This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Christianity Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Turkey Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I moved the section on the city to its own page. The town is notable enough outside the context of the Apocalypse. Pilatus 09:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense to me. I'll do some more interlinking --Doc (?) 09:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So the content of this article isn't going to be deleted, right? --Brasswatchman 00:39, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

That depends on the current VfD debate - but right now it looks highly unlikely --Doc (?) 07:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Added to the "Cold or hot" section - the first and third paragraphs (after the biblical quote) contradict the middle paragraph. If someone can confirm the second, I recommend removing the first and third paragraphs (and citing a source, of course!). Puddleglum 23:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the survey books of the Bible that I've read, the Laodocian metaphor of the tepid nature of their water is presented as accepted fact, and moreover is in accordance with the fact that their church were apathetic or unzealoous in their faith. See Understanding the Bible, by Harris, and Introduction to the Bible books by Hauer and by Fant. Also, the NSRV Access Bible.

How is that a contradiction? Please explain.--Doc^g 07:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not providing fuller explanation. The scripture referenced says "I wish that you were either cold or hot". If these are "metaphors indicating hostility and friendship respectively", as stated in the disputed paragraphs, then God (the one speaking in Rev 3.15-16) is saying that he wants the Laodiceans to either be evil or good.

Not only is this illogical (God wants people to be evil?), it also contradicts the imagery of the Laodicean aqueduct, which suggests not that "hot" is good and "cold" is bad, but that both hot and cold water are useful, whereas lukewarm water is useless.

I'll go ahead and do a rewrite. Feel free to clean it up or request additional info. (And we still need a citation. I've heard the explanation of the aqueduct before, but I don't have a source on hand.) Puddleglum 19:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can find citations later. However the aqueduct explanation is possible but disputed - so do not say 'scholars say'. As for the contradiction - there is none. This is a metaphor against the churches perceived ambivalence or lack of zeal - described as 'lukewarm' - the writer suggests that being Lukewarm is bad - and the Laodiceans should make up their mind. There parallels here with the Old Testament's 'chose today whom you will serve' - demanding a clear-cut choice. To suggest that the writer identifies hot=good and cold=evil may be right - but to take from that an equivelence of the two is to push the metaphor too far. The point is lukewarm=indecision/apathy/lack of zeal is undesirable. You seem to be creating a problem here that is not in the secondary literature. Actually, the solution is to re-write the whole thing with references from mainstream commentaries rather than relying on our own original research.--Doc^g 20:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Council of Laodicea in AD 363-64 is not a "Later reference to the Laodicean Church". That's why I deleted it. I suppose that if the section heading were renamed, it could be relevant, but I had assumed that the link to the city would be sufficient.Puddleglum 19:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this article clearly does not belong in the Biblical criticism category based on the other articles in the category([1]), which are about critical methods and issues in Biblical interpretation. Why do you think it should be included in the category?Puddleglum 19:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Laodician" was the winning word in the latest spelling bee, and I see this article already got messed with...with some trivial, minor info weakly related to the etymology of the word "laodician" getting moved into the lead! Reverted for now, probably more of these sorts of activities to come for another couple days or two. Tendancer (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]