Talk:Paul the Apostle/Archive 3

message: OK, where the heck did the references to quotes by Nietzsche, Jefferson, etc. go?  It looks like there's been significant revisionism here, the primary focus of which was to delete any reference to controversy.  Will someone who was present during that particular set of edits please explain the justification for removal, or better yet do some reverts to bring the skeptical material back?  Note, these aren't a bunch of unknown cranks we're talking about quoting here (Thomas Jefferson?  Nietzsche?).  And someone please smack the religiously-motivated deletionists around with a couple of thick history books. Mike Ely 20:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the edits of Roger, and I have been an editor of this article for a while.  There are various problems with the material.  First, it was in the lead, and the lead is merely an introduction (summary of material therein contained).  However, Jefferson and Neitzsche were not mentioned in the article.  That is because they are not scholars of St. Paul, and for that reason their opinions seem not very relevant.  I am sure a great many thinkers in history had opinions on Paul, but they are all necessary here.  I would ask you to cite any other encyclopedia that references their opinion in an article on Paul.  Also, Jefferson is problematic because his tought is very complex, generally expressing conflicting views between his public expressions and private writings.  We cannot properly treat Jefferson in the breif intro.  Lostcaesar 00:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate that the comments referenced don't really belong in the intro.  Removing them from the article completely simply because they were not scholars of Paul is excessively limiting - few people would study Paul extensively whose POV does not agree with his, which leads to an inherent bias in available research matter.  I'm not sure what you're getting at in regards to Jefferson, as it seems you're basically saying that a person was complex and had opinions that shifted over time, they're unreliable, regardless of the fact that what I just described fits most people.  I am merely asking that some dissenting thought on the issue of Paul's inclusion in the biblical canon be included in this article.  The fact that Thomas Jefferson excluded Paul's contributions from his bible entirely, and Nietzsche's quote are highly relevant and worthy of contribution. Mike Ely 01:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: PS, please assume good faith on the part of other editors.  Lostcaesar 00:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken Mike Ely 01:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Skeptics Deleted Inappropriately

message: This article keeps being sent my way, but I don't have time to read it. Supposedly it accuses
Paul of hijacking the Jesus Movement, changing Jesus' words, opposed the apostles, and other things. Can anyone vouch for the veracity of the article's specific claims or is this just another crank?
Apparently it's about 100 pages long, and published on numerous places on the 'net, but I thought I'd post it here (apologies if people are familiar with it), in case it has any scholarly merit. Thank you.
The Pauline Conspiracy by Victor Garaffa (no I've never met the guy)
 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.217.192.193 (talk) 20:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pauline Conspiracy: Another Crank?

message: The argument is made that Paul wrote that he was never married. While that it seems likely to be the case, we still cannot be sure from this excerpt: "Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am" (1 Cor 7:8). Just because a person is not married does not mean that person was never married. This should be more fully clarified.
Stevecrozz 03:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unmarried Paul

message: I have archived previous discussions, as it was getting very unwieldy. Follow links at the top of the page. David L Rattigan 09:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archives

message: The content of New Perspective on Paul does not seem to me to merit an article apart, and is already dealt with here, even if not with quite as much detail.  Lima 08:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree. The New Perspective on Paul is a major movement in New Testament scholarship. The article gives far more information than is included here, and has plenty of scope for improvement and expansion. Paul of Tarsus is a long enough article as it is without merging more information into it. David L Rattigan 09:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree with the suggestion to merge.  NPP deserves a separate article. Jim Ellis 13:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I strongly disagree with the suggestion to merge these two articles. Paul of NC 18:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge [[New Perspective on Paul]] here?

