Talk:Paul the Apostle/Archive 1

message: Two questions: 1. Why no references to show where the information in the article came from, only the alternative view section gives a reference? 2. Why such a short talk page for such a long article? ChessPlayer 02:34, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Judging from the history, this article is a homegrown product of Wikipedia. References are sprinkled here and there, supporting various points.  Some major portions bear the marks of Stephen Carlson, a particularly good Wikipedian, writing mostly on religious topics, and an expert on NT textual criticism. For the last question, in my experience talk pages grow longer only when an article is in trouble, especially when some individual is pushing his personal version of "neutrality". Mkmcconn — 06:06, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  It would seem an odd state of affairs that anybody could do that, as others could simply direct such a person to Neutral Point of View, and quote to them where what they say in their private interpretation is in conflict with what is said on the NPOV page, using direct quotes if need be. No, I don't think that explains the shortness of the talk page at all. In my experience, what can quickly expand the size of a talk page, is when instead of keeping to a discussion of the article and related issues, people start slipping in personal attacks, veiled or otherwise. ChessPlayer 07:45, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just in case you say this here because you suspect me of a veiled criticism, I am innocent!  I am honestly reporting my experience and opinion that, a busy edit history, producing a long article and a short talk, is the sign of vigorous wikihealth - well-commented and supported edits don't need a lot of chat to straighten them out. Mkmcconn — 19:40, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two Questions 

message: His conversion may have been famous enough that he felt no need to describe it explicitly. - This statement is a common apologetic, a standard theological speculation by those who are trying to build a case to explain why Paul doesn't describe his conversion. As it argues a POV, the article is wrong in stating it like this. Correct would be citing a representative theologian who believes it, and attributing the view to him. The article is taking on a biased tone by incorporating statements like this into a smoothly flowing text. ChessPlayer 06:35, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul's conversion 

message: From section "His social views that became part of Christian doctrine"
Second paragraph, second sentence:
"Some of his other dictums included advice to his contemporaries not to marry in the expectation of the near return of Jesus and the Apocalypse; permission to marry, or at least to stay married to, an unbeliever..."
Is this a typo? Not to marry in the expectation of the near return of Jesus and the Apocalypse? Not to convert?
Just wondering,
Confused passer-by
:Not a typo, but definitely a matter of contention, and the article should probably be revised for NPOV.
:First of all, one Christian position is that the entire doctrine of Christianity preexisted Paul, although most people (probably even most believers) reject that.  Under this view, though, Paul's personal views never became a part of Christianity ... these things were all God-inspired.
:Second, as for "Not to marry in the expectation of the near return of Jesus and the Apocalypse" the relevent text is I Corinthians 7, which should probably be read in its entirety.  Here Paul advises against marriage, while repeatedly saying (over and over again, to make sure there is no confusion) that he is giving his own opinion, and not a command of the Lord.  (These passages are, in fact, often lifted from their context to make a case that Paul was always giving his own opinion and never a command of the Lord, but Paul contradicts that view in I Corinthians 14:37.)  Thus, he wanted it to be perfectly clear that marriage was allowed but might not be advisable.  He says this is "in view of the present distress," and interpretation of that phrase is the key.  Some believe the first century Christians expected an imminent return of Christ, so that is where the interpretation in the article comes from.  Others believe this refers to persecution of Jews and Christians related to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. and also growing strong again toward the end of the century.  Still others believe this refers to the distress of persecution and living a "not of this world" Christian life and refers to all time.
:As for what you interpreted as "Not to convert?" I think you've misinterpreted what the article said, and I think the article has possibly misinterpreted what Paul said.  The relevant passage is again in I Corinthians 7: verses 12 through 16.  Here the commandment given is that if a Christian is married to an unbeliever they are not to divorce that unbeliever (though if the unbeliever insists on a divorce the Christian is to allow it).  Many interpret this as permission to marry outside of the church, but that is certainly not explicitly stated in the text, and many believe other passages of Paul teach against marriage to unbelievers.  The only thing that can be stated definitively is that this passage applies at least to those who were married before their conversion whose spouses have not converted, and possibly to those who have married outside the church since becoming Christians.
:Permission (commandment, actually; the article should perhaps be reworded) to stay married to an unbeliever does not at all amount to saying the unbeliever should not convert or that conversion of that spouse is unimportant.  In fact, conversion of the spouse is one reason the Christian is commanded to stay married to the unbeliever; see verse 16, where the question is asked, "How do you know whether or not you will be able to save (by conversion) your spouse?" Jdavidb 15:23, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  His social views that became part of Christian doctrine 

