Forum:We may have have destroyed the study of theology

Forums: Index > Village Dump > We may have have destroyed the study of theology

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6144 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

With a tip o' the stylus to The Humbled Master, I noticed today that Wikipedia now mentions the Third Epistle to the Thessalonians in its New Testament apocrypha article. Now, I'm no academic, but I've got a good knowledge of history, and I specifically wrote Third Epistle to the Thessalonians (as opposed to Third Epistle to Corinthians, Romans, etc.) because there is no Third Epistle to the Thessalonians, not even in apocrypha! And yet there are now references to it in Wikipedia, and answers.com (which admittedly republishes the Wikipedia article, but still).

I confess my knowledge might be limited. Maybe there really is a Third Epistle to the Thessalonians floating around out there. But a search of these Internets, and a consultation with New Advent, the online Catholic Encyclopedia, suggests that we may have created an urban legend.--Procopius 20:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh. I knew something like this would happen. Damn you Procopius!! ;) —Braydie at 20:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Naaa, you're going to hell. --HP talk 05:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Whoa. -- Sir Mafagafo  (talk to me) 20:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Let me know when they have a page on the New Cooler Edition of the Bible, as well.--<<>> 20:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the reference predates your article, by nearly two years, as seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Testament_apocrypha&diff=8476783&oldid=8362500 . I can draw only the obvious conclusion that you, Procopius, are behind a fiendish plot to sully world knowledge of Christian thought? Is this true, heretic? --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 20:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You got me. On to my next reincarnation as Vishnu.

I seem to remember consulting that article before stamping this particular ticket to hell, so I swear that must have been edited and restored at some point. But if you do a Google search for Third Epistle to the Thessalonians, the only thing with any text on 3 Thessalonians is Uncyclopedia. If it did get there as you say, well, damn. It still reflects poorly on hypervigilant Wikipedia editors.--Procopius 20:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

/me holds up 'Wired' magazine from 1999. Hey, man! It's, like, the future. The internet is truth and truth is the internet. Get on the infobaun, dude. I bet your surfboard doesn't even have a built in wireless router. Eveyone is wearing their computers now, man! Etc, etc...--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 20:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, they beat you to it, voila. This means that Wikipedia pre-parodied...--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 20:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Only 2 copies of 3 Thessalonians left! Better buy it quick [1] --Composure1 20:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I think the real explanation is as follows. In Second Thessalonians, Paul writes about a "false" letter that was previously sent to the church in his name (after he sent First Thessalonians). Hence that false letter could theoretically perhaps be referred to as "Third Thessalonians", although it was a forgery and is no longer extant. "Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way." (2 Thessalonians 1-3, ESV). --Composure1 21:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

We broke GOD!! Cool!!  Sir Tooltroll, Esq. CUN • Eh? • Oh! • UnTunes! •• I my cat! 10:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)