message: This section is heavily POV and also smells of original research.  While it is a viewpoint held to by some, it needs to be rewritten in NPOV. 152.23.75.21 21:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed; it looks like someone just put their divinity school paper up on Wikipedia. It should be heavily edited or removed altogether. I haven't read the article closely enough, but perhaps it already says what other sections say. -Patstuart 22:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another View of Paul

message: I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information.  I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list.  Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article.  Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here.  Regards, Durova 18:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cultural depictions of Paul of Tarsus]] 

message: Can somebody fix the main article to explain how, exactly, Jerusalem had sufficient power to extradite Christians from Damascus?  Was Damascus a vassal state at the time, held in subjugation by Jerusalem, somehow?  Weren't both Jerusalem and Damascus equally compelled to render tribute to Rome?  How would either one of them have had enough money left over to pay for the kind of arrests and prosecutions that we are now led to believe were so much more common in Rome a hundred years later, when the likely audiences of Acts were more likely to accept is a reliable, historical account?
Are there any records of Roman provincial governors managing the persecution of Christians in 60 AD?  Are there any payroll ledgers that mention either Saul or Paul working for the governor there?  (Every now and then some archaeological digs yield up payroll and requisitions ledgers.)
In Acts, Saul is said to have made a name for himself in Jerusalem as a notorious persecutor of Christians, and - based on that reputation - somehow obtained certain "letters of credit" with which to effect the extradition of Christians from Damascus to Jerusalem.  This looks like an unsubstantiated claim deserving a citation outside of Acts.  Did Saul have any notoriety at all, either as an upstanding Jew, a Roman man of means, or an intrepid persecutor of the Jews?  Can somebody cite a source (outside of Acts) where Paul was said to have been a successful baiter and persecutor of Christians?  Is the account in Acts the sole source for connecting Paul with Saul?
At least one work, "Saint Saul" by Donald Harman Akenson (Oxford University Press, 2000) argues that the final version of Acts was not circulated until long after an earlier letter to the Galatians was already received.  More importantly, the letter was apparently recovered from where it had been sent, and if it was only fragmentary at that point, reassembled or recompiled by an unnamed devout Christian of the 1st or 2nd century, and copied and passed along, before Acts was even drafted for the first time.  If there are intermediate hands at work, those hands might well have belonged to an heir to Luke's line, if not Luke himself rewriting what he had already written 10 or 15 years earlier.  Akenson sees a conflict between Acts and the Letter to the Galatians, and argues that the Letter to the Galatians had, at least at the start, a measure of chronological priority.
:Jews were generally not roman citizens and thus had no appeal to Roman juridical procedures, instead they were governed by Jewish authorities.  Financially speaking, persecutions are cheap, sometimes even profitable if the persecuted has wealth.  The persecutions in the 60s AD were undertaken by Nero in the city of Rome, and many sources, including Roman historians, attest.  As far as "pay-roll legers", I think you overestimate just what archaeology is capable of.  In ancient history, sources are virtually nil, and our written texts which we have almost always survive in medieval vellum manuscripts in their oldest form.  Sometimes the sands of Egypt yield some papyrus, but we never could expect to find the kind of sources you request.  Our information on Augustus Caesar's imperium is built off some thin sources.  We know almost nothing about his heirs to the throne.  If it were not for Tacitus, we would know almost nothing about the conquest of Britain, &c.  
:The sources for Paul are his own letters and Acts, soemthing we are lukcky to have as nothing exists similar in the case of 99% of people in the Roman world.   There are some apocryphal texts on Paul, but they have no real biographical value. The difference between his comments in Galatians and Luke's description in Acts, which is concerning his conversion, has been known since antiquity and subject to understanding ever since.Lostcaesar 07:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that Damascus and Jerusalem (more or less equal in the eyes of the Romans) reciprocated in the arrests of one another's citizens?  How is this possible?  How could an arrest warrant based on the authority of the elders of Jerusalem be recognized by the elders of Damascus unless the ends to be arrived at, such that they were, were convenient?  I can understand the elders of Damascus nodding affirmatively at a wagon full of exportees, if the exportees were destitute, poor, or villainous in reputation, but I don't see the same thing applying to the wealthier citizens of that city, who had recourse to hirelings and friendly neighbors to prevent that sort of thing from ever happening. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.177.27.23 (talk) 04:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saul's Letters of Credit 

message: I have made a few deletions on the ground that this article no longer distinguishes between the views of serious commentators and both famous people who have no expertise in this area and cranks. It is far too long and lacks any real guidance to the reader as to what are the serious contenders for believability. I fear that, as so often in matters religious, everyone who has an interest thinks that they have a right to a view and to add information. It needs a lot of work to disentangle the wheat from the chaff and to give it some focus Roger Arguile 20:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revision needed