message: In the "Life" section, I've added some quotes from Acts 15 and Galatians 2 about the Apostolic Council, as this part of the article was comparing the points of view expressed in these sources and I did not feel that this was being done from a NPOV. What was there beforehand said that the two accounts "vary considerably" and stated a couple of things that weren't in the original sources to justify this (Paul saying he'd attended on his own initiative, and reference to excommunication).
I've not had much practice at writing from a NPOV myself though, so feel free to comment / edit / flame.
I also added a bit after that about Paul's disagreement with Barnabus, which was quite an important personal event in his life that led to where he went on missionary journeys and had not been covered at all in the article.
Apologies for not doing the edits from a user account (I was 82.152.147.32) - I've sorted one out now. I didn't know about edit summaries at the time (newbie missed the box, d'oh) so more apologies for not including one.
Ua heth 13:01, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apostolic Council. 

message: These two years were added by an anon  with no reference.  I'm removing them as I can't find any source to back them up. anthony 警告 00:15, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Birth and death years?

message: I have been on the ebionite website and they state that they believe that Paul was a fraud and an opportunist who usurped the teachings of Jesus and that the anti-christ in revelations was Paul in his position as an agent of Rome. In both the religious and imperial sense. What say you?--Tomtom 18:53, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out John Dominic Crossan's new book In Search of Paul for a recent, more conciliatory view.  --Blainster 20:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-Christ

message: I believe recent computer analysis of word frequency and patterns in the epistles has come to the conclusion that he only wrote the first 4 epistles, regarded as his major ones, plus probably Hebrews.  The others are all by different authors, except the the 2 to Thessalonians are by the same author, as are the 2 to Timothy.  This view at least deserves a mention.  A very small number of theologians did already hold this view. PatGallacher
Response:  I am somewhat familiar with this, but not enough to write about it in a cogent fashion.  I would recommend that this information be included in Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles.  I will be inserting a reference to this article in the appropriate section shortly.--Midnite Critic 05:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Computer Analysis

message: The reason why I changed the above is because I had read: List_of_common_misspellings_in_English. 
I'll revert your changes for now. If you have a problem with that, please let me know first. Thanks, Ian Cairns 23:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Supercede -> Supersede

message: For qn article like this, is is paramount that we keep all terminology as NPOV as possible.
User Dougdelt has just now added as section with "new" information on the subject of whether or not Paul announced the abrogation of Mosaic Law.  This is a highly controversial point; indeed, most of the article as it stood beforehand already addressed this very difficult point in as factual and NPOV a manner as possible, without appearing to endorse either POV in this controversy.
The new section starts out:
"The weight of the evidence proves Paul announced the abrogation of the Law of Moses."
It then goes on to say "Some Christians claim... others claim... " and then continues with language like : "However, neither view fits the corpus of Paul's works"... 
I'm sorry, but this new section does not strike me as being written from a neutral point of view.  If it were at all true or correct that the "weight of the evidence" proved one thing or another, ther would be no controversy.  The very fact that it is unclear and subject to varying interpretation, is precise;y why we have such a controversy.  This is an encyclopaedia, not a soap-box, or a place to impose one POV over another.  Any sections that address this controversy (as most of the existing sections of this very lengthy article already do, from every conceivable angle) need to be written from a neutral point of view, and not summarily declare that one side or the other is "correct".  Especially on theological matters.  Therefore, if this new pov content is not re-written from a more neutral standpoint, it will have to be deleted.  Codex Sinaiticus 12:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're absolutely right.  So I took it out.  There might be some good contributions in there, but someone needs to rewrite them to make them NPOV. Jdavidb 13:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keeping it NPOV 

