Talk:Paul the Apostle/Archive 7

message: I've added a lot of  and other notices where references are most urgently needed.  Please don't remove them without addressing the underliying problems.  I've made a start (with some great help from Riferimento) on providing sources.  I hope they are helpful.  Grover cleveland 03:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great work both of you, much needed! WikiMasterCreator 03:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding citations (to secondary sources)

message: The recent edits to this section strike me as jarring, as they introduce a theological controversy over the circumcision of Timothy, where the rest of the related sections read like a historical account.  I suggest that issues surrounding Paul's complicated relationship with the Law be handled in the section 'Relationship with Judaism' Tiki2099 12:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the information has been relocated to the proper section. WikiMasterCreator 19:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits to "Second missionary journey" 

message: Isn't
(שאול התרסי in Hebrew), 
pronounced as: Shawul HaTars ? (not sure about last word) and not : St. Paul ? 
We all know that Saul ( שאול ) was the name of St. Paul before his name was changed to Paul, but surely there's a hebrew alternative to Paul.
My hebrew is HE-0 , but i can pronounce the letters.
Regards
--Lord Anubis 14:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, the reason I assume is the article was renamed but no one bothered checking the Hebrew! Anyway, why not just delete it: I suggest that the Hebrew is not relevant, since Paul wrote in Greek. Peter Ballard 12:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Why is the Hebrew but not the Greek given, Παῦλος? I see that the article name is contentious and so I don't want to just jump in here.  「ѕʀʟ·✎」 19:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really think the name is an issue anymore; I haven't seen discussion concerning it since I'd been watching the page. I think you should go ahead and add that if you can incorporate it.--C.Logan 19:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the analysis. Will do. 「ѕʀʟ·✎」 20:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I've added it to the top with citation. grc ≠ koine exactly I suppose. I'll watch this space to see if any issues arise. 「ѕʀʟ·✎」 21:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hebrew Translation 

message: Hello everyone, I've been away for awhile. The article is looking better than ever, congratulations to everyone for their hard work and diligence, it definitely shows! I think what this article is most in need of at this time is a "citation expert"; to get those taken care of, to clean things up, especially in the later sections. I also think a good picture in the "Arrest and Death" section would be an important addition. Other than that, and a few little tweaks here and there, I think the article will be ready for re-submission for review as a Wikipedia:Good articles candidate. What do you think? WikiMasterCreator 06:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the "later sections" were written by User:Roger Arguile. It would be nice if he would document his claims or kindly delete them if they are merely Original Research. 64.149.83.133 19:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Status 

message: In the introduction, I've altered the passage on authorship to make it more objective (not assuming authorship of Paul).Topologyrob 03:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pauline authorship 

message: Hi,
I attempted to remove what I view as a nightmarish fantasy from this article. That being Paul's martyrdom. How do I go about doing so? A source written 600 years later can surely not be reliable? Even one written 200-300 years later seems feeble to me.
Clement??? Where does Philippians mention guards? Sounds to me like Paul was having a nice time in Rome, hobnobbing with Caesar's household. Those other views are neither clear nor reasonable to me.
I'm left with Luke. Yes, Paul is under guard, but he lives in his own rented house (sounds very unRoman to let an enemy-of-the-state live in comfort by the way). Now why does Luke say so much about Paul speaking to the Jews (who aren't even angered by Paul's words), but nothing about his treatment at the hands of the Romans??? Two years Paul spends in peace and serenity as far as I can tell from Luke. And then? Martyrdom? Luke doesn't bother telling us??? Come On!!! Where's Luke's publisher?
Will someone please help me rid the (wiki)world of this nightmarish fantasy-view of the world. Let's replace it with REALITY. You know, the kinda stuff people are likely to encounter in their day-to-day real lives.
StephanNaro 22:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NPOV. Let's remember that just because you don't happen to believe or understand the entirety of the situation concerning Paul's martyrdom, you aren't warranted to change the article to reflect your opinion. Other than that, I'm not really sure where you're trying to go with the above. If you have a source which gives an alternate account, then feel free to bring it to the table.--C.Logan 02:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Luke is NOT a worthwhile source for the purposes of Wikipedia. Wikipedia uses secondary sources (like scholars), not primary sources (like the Bible). See WP:PSTS. The secondary sources are pretty well in agreement that Paul was marytred. You are welcome to disagree and form your own theories (i.e. perform WP:Original Research), but Wikipedia is not the place for that. Peter Ballard 12:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said, Peter Ballard. On a side note, I've read that Luke's silence on the issue was due to the book of Acts being written prior to Paul's martyrdom.--C.Logan 17:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not entirely sure whether your comment is directed at myself or at Peter Ballard, or which parts within it are addressed to either of us. However, it's worth noting that the use of a primary source as a reference is only acceptable in showing what the primary source itself says. It's very tricky to determine when and when not it is acceptable to use such sources. In this particular example, it is only reasonable to state that Acts of the Apostles says nothing on the matter of Paul's death, because that is indisputable. As I've already noted, however, such a note should be included with several secondary sources which relate the lack of information on the subject to be a sign of the time of authorship. In contrast, using your own interpretation of "what the verses say" to formulate your own exegesis is not allowed here. That said, any primary source citations in the article should be individually assessed to note whether or not they violate this rule. Another possibility, which I believe has been discussed here before, is the reservation of a specific section to a plain presentation of the Acts narrative. I'm unsure how this meshes with policy, but as long as it is noted that the purpose of the section is only to show what is said within Biblical sources, and specifically within acts, I for one see less of a problem with this possibility. Then again, I'm not as well-versed in policy as many others are. (By the way, I ran into a few edit conflicts, so this paragraph may be out-dated.)--C.Logan 19:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Or, you know... he simply felt that he had completed his two-part epistle to "Theophilos" at a certain point (for pressing time of because of a satisfaction of the story presented), which was apparently prior to Paul's martyrdom. There's no evidence as to why Luke would betray Paul, but it's an intriguing suggestion.--C.Logan 10:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Martyrdom

message: I agree that biblical references can get messy sometimes inside articles. One editor has just placed them as references which I first wanted to do when I first saw them. However, it has been done "historically" in biblically based articles. It makes the references easier to check. Also, it enourages editors to insert references and reject entries that someone has invented (OR). Thoughts? Student7 17:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Use Template:bibleverse and let the reader decide which translation version to use, for example: . 75.14.216.8 17:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Messy references

message: Intro: " He stressed that his apostolic authority was based on Jesus' appointment of him during that vision. "
I looked through the "vision" descriptions in Corinthians 9:1 and 15:8-9, and could not find support for this.  Can anyone enlighten me as to where Paul specifically makes this claim? Trishm 01:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul becoming an apostle