message: I have done some work following the biographical stuff. I am putting it here for people to comment on for two reasons a) I have not finished it b) it is a radical rewrite of the article.
My view is that there is far to much extraneous and eccentric material. We are, after all, giving basic information to those who may not know much about St. Paul but who have access to 
a bible and may want look up scholarly works. What follows is what I have done so far. I hope this may help. If it is thought not too bad or partisan I will put into the text.
"Authorship
Of the fourteen letters attributed to St. Paul, one, Hebrews, was disputed from an early date and is generally not thought to have been written by him. As for the rest, there is no dispute about the authorship of Romans, First Corinthians]], Second Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, First Thessalonians  and Philemon. 
The authenticity of Colossians has been questioned on the grounds that it contains an otherwise unparalleled description (amongst his writings)  of Jesus as ‘the image of the invisible God’,  a Christology found elsewhere only  in St. John’s gospel. Nowhere is there a richer and more exalted estimate of the position of Christ than here. On the other hand, the personal notes in the letter connect it the Philemon, unquestionably the work of Paul. More problematic is Ephesians a very similar letter to Colossians, but which reads more like a manifesto than a letter. It is almost entirely lacking in personal reminiscences. Its style is unique; it lacks the emphasis on the cross to be found in other Pauline writings; as; reference to the Second Coming is missing; and Christian marriage is exalted in a way which contrasts with the grudging reference in 1 Corinthians. Finally it exalts the Church in a way suggestive of a second generation of Christians, ‘built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets’ now past. The defenders of its Pauline authorship argue that it was intended to be read by a number of different churches and that it marks the  
The Pastoral Epistles, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus have likewise been put in question as Pauline works only in modern times. Three main reasons are advanced; first, their difference in vocabulary, style and theology from St. Paul’s acknowledged writings; secondly the difficulty in fitting them into St Paul’s biography as we have it. They, like Colossians and Ephesians, were written from prison but suppose St. Paul’s release and travel thereafter. Finally, the concerns expressed are very much the practical ones as to how a church should function. They are more about maintenance than about mission. 
Views are advanced on the basis of the balance of opinion of scholars, but there is no certainty and some may think that questions of authorship do not affect the authority of the letters.
Two further epistles attributed by some to Paul (since some of the prior epistles mention them) have been lost: Epistle to the Alexandrians (lost), of which nothing is known letter apart from a brief mention in the Muratorian fragment that claims it was a  forgery; the Epistle to the Macedonians  which is lost. 
Paul on Jesus
Little can be deduced about the earthly life of Jesus from St. Paul’s letters. He mentions specifically only the Last Supper (1 Cor. 11:23ff) his death by crucifixion (1 Cor :2:2; Phil. 2:8) and his resurrection (Phil. 2:9) . Instead he concentrates on the nature of the Christian’s relationship with Christ and, in particular, in his saving work. In St. Mark’s gospel, Jesus is recorded as saying that he was to ‘give up his life as a ransom for many’. St. Paul’s account of his idea of a saving act is more fully articulated, albeit  in various places inhis letters, but most notably in his letter to the Romans.
What Christ has achieved for those who believe in him is variously described: as sinners under the law, they are ‘‘justified by his grace as a gift’’; they are ‘‘redeemed’’ by Jesus who was put forward by God as ‘expiation’; they are ‘’reconciled’’ by his death.   The gift (grace) is to be received in faith. (Rom 3:24f; Rom 5: 9).  These three images have different resonances. 
Justification derives from the law courts. Those who are justified are acquitted of an offence. Since the sinner is guilty, he or she can only be acquitted by someone else, Jesus, standing in for them, which has led many Christians to believe in the teaching known as the  substitutionary doctrine of the atonement.  The sinner is, in St. Paul’s words ‘justified by faith’ (Rom. 5:1). ]], that is, by adhering to Christ, the sinner becomes ‘at one’ with Christ in his death and resurrection (hence the word ‘atonement’). Acquittal, however, is achieved not on the grounds that Christ was innocent (though he was) and that we share his innocence but on the grounds of his sacrifice i.e. his crucifixion), i.e. his innocent undergoing of punishment on behalf of  sinners who should have suffered divine retribution for their sins. They deserved to be punished and he took their punishment. They are justified by his death, and now ‘so much more we are saved by him from divine retribution’ (Rom. 5: 9)  
For an understanding of the meaning of faith as that which justified, St. Paul turns to Abraham, who trusted God’s promise that he would be father of many nations. Abraham receded the giving of the law on Mount Sinai. Thus law cannot save us; faith does. Abraham could not, of course, have faith in the living Christ but, in Paul’s view, ‘the gospel was preached to him beforehand’ (Gal. 3:8), which may be interpreted as part of Paul’s belief in the pre-existent Christ. 
Redemption has a different origin, that of the freeing of slaves; it is similar in character as a transaction to the paying of a ransom, (mentioned in St. Mark) though the circumstances are different.  Money was paid in order to set free a slave, one who was in the ownership of another.  Here the price was the costly act of Christ’s death. On the other hand, no price was paid to anyone – St. Paul does not suggest, for instance, that the price be paid to the devil – though this has been suggested by learned writers, ancient and modern, such as Origen and  St. Augustine, as a reversal of the Fall by which the devil gained power over humankind. 
A third expression, reconciliation, is about the making of friends which is, of course, a costly exercise where one has failed or harmed another . The making of peace (Col. 1:20) (Rom 5:9) is another variant of the same theme.  Elsewhere (Eph. 2:14)  he writes of Christ breaking down the dividing wall between Jew and Gentile, which the law constituted. 
