Talk:Apostles in the New Testament

message: I like Paul Tillich.  I absolutely love C.S. Lewis.  However, calling the former the "apostle to the intellectuals" and the latter "apostle to sceptics" is highly POV in a post-reformation age.  Tillich is a Protestant who writes solely from that POV, so putting him up on the level of apostle is a bias.  Lewis, too, is a Protestant.  I think he wirtes to intellectuals fully as much as Tillich does, but he does so with a humane touch.  For "apostle to the intellectuals," Thomas Merton and Søren Kierkegaard could also qualify.  For apostle to skeptics, the list is enormous.  Virtually all Christian writers attempt apologetics at some point, and I don't see Lewis as much of a converter.  He assumes a Christian readership far more than a non-believing one.  At any rate, I have removed the following from the article for these reasons:
Further "Apostles" would include:
* Apostle to the Intellectuals: Paul Tillich
* Apostle to the Sceptics: C. S. Lewis
Geogre 14:10, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Other apostles" and POV 

message: The word "purported" (end of second paragraph) has a connotation associated with fabrication. A quick Google definition shows "appear or claim to be or do something, especially falsely;". To characterize the resurrection in this way amounts to taking a position on the legitimacy of the resurrection which is dubious because whether the resurrection occured is beyond the scope of this article. In place of the word "purported" should be either a neutral word (maybe "reported"?) or preferably no word at all. This would maintain Wikipedia's reputation of objectivity. 63.232.207.49 (talk) 04:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not biased. Wikipedia does not endorse any religion, therefore it does not endorse Christian theology as objectively true. Wikipedia does not endorse miracles, since according to the historical method miracles cannot constitute objective historical facts. This is enshrined in WP:RNPOV and in general in WP:NPOV. Sorry, this are the WP:RULES, if you edit here you have to obey our rules. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

text: Told you: if you want to edit here you have to obey our WP:RULES. WP:NPOV is website policy, you will be reverted if you disobey it. And no, for Wikipedia the resurrection of Jesus isn't a historical fact, pretty much as it isn't a historical fact that Muhammad flew upon a winged horse. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased use of "purported" to describe resurrection 

message: Acts 14:14 refers to Barnabas as an Apostle
Gal 1:19 refers to James, the Half Brother of the Savior, as an Apostle  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.153.105 (talk) 11:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barnabas and James the half Brother of the Savior were apostles 

message: Under the section on the stories of apostles being called, a random person named Carter is mentioned and their quote is not referenced nor is this person identified. It goes on to talk about rejection of patrical society. It's just very out of place and has no source. BurrShotFirst1 (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Likely connected to a book by Warren Carter, mentioned in the "Further reading" section; I agree that it is confusing there, as referencing the author only by their last name implies that they've been more formally introduced earlier in the text, which is not the case here. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carter? 

message: It seems exceptionally confusing to have one article at Apostle and another at Apostles. WP:PLURAL advises that plurals should redirect to singular titles, so reasonably Apostles should point to Apostle. It is probably the case that many links to the former article are intended for this article, and vice versa. I propose reinstating the title Apostle (Christian) to avoid ambiguity. The large majority of links still point to Apostle (Christian); it would be minimal effort to change the few links to this namespace to point to the previous title. --Hazhk (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternatively, Apostles in Christianity might be preferable. --Hazhk (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the move in itself, but have moved the article to "Apostles in the New Testament" as there are many meanings to "apostles" in Christianity. Veverve (talk) 05:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title proposal 

message: Does anyone oppose me removing the OR (interpretation of the bible) of Apostles in the New Testament#Inner circle among the Twelve Apostles, i.e. the first and last paragraph? Veverve (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing parts of #Inner circle among the Twelve Apostles 

message: It seems to me this article (deliberately?) conflates apostles with the disciples of the godman. Can this be addressed more expressedly in the lede to clarify the article's subject?
♆ CUSH ♆ 11:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article subject? 

message: In the section, "Names of the 12 disciples of Jesus Christ" listing "The order in which each of the 12 disciples joined Jesus Christ is as follows:" . . . 
    . . . I noticed that there were only 11 apostles listed, and so ventured to add in the 10th place the apostle Thaddeus, who seemed to have gone missing.  
      Please feel free to change his placement, as I'm not sure of the order nor have I a reference at hand for that, but put him there because the list is so very like the list in the Gospel According to St. Luke. MeletoThauma (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Apostle