message: There is an image of a statue of Saint Paul at :Image:StMarysAylesburyDetail2.jpg that I took yesterday: the statue is one of two on the south door of St Marys Church in Aylesbury.  I don't know whether you would want this included in the article or not: personally I think the article could do with another image but don't know where is best to place it. -- Francs2000  13:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks great, good pic!  But can you (or someone) zoom in on the statue a little bit? This can easily be done by "cropping out" the surrounding photo.  As it is, unless we make the photo quite huge, it will be hard to make out any detail of the representation.  I'd crop it myself, but don't trust myself to do it properly.  Cheers, Codex Sinaiticus 13:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What about this one: :Image:StMarysAylesburyDetail5.jpg.  -- Francs2000  16:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New image

message: St Paul was listed under "Deaths" on both the articles 64 AD and 67 AD. I'm assuming the latter is correct, as that's the one that's on this article, so I've removed him from 64. sjorford #£@%&$?! 15:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year of death 

message: Since St. Paul redirects to Saint Paul (disambiguation) and since that article already has many St. Paul's on it, does it seem proper to merge St. Paul's (disambiguation) and redirect to there? Zhatt 17:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a bad idea - I may do it myself shortly. sjorford #£@%&$?! 12:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: May I ask for references about the identification of Paul's brother, Rufus, with Pudens? If these references are those in Rufus Pudens Pudentianna article, could we remove that part from Paul's early life?--Panairjdde 15:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rufus/Pudens 

message: venerated as a saint ... some Lutheran sects ...   Does anyone have references for this?  also veneration should be a link, i'll fix it. Srl 19:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lutheran veneration? 

message: * It is conceivable that the Jewish Kingdom of Heaven would have been ushered in immediately at that point, and all of mankind's history since then would have been abolished and avoided, including the Jewish people's long wanderings, persecution and Diaspora, and also the Holocaust could have been avoided. 129.24.93.219 17:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Baloney, it is not conceivable in the least, in fact, it is quite inconceivable.
Jesus was appointed to die for the sins of man. It was predestined by God to happen that way,
at that predetermined time and that specific way for God's intended reason. Silly question to ask.--ARNO 02:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What Would Have Happened if The Jews Had Accepted Their Own Jewish Messiah, [[Yeshua]] (Jesus, in around 33 A.D.)?

message: No mention in the article of the theory that Paul was Gay, eg as described by Bishop Spong in the book, Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism: A Bishop Rethinks the Meaning of Scripture  , which explains Paul's Thorn in the flesh, as well as his attitudes to women, as well as his conflicted attitude to Jewish law.  User:USER
I'm against mentioning it, simply because there are zillions of theories about Paul which are not worth mentioning here.  Bishop Spong's position is hardly mainstream, and seems to be as much for shock value in the current debate over homosexuality in the Anglican church as it is serious scholarship.  Demmeis 20:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Spong's hypothesis is mere supposition. It is one thing to neutrally discuss different views of facts, it is quite another to recount every unsupported theory.  The subject might be appropriate to a bio on Spong himself, but not here.  Including such material would necessarily require setting forth the substantial evidence that refutes Spong's suppositions.  For one, there is a consensus today that the "misogynist" statements about women attributed to Paul were most likely not wirtten by Paul, but originated after his death. --Rehnquist 23:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was Paul Gay? 