As to how a person appropriates this gift, St. Paul writes of a mystical union with Christ through baptism: ‘we who have been baptised into Christ Jesus were baptised into his death (Rom. 6:4). He writes also of our being ‘in Christ Jesus’ and alternately,  of ‘Christ in you, the hope of glory’.  Thus, the objection that one person cannot be punished on behalf of another is met with the idea of the identification of the Christian  with Christ through baptism.
These expressions, some of which are to be found in the course of the same exposition, have been interpreted by some as metaphors for the effects of Christ’s death upon those who followed him. Rather than writing a systematic theology, Paul, on this view, is trying to express something inexpressible. According to Ian Markham, on the other hand, the letter to the Romans, is ‘muddled’. 
But others, ancient and modern, Protestant and Catholic, have sought to elaborate from his writing objective theories of the atonement on which they have, however, disagreed. The doctrine of justification by faith alone was the major source of the division of western Christianity known as the Protestant Reformation which took place in the sixteenth century. Justification by faith was set against salvation by works of the law in this case, the payment of indulgences to the Church and even such good works as the corporal works of mercy. The result of the dispute, which undermined the system of endowed prayers and the doctrine of purgatory,  was the creation of Protestant churches in Western Europe, set against the Roman Catholic Church.  Solifidianism (sola fides), the name often given to these views,  is associated with the works of Martin Luther (1483-1546) and his followers. With went the notion of Christ’s substitutionary atonement for human sin. The doctrine has thus been the focus of some of the ecumenical discussions between the Roman Catholic Church and both Lutheran churches and the Anglican Communion. 
In one letter, that to the Colossians, he describes Jesus as ‘the image of the invisible God’, Col.1:15)  as  rich and  exalted picture of Jesus as can be found anywhere in the New Testament, which is one reason why some doubt its authenticity. On the other hand, in the undisputed Pauline letter to the Philippians, he describes Jesus as ‘in the form of God’ who ‘did not count equality with God as thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men he humbled himself and became obedient to death, even death on a cross…’ 
The Holy Spirit
The new life is the life of the Spirit, as against the life of the flesh, which Spirit is the Spirit of Christ, so that one becomes a son of God. God is our Father and we are fellow heirs of Christ. This Spirit brings together the different members of the church, the Body of Christ, into union as different limbs and organs (1 Corinthians 12) each with its different functions. The Spirit distributes different charismatic gifts of the people of God.  Its fruits are the virtues of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control. (more to come)
Relationship with Judaism
Paul was himself a Jew, but his attitude towards his co-religionists is not entirely easy to fathom. He was very hostile to the practices of circumcision (whose practitioners he called ‘dogs’) and to obedience to the Mosaic Law, and though he may have opposed observance by non-Jews he also opposed Peter for his partial observance.   He  writes that there is neither Jew nor Greek, but Christ in all and in all.. On the other hand in  Acts, as we have seen, he is described as submitting to taking a Nazirite vow, and earlier to having had Timothy circumcised to placate the Jews.
The background to the various arguments is the ongoing dispute over the observance of the law, which, as we have noticed, was with Jews but also with so-called Judaizing Gentile Christians. In Galatians and Philippians, St. Paul is emphatic that the law is of null effect; it only makes men and women aware of their sinfulness. His own sense of relief at discovering that what the law was incapable of doing, the risen Christ had done permeates his letters. The question of whether Christianity was a Jewish sect or a world-wide faith open to everyone is answered pretty emphatically as the latter.
However, considerable disagreement at the time and subsequently has been raised as to the significance of ‘works of the law’. In the same letter in which Paul writes of justification by faith , he says of the Gentiles ‘It is not by hearing the law, but by doing it that men will be justified (same word) by God.’ (Rom. 2:12) Those who think Paul capable of inconsistency have judged him not to be a Solifidianism himself;  the more frequently taken line has been that he is merely demonstrating that both Jews and Gentiles are in the same condition of sin. (more to come: Ed Sanders etc.)
The Resurrection 
The resurrection not only of Christ but of his followers is for St. Paul, the touchstone of faith. ‘If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most miserable’ (1 Cor. 15:19) However, the resurrection body is a spiritual body, not the old body of decay. 
The World to come (parousia etc.)
Christian behaviour 
Paul’s writing is full of pastoral advice. Every letter includes a section on Christian behaviour. His expectation of women is that they should be modest, obedience and silent in church, but he expects the love of husbands to be patterned on Christ’s love for the Church. Otherwise, he suggests that the single life is more appropriate. 
He extols the virtues of compassion, kindness, patience, forgiveness, love, peace, and gratitude (Col 3:1–17) His description of the nature of love is a lyrical classic (1 Cor. 13) . On the other hand he condemns a whole raft of vices: as impurity, lust, greed, anger, slander, filthy language, lying, and racial. He pays particular attention to  sexual immorality, saying, "Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body" This attitude is applied also to homosexuality of which he writes in terms of ‘dishonourable passions… unnatural relations…being consumed with lust’ (Rom.1:26,27)  Some have suggested that this does not refer to stable faithful relationships but that is widely disputed. 
His attitude towards slavery is influenced by his view of the shortness of time until he believes Jesus will return.. Slaves are to serve their masters faithfully. On the other hand, in writing to Philemon about a runaway slave whom he is returning, that as a slave he is useless to Philemon, whereas he should be received as a brother. (Phil 16)" Roger Arguile 09:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:No original research 75.15.204.210 20:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Further Revision

