Talk:Pauline Christianity

message: It may be useful to distinguish between a Paulinism that considers Paul the only authority to the exclusion of all others (Marcion) and a more inclusive Paulinism that considers Paul as the ultimate but not only authority.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.197 (talk) 13:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exclusive and Inclusive Paulinism 

message: Italic textTo which Epiphanius does the article refer? The link goes to a disambiguation page. Wesley 06:29, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Epiphanius of Salamis. I substituted the actual quote from Panarion for the rehash that was in the article. ("Cite Sources" they're telling us.) --Wetman 08:56, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: The "Cite Sources" is a request for a proper footnote.  I'm unfamiliar with Panarion with out a foot note, I can not find the published source --cjorden 04:36, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: By "anachronism" I mean that no one in the first two centuries was calling it "Pauline Christianity." Sure the term is widely used today, but it wasn't at the time. That's what "not used by contemporaries" means.  Wesley 04:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I've linked some of these phrases. There should be suitable entries for all of them. Nicene Christianity is currently a redirect; it needs its own article, then. I've revised the text to accord with our anonymous critic. How is it now?--Wetman 06:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epiphanius 

message: This article should include a section on the new perspective on Paul: http://www.thepaulpage.com  [unknown]
and/or a section on an even newer perspective on Paul: http://prayer_child.tripod.com/paul.html
which author can provide further original research such as the connection between Paul starting
the church in Rome which became the primary focus of Rev. 17:5 and her daughters born during the
great Reformation and since, showing the Pauline church is all we know as Christian churches.
The great need is discovering the original intention Jesus had for church which Paul
prostituted by teaching in Romans it's a duty to donate.  The avenues available are to either 
do as the Gospel says and preach the gospel to the world (without epistles) or to analyze every 
statement of Paul to discover and reject everywhere it dumbs down Jesus' truth to half truth
or less like contradicting Jesus saying you cannot serve God and mammon with his duty in Romans.  [Kirk Fraser]
I am not sure what is being said here, except that it presumes a knowledge of Jesus's intentions and insights which need to be ventilated before being inserted. Our new editor may have insights denied the rest of us but as non-published authors we all have to cite our sources. Roger Arguile 19:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Perspective on Paul

message: I am sure that if we all pull together we can bring this article round in accordance with the POV of User:Str1977. Surely a reapplied POV tag will not be necessary in this case. What may we do further to satisfy Str1977's POV? --Wetman 01:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: I removed this text here: Other critics point out that the expression, like most historical designations, is an anachronism, not used by Paul's contemporaries even though the term is alive and well in modern Christianity as shown in the references.  By the same accounting we would be forbidden to discuss Gnosticism, wouldn't we?  Notice the non-attributive "other critics". This is very poor. --Wetman 13:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Specious pleading

message: Matthew VERSE 55 is commonly interpreted as follows: "His brethren... These were the children of Mary the wife of Cleophas, sister to our Blessed Lady, (Matthew 27:56; John 19:25), and therefore, according to the usual style of the Scripture, they were called brethren, that is, near relations to our Saviour." as quoted from: http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat013.htm. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.11.174.232 (talk • contribs) .
:Where text sources are available they are preferred at Wikipedia to interpretations presented by any particular ideology.   --Wetman 04:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not an issue of ideology, rather its one of translation.  Asking what a certain word (adelphos) means in a certain text based on its context is a translation issue.  It should be handed as such.  Personally I think the evidence is very much in favor of "brethren". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.5.230.181 (talk • contribs) .
James is commonly refered to as the "brother of the Lord". It would be an absurd form of censorship to delete that. Yes, it is debated as to exactly what kind of brother he was (note English "brother" is also somewhat vague) and this should be discussed in the article or in the article on James, but to censor "brother of the Lord" is pov censorship run amuck.64.169.3.56 20:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text should not refer to James as Jesus's Brother 

message: Surely we can resolve to use one version of The Bible to quote from. Mainly it seems to be from the NKJV elsewhere but if there is a good reason for other version use then please at least just pick one and stick with it. Zarboki 14:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple Editions of The Bible 

message: From the intro:
:Paul wrote the bulk of the letters in the New Testament, being its second most prolific contributor.
Hm? Who was the most prolific contributor? — goethean ॐ 17:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prolific 