message: I have just added a new section to Judaism and Christianity on "love."  It is just a stub of a section, hopefully others will add more about the Jewish notion.  But I know that my characterization of the Christian notion is at best wildly incomplete.  Perhaps among the contributors to this page there are some who could go over it and add whatever additional material, detail, nuance, explanation they think necessary. I am very concerned about not misrepresenting, or doing justice to, the Christian point of view. I also added a long quote from Maimonides to the section on Heaven and Hell; in fact, I did a rewrite a week or two ago.  I know the Jewish position is well-represented but again I am concerned that in the process the Christian view may appear misrepresented or at least underrepresented.  So, I'd be grateful if someone checked and made sure the Christian view(s) are accurately and sufficiently represented. Thanks, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  favor? 

message: Who is "A. Victor Gardatta" and why should I care about his opinion?--Midnite Critic 20:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can’t find any information on A. Victor Garaffa apart from his articles at comparative-religion.com, nor can I find any references to Garaffa's credentials or publications. Therefore, I'm removing the "Paul as userper" section as original research. (Note: The section in question was added by  on June 24, 2004 . —Wayward Talk 08:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Paul as usurper" 

message: title of "Apostle" post-conversion. See Galatians. -- GUÐSÞEGN
:::Note: Actually "of Tarsus" was never used as a surname, but a posthumous appellation, used almost font> – UTEX – 23:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul of Tarsus? ''no'' ... Paul the Apostle 

message: I noticed that during Peer review there was a request  1) You have cited and quoted from the Bible, so it would be good to note what version you are using and add it as a reference I also have the same request. Gnangarra
:Image:Paul of Tarsus.jpg this image has an obsolete copyright tag, not enough to prevent GA but still needs to be addressed. Gnangarra
:Image:PaulT.jpg this image claims PD-OLD but there no source information available. Gnangarra
(c. 3 – c. 67) is  these dates can we assume 3AD to 67 AD or is that 3BC to 67AD Gnangarra
The lead makes a good stand alone article, it should be a summary see WP:Lead. second para says  Paul is venerated as a Saint by all the churches that honor them, including those of the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglican traditions, and some Lutheran sects using  Paul is venerated as a saint by all the churches that honor them. is sufficient to convey the same message within a summary.  This sentence about names in honour should be in a section near the end of the article not in the summary  He is the "patron saint" of Malta, the City of London and has also had several cities named in his honor, including São Paulo, Brazil, and Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA. Gnangarra
Also in reading the use of Some believe and Some commentators read as Weasel words use cites to avoid this.  When presenting Alternative views suggest that consistance in format be developed and use. Maybe use a format of one source and then state the alternatives seperately.
ie
*Marriage
**Alternative view 1
**Alternative view 2
Gnangarra 14:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the more i read the greater I see a need for Daughter articles as well. Gnangarra
=== Offer ===
I'm reluctant to offer further critisms, I have highlighted the first instance of issues only, all have repetitions. On the wikiproject for Saints I have suggested that this article needs a collaborative effort as the burden of a major copy edit shouldn't rest with one or two individuals. 
I am willing review this article again at anytime in the future please leave a request on my talk page. Gnangarra 14:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA review status 

message: I'm reluctant to offer further critisms, I have highlighted the first instance of issues only, all have repetitions. On the wikiproject for Saints I have suggested that this article needs a collaborative effort as the burden of a major copy edit shouldn't rest with one or two individuals. 
I am willing review this article again at anytime in the future please leave a request on my talk page. Gnangarra 14:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Offer 

message: Augustus never had the title "Son of God", rather the proper translation is "son of a god".  This is based on the Roman pagan understanding of the gods and their philosophical relationship with one another, and with the metaphysical organizational superstructure of the universe.  "Son of God" would have been very out of character for Augustus' political maneuvering, would make little sense, and does not accurately portray his title which rather labeled him as son of the divine Julius Caesar (who was a god, not God).
I fiexed this Lostcaesar 23:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are written the same, but certainly the sense is different.  That was the point of my comments.  English articles ought to properly render the correct sense of Augustus's title, which is "son of a god".Lostcaesar 22:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Augustus 