message: Paul of Tarsus was the title of a BBC TV series first broadcast in 1960 and repeated in 1962 in which the actor Patrick Troughton played the title role. DFH 19:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Paul of Tarsus'' - the BBC TV series broadcast in the 1960s 

message: Is it just me or is the timeline in the opposite order from what you would expect? It goes from 80CE to 20CE as you read down, I'd have thought it would be the other way around. --Joey Roe talk/contrib 17:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline 

message: It seems to me that the last two paragraphs of the current article, under "The mythicist position", is composed of bare arguments and assertions, ie. "It takes little rational study to reveal that the conclusions....are preposterous." I'm not sure if it's "original research" or what, but it's not encyclopedic. Snickersnee 10:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsupported Argument 

message: If you don't like the appearance of hypertext in your web browser, blinking, underlined, whatever, change the settings of your browser, don't just casually delete links from the article. Wikipedia is by definition a hypertexted encyclopedia, not a collection of stand alone articles. Thank you. 75.0.1.12 01:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Note to Roger Arguile

message: This is a former good article, it says. I have been trying to improve it. Inserting the 1910 Catholic Encyclopaedia does not achieve this. Nor does it help inserting many links. I undertand the principle of cross referencing quite well.  My point about 'flashing lights' is not merely visual; it is not very scholarly. Putting back extraneous information without much justification doesn't help either. There will be a judgement about what links there should be. I think many of them unnecessary. What helps is not giving people access to the bible in lots of languages but well sourced information. I do believe that your interventions are achieving that. I am inclined to return your edits. Roger Arguile 09:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Note to 75.0.1.12