message: One of the difficulties of making any assertions about the Ebionites is that we know about them mostly by their opponents. The article contains a reference to Ireanaeus already. Epiphanius of Salamis is far too late to be of much use in making judgements about the relationship with Paul, who after all, died before the end of the first century. But the main trouble with the insertion by 'Solascriptura' is that is was in the wrong place. The section is about the characteristics of 'Pauline Christianity', a concept which is notoriously hard to define. I am sorry to have removed the material on Paul's poor old testament scholariship; but that is a huge issue. His use of the psalms could be faulted too. However, that is not at issue. Matthew's use of the OT raises many issues. The questions are whether Paul's interpretation of the gospel has led us astray from the teaching of Jesus and whether, having deduced what  Paul's ideas are, there are criticisms either theological or moral or political etc. which can be made of them on whatever grounds. The failures , which are many, of the Palo Heights group in trying to produce an evangelically acceptable translation of the bible, are another issue entirely. May I suggest you throw out your copy and buy something like the NRSV --or read the Greek (!). Roger Arguile 08:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ebionites

message: I have shortened the material about Wilson. His view that St. Paul created the eucharist is a helpful insertion - though he is not the first or the most cogent proponent of this argument. Contrary to the previous editor's contention some of the text had become somewhat opaque. I have attempted to clarify it but more work is needed for someone who has time. I shall attempt to find a better source for the Eucharist argument. Likewise justification by faith sits somewhat uneasily with some of the gospel passages and I think that needs some elaboration. Roger Arguile 12:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AN Wilson

message: I've removed the following text twice now - please don't reinstate it without first discussing here.
Two facts are central; Paul was not a contemporary of Jesus; he never met the incarnate Jesus in person, (leaving aside his converting vision on the road to Damascus), and his awareness of the faith was based on his conversion and his later meeting those who conveyed to him some of the oral tradition of Jesus's life and earthly ministry. Jesus wrote no known books himself.
# "Two facts are central" - that's a blatant breach of WP:NPOV.
# "Paul was not a contemporary of Jesus" - that's debatable, depending on one's interpretation of the Damascus Road experience.  Since it's down to individual point of view, and doesn't have an relevance to the characteristics of Pauline Christianity, it has no place in this section
# "he never met the incarnate Jesus in person, (leaving aside his converting vision on the road to Damascus)" - while there's no evidence to say Paul did meet Jesus, there's equally no evidence to say he didn't.  Wikipedia policy is to keep to verifiable facts; this is pure speculation.
# "and his awareness of the faith was based on his conversion and his later meeting those who conveyed to him some of the oral tradition of Jesus's life and earthly ministry." - patently untrue.  Before his conversion, Paul (Saul) knew a great deal about Christian beliefs and was active in persecuting the young church.  How could he persecute a group of people he knew nothing about?
# "Jesus wrote no known books himself." - again, not a characteristic of Pauline Christianity so does not belong in this section.
Waggers 10:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're correct overall. Regarding whether Paul was a contemporary, remember that just means that Paul and Jesus were both alive at about the same time, regardless of whether they ever met. Given that Paul's epistles generally predate the Gospels, that both Paul and the book of Acts record him meeting a number of Jesus' disciples, and Peter's epistle mentioning that Paul's are hard to understand, the internal evidence of the New Testament is that they were contemporaries. To have them not be would require a lot of creative dating, disputing of authorship of several NT books, etc. Wesley 16:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I removed all but the intro to this section. What remains seems to be a straightforward introduction to the subsections, which unlike the  bits I removed, seem to be well referenced and attributed to various writers. Does this sufficiently address the concerns with this section to warrant removing the NPOV tag from it? Wesley 16:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job, I've removed the tag. Waggers 21:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Sure. When an article is documenting a set of opinions, it needs to attribute those opinions either to a broad group or to specific writers or other sources. The bits I deleted seemed to be espousing those opinions rather than documenting them. Wesley 16:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characteristics section 