message: I removed this line: "Paul taught that women were not to cut their hair (1 Cor 11)".  1 Cor 11 says "In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman."  Nothing about hair.  1 Cor 6 says a woman ought to cover her head if it is a disgrace for her to have all her hair cut / shaved off.  1 Cor 15 says a woman ought to have long hair (not the same as "not cutting" one's hair - my wife has long hair and I still pay for the hair cuts, so I know).  Lostcaesar 13:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revmoal 

message: The manual of style says specifically that AD/CE is only required if there is a range of dates that starts in BC/BCE. We don't say "AD 2006". And the wikipedia guideline clearly states this. THis is not the place to change that. Perhaps this needs to be discussed on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) so that the whole cite changes, instead of changing this one article. However, as it stands, this article needs to be formatted acordingly. --Andrew c 00:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See also Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Interpretation, a discussion on this very matter.--151.47.119.2 00:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Where in MoS is written that it is allowed in cases like AD 9. Where is this consensus, and why did it not change the MoS accordingly?--151.47.119.2 00:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the guideline nowhere states that AD is "allowed" in this case. Furthermore, the date is wikilinked for anyone who is confused. The reason I want to remove any unnecessary or redundent ADs or CEs is to avoid edit wars concerning which dating format should be used. Ideally, I would like to see the dating format as a user preference that each individual could change how it displays on their computer. But in lieu of that, getting rid of these redundent ADs and CEs works for me.--Andrew c 00:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Over the past few days my watchlist has been flooded with this edit war between AD/CE and “”.  Why is this minor difference such a passionate issue?  I would understand if it were between AD and CE (I have a rather passionate position concerning this myself), but the current argument just strikes me as overly trivial. Lostcaesar 09:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone think seeing 9 is any worse than seeing 9 AD/CE?? Yes, actually. The sidebar currently says that Paul was born c. 9 January, which look slike his birthday, not the year of this birth. I strongly approve of the convention that either AD or CE or both should be used for dates between AD 1 and AD 999, to make it clear that the year is being referred to. Myopic Bookworm 13:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there is no source for the "January" so it can probably be removed. In fact, searching the Oxford Reference Online, they don't list a birth year, and list the death at "c. 64". and on a different article give the range of "62 and 68" (hmm.. and even Oxford doesn't list AD or CE with these years). Britannica online says "born AD 10?... died 67?," Encarta has "circa ad 3-62". I don't know where the January came from. Maybe we should give a range of dates, like they do for Jesus. And maybe we shouldn't wikilink the exact years, but instead 0s and 60s instead resulting in 3-10 — 62-68? --Andrew c 15:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't recall reading that, though I do recall reading: "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change."  (the article did say that years should be linked, but I don't recall reading that this entailed dropping the BC/AD notation)  So, though I am admittedly dispassionate about the matter, I must say that I disagree with this analysis based on my recollection. Lostcaesar 18:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely. Changing between AD to CE or vice versa is against policy. I did not change the era format. What I did was remove the era for positive years. Here is the guideline: Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Anno Domini/Common Era, but when events span the start of the Anno Domini/Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range. For years in AD/CE, use plain numbers. Only add the era for ranges of dates that start in BC/BCE. Right? However, some people interpret the word "normally" differently than I. This is causing debate on the wikipedia talk page, and may lead to a guideline change in the future. But until that happens, I feel like my removing of AD from this article was fine according to the stated guidelines, but other editors disagree and reverted me. That said, I'm over that, and I would like to discuss the actual years included in this article (and I'm asking for a source regarding the month of Paul's birth). --Andrew c 18:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, well, I see – I wasn’t trying to get into a “who started it” sort of thing.  My only real objection is that, if we are to use the AD dating system, then we should use it right and put the AD before the number.  Oh, and I too would like refine the dates to be accurate (or ambiguous if we do not know). Lostcaesar 18:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manual of Style and dates