message: I have responded to a comment earlier that the article was too long by rewriting the above section. I have done so on the basis that the article should be about Paul and what he wrote and only secondarily about what other people have made of him, what disputes there have been and what the Jewish background is. I have also noted that particular doctrines are expounded in relation to particular churches. This does not relativise the doctrines but it is helpful in my view to note that Paul is writing as part of a dialogue not delivering a thesis. I expect what I have done will not satisfy many people who may feel that what I have done is vandalism. My response is that much of the excellent material that appeared before properly belongs in related articles. If I have not offered enough references to justify what I have written I can add to them but the authority for much of what I have done is simply the text of the letters! Roger Arguile 17:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the 1 Cor. 15:29 verse - your addition to the article seems to imply that other people were being baptised for those already dead? Please correct me if I am wrong on this. SparrowsWing 22:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: As per our discussion - until convincing proof provided otherwise - your reference stands as the definitive one. SparrowsWing 22:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Paul's Writings

message: The reference to the aricle on Judaism and Christianity has been deleted I am afraid. I did so because, while the claim of Christianity to be inclusive needed to be qualified, the article J & C sets out to argue a case - for the distance between the two faiths. This is not what an encyclopaedia is for but it seems that, since the case is argued all the way through and no Christian sources are cited in the Reference section, the article is unimprovable. I am very suprised that it has been allowed to stand at all. I am not arguing against the quality of its arguments. I have seen other scholarly contributions which argue the same case. The argument for balance is sometimes overplayed but in this case I cannot see that the article can be sustained at all. I have not touched it; I have insufficient expertise to improve it. I would prefer that it were merged with an article on Judaeo-Christian relations but this would require a huge amount of work and a rather less coloured attitude. Roger Arguile 09:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Christianity and Judaism

message: I think one of the dangers of editing is always that one may not have read the whole article. The point made about the relationship between Christianity and Judaism is that there are many views. I have already questioned the article on that subject, but the reference to the Noahide laws had already been made, as I have made clear. I am trying to edit this article in acccordance with WP guidelines to reduce its length. Duplication does not help this process. I think the point is made under the "Council of Jerusalem", not at the length that some would prefer, no doubt. Finally, can I say that encyclopaedias do not normally refer to other encyclopaedias but to primary sources. This is, I believe a good habit. Those who are not experts in the field may tend to prefer the former as obviating the need to be widely read, but if WP is to achieve credibility, it must refine its articles so that they depend on the best sources. I have had this argument over the Catholic Encyclopaedai (1910!!) and appear to have lost it due to the persistence of those whose mantra is that 'old can be as good as new' which, while true, is not evidence in a particular case. I would urge contributors not to use secondary sources in making their contributions but to rely on the material in hand and the views of reputable scholars. I fear I may lose this argument too. but as with the design of aeroplanes, those qualified are sometimes to be relied on! Roger Arguile 15:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying it is your intention to only selectively follow Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines? 75.15.206.212 21:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Care to clarify your statement above?: "Where its own guidelines are interpreted as offending against widely accepted principles of sound scholarship, it is useless to refer to its rules." I draw your attention to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: "While we try to respect consensus, Wikipedia is not a democracy, and its governance can be inconsistent. Hence there is disagreement between those who believe rules should be explicitly stated and those who feel that written rules are inherently inadequate to cover every possible variation of problematic or disruptive behavior. In either case, a user who acts against the spirit of our written policies may be reprimanded, even if technically no rule has been violated." 75.15.206.212 22:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gladly, over a pint. I am in St. Neots by the church. I could come to you depending on where you live. Roger Arguile 11:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: to 75.0.3.230