message: In addition to the above, the rest of the section needs rewriting (or removing) too.  "The characteristics of "Pauline Christianity" can best be deduced by..." - this implies that there are other methods of deducing the characteristics and the opinion of Wikipedia is that this method is best.  But Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and not have any such opinion.  The section goes on in much the same vein - it's written like an essay, full of opinion and argument, all of which should be removed, leaving the bare facts and nothing else. Waggers 10:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're correct overall. Regarding whether Paul was a contemporary, remember that just means that Paul and Jesus were both alive at about the same time, regardless of whether they ever met. Given that Paul's epistles generally predate the Gospels, that both Paul and the book of Acts record him meeting a number of Jesus' disciples, and Peter's epistle mentioning that Paul's are hard to understand, the internal evidence of the New Testament is that they were contemporaries. To have them not be would require a lot of creative dating, disputing of authorship of several NT books, etc. Wesley 16:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I removed all but the intro to this section. What remains seems to be a straightforward introduction to the subsections, which unlike the  bits I removed, seem to be well referenced and attributed to various writers. Does this sufficiently address the concerns with this section to warrant removing the NPOV tag from it? Wesley 16:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job, I've removed the tag. Waggers 21:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Sure. When an article is documenting a set of opinions, it needs to attribute those opinions either to a broad group or to specific writers or other sources. The bits I deleted seemed to be espousing those opinions rather than documenting them. Wesley 16:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: A tag has been applied to this article questioning its neutrality.  I initially reverted attempts to delete it, arguing that disputed tags should not be summarily removed without discussion.  However, it's also the case that an editor applying such a tag should be prepared to initiate or participate in discussion.  The disputed tag has been sitting there for over a week now without discussion.  That is unacceptable.  Tags should not be applied to articles, like a dog visiting a fire hydrant, to mark territory.  Therefore, I am removing the tag. Ovadyah 16:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. --Michael C. Price talk 19:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: About disputed tags

message: The article currently says: Pauline Christianity, as an expression, first came into use in the twentieth century amongst those scholars who proposed different strands of thought within Early Christianity, wherein Paul was a powerful influence.
But weren't those proposals a major part of 19th-century Biblical scholarship, especially the Tübingen school? --Delirium (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  19th/20th century 

message: Could we bring something in about Pauline mysticism, and would you kindly also contribute to align the Pauline mysticism article to this article. (Yessy543 (talk) 04:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Paul's mysticism

message: IIRC, the idea thet Christian doctrine evolved in stages, among them "Pauline Christianity", was condemned in Lamantabili. Should this be included in the article? 69.125.239.31 (talk) 17:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Lamentabili

message: The lead is historically confused. F.ex.:
:Others[who?] perceive in Paul's writings, teachings that are different from the original teachings of Jesus documented in the canonical gospels,
Yes, there are such "others", but this is mostly a modern opinion, vindicated by f.ex. Thomas Jefferson (the president), and voices who want to distinguish between Judaic Christianity and Pagan Christianity. On the other hand:
:Proponents of the perceived, distinctive Pauline form of Christianity, include Marcion of Sinope, the 2nd century theologian and excommunicated heresiarch,
is quite off-topic from the modern debate. What Marcion of Sinope did, was to discard all the Gospels, the Acts and most of the epistles, except some of those currently attributed to Paul. Then he declared the Yahveh of the Bible being Satan and Jesus being the sole God. That's not in any way related to the modern debate of Pauline "versus" Judaic Christianity, which is a mere discussion about influences and intended public. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 12:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and removed the references to Marcion, Ebionites and Gnostics from the lede as they were irrelevant - those two paragraphs were vaguely worded, "Reference is made to the large number of non-canonical texts...which show the many movements and strands of thought emanating from Jesus' life and teaching or which may be contemporary with them, some of which can be contrasted with Paul's thought" and showed confused attitudes towards Paul and Gnosticism - Epinoia (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: I wasn't sure either about this. There are several problems, though, I think:
* Gramsci is only being mentioned in the lead, not in the article; that's undue, and not in line wiht WP:LEAD;
* The phrase  indicates that an argument is being built; who's argument? And why in the lead, and not in the article? How relevant is this piece of information?
How much weight does Tolstoy have in Bible scholarship? 
The whole section "As a pejorative term" seems undue to me; it's a long argument against the view that Paul changed Christianity from Jewish Christianity to Gentile Christianity. Take, for example (emphasis mine):
*  - "still"? "Canvassed"? That's not a neural term;
* } - ?
*  - this idea is hardly described, but strongly rejected. There is a lack of balance in this regard; "the idea that Paul invented Christianity" should be properly described.
Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marxism and Christian Anarchism 

message: I've re-ordered the info, and added info from :Salvation in Christianity and Apostolic Age. I have also removed some unsourced info which was tagged. I hope this makes the article more comprehensible. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-structuring