "Fruits of the Spirit". So the article should be moved.
- The grammar is poor, eg. "In the person who possesses these characteristics, this is a life-change including their behaviour." The clauses don't agree.
- Firstly it reads a bit POV, in that it sounds more like something from Every Day with Jesus than an encyclopaedia.
- A level 2 (
==) heading is not required for each of the fruit - a better way to explain the fruit can be found in article about the Catholic doctrine of Seven gifts of the Holy Spirit
- The issue of whether they are one unit or many is a bit pedantic. I always though the singular was used because there was one Spirit not one fruit, e.g. "the fruit of the apple tree is...". Besides I've heard too many sermons saying we should reflect on each fruit/characteristic separately.
- Don't use out of date translations of the Greek and Hebrew, use something like the NIV or ESV.
- It needs references
- Finally, remember it's an encyclopaedia article so it should discuss sources, historical development, devotional use, and its relationship with other "... of the Holy Spirit" topics. An example of a more encyclopaedic article can be found here.
This is a whole lot of work, sorry about dumping it and running off but I think the article on this important topic needs an overhaul. Journeyman 04:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the above and I'll try to do some of it. 188.8.131.52 16:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Patience: The current version tells us that this can be two words in the Greek, but not which one is used here. I'm beginning to suspect that the original author here just took the nine words and quoted the Strongs's reference for each. 184.108.40.206 17:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
We should be using translations of Greek and Hebrew, because those are the base texts. Similar to how we would study Greek mythological texts. NIV and ESV are arguably out of date as well. And why does the referential verse state the source as Galatians 19-23 instead of 22-23? Also, the section discussing the nine-pointed star describes love as charitas in Latin, but in the section discussing love it describes it as amat in Latin.220.127.116.11 (talk) 01:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
The Fruits of the Holy Spirit in Catholic Tradition
- Catholic tradition ennumerates 12 fruits, which are given in the Vulgata: “Fructus autem Spíritus est: cáritas, gáudium, pax, patiéntia, benígnitas, bónitas, longanímitas, mansuetúdo, fides, modéstia, continéntia, cástitas. Advérsus hujúsmodi non est lex.” (Gal 5, 22–23), that is: charity, joy, peace, patience, benignity, goodness, longanimity, mildness, faithfulness, modesty, continence and chastity. The article should include the Catholic view.
Need secular source
Why does a spiritual work need secular sources? That concept is bizarre to me.
Do secular works need religious sources to back them up?
Do botanical works need astrological sources too?
What kind of secular sources are you talking about?
Do you want a background on who Paul was, the time frame when he was writing
the epistle to the churches in Galatia, and some greater context for the epistle?
Those can all be established through Biblical, non-secular sources.
What exactly are you looking for, except some way to refute the relevance of what
Paul wrote? I don't understand the objection.
By the way, I think that the Koran is a false book, but I would rather see what
Muslim theologians have to say about the Koran than what some secular scholars
have to say. I might be persuaded to change my mind if I read material written by
people who value the subject matter rather than by those who have little regard
The articles still need to be written objectively as in "this is what is represented by
the text" rather than "this is how things actually are." A theologian can write "this
is part of thus-and-such larger concept or principle" and still be writing objectively.
When looking at the origins of the source book itself, that is an area where secular
scholarship can play a role. Describing what the concepts are inside the source book
seems to be an area where a secular viewpoint has no real role. And yes it is "insertion
of a point of view" to insert secular views into interpretation of the contents and meaning
of a religious book.