message: I am always a little cautious about sources. 68.123.73.93 referred me to WP Policies etc., having quoted selectively from the document. In particular he did not draw to my attention that encyclopedias are regarded as tertiary sources not secondary at all. Doubtless the position of specialist encyclepedias is ambiguous. However, it is worth noting that WP is not, and does not claim to be, a law unto itself. It lives in a world of scholarship. Where its own guidelines are interpreted as offending against widely accepted principles of sound scholarship, it is useless to refer to its rules. In the big wide world, the question is how we can find what it most likely to be true and be relied on. Finally, I repeat that I do not much enjoy communicating with those who do not identify themselves. The world of knowledge is not normally conducted by people wearing Ned Kelly helmets. Roger Arguile 15:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying it is your intention to only selectively follow Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines? 75.15.206.212 21:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Care to clarify your statement above?: "Where its own guidelines are interpreted as offending against widely accepted principles of sound scholarship, it is useless to refer to its rules." I draw your attention to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: "While we try to respect consensus, Wikipedia is not a democracy, and its governance can be inconsistent. Hence there is disagreement between those who believe rules should be explicitly stated and those who feel that written rules are inherently inadequate to cover every possible variation of problematic or disruptive behavior. In either case, a user who acts against the spirit of our written policies may be reprimanded, even if technically no rule has been violated." 75.15.206.212 22:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gladly, over a pint. I am in St. Neots by the church. I could come to you depending on where you live. Roger Arguile 11:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 68.123.73.93

message: I have rewritten the article in an initial attempt further to save space but also because the section on the attitude to the State goes way beyond the texts and fails the mention the key text which undermines the thesis formerly stated. As before I have attempted to avoid conclusions that go much beyond the actual words. I have thought it worthwhile once again to tie Paul's views to particular letters because it is generally agreed that his social views are not loosely added to his doctrinal teaching but arise out of it. The context is very important. I have also dealt in particular, with three issues, slavery, women and homosexuality which are of considerable contemporary importance. I have not written discursively on the modern context partly on the grounds of space but also because the modern context is sometimes different and raises wider questions. There are articles which deal with these issues and links will, I am sure, be inserted  by those who know about these things.
Finally I have tried not to be too clever, on the grounds that not every reader wants to become familiar with, eg. antinomianism, and references to the detail of contemporary Jewish teaching etc. go beyond the remit of an encyclopaedia article of restricted length. I have not doubt that when I come to look at it again, it will have been 'improved' perhaps beyond all recognition. I have as always been guided by the awful warning at the top that this is a 'former good article'. I trust that the new beginning may enable it to head gently in the direction of its former status.Roger Arguile 21:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Social views

message: Just a note to discourage any further additions to this article of details about the excavations.  Editors are directed instead to focus their efforts on the article Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls. DFH 19:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul's burial place 

message: Having worked quite hard to shorten and simplify the article, a number of editors, some unregistered, have added pieces here and there. It is now 56kb long (recommended 32kb ( think). Does anyone have any ideas an article can be contained. I suggested that the stuff on the tomb was unnecessary, but for all my politeness, it now goes in twice, once under St. Paul's basilica. The argument is always in favour of 'more'. I also have a beef about those who are more interested in quoting WP rules than with accuracy. If someone says, 'That is wrong', I can cope with that. I have to say that I find it hard when those who don't know content themselves with comments which relate often tangentally to the topic. So, how do we prevent the article from getting longer? Roger Arguile 13:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as it's shorter than Jesus it shouldn't be a problem. 75.14.221.90 04:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: To 75.14.221.90 Please, register so that we can use your talk page. Secondly, we are reminded of the undue length. This was why I removed your material which was an elaboration of what already existed. In the name of fairness I also removed some of my own material which I notice you did not restore. What you had inserted was indeed valid, but we are supposed to follow WP guidelines. I am not sure that the guidelines are right, but one liners do not constitute an argument. If you could register, this kind of conversation would not clutter up this page. Roger Arguile 12:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Too Long

message: The tone of the introduction is too skeptical. KittyHawker 23:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you be more specific about the intro being too skeptical? Keep in mind that wikipedia is not supposed to be assertive, just present the significant referenced facts and opinions and let the reader decide. As for the name, Paul of Tarsus is pretty standard, the "Blessed Apostle Paul" would seem to me to be pov pushing. 75.14.221.90 05:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about significant facts and widely-held opinions only? KittyHawker 05:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Sure, but in the intro? KittyHawker 06:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you be specific? The intro by nature can't address a large number of opinions, but it should attempt some degree of NPOV, for example, the majority opinion would be the Roman Catholic one, but seems to me restricting to that would be a violiation of NPOV, likewise it should be encyclopedic, not read as ad copy or apologetic or propaganda. Maybe you'd like to propose a new intro here? It's possible no one would object, I suspect most people aren't very happy with the current intro. 75.14.221.90 06:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't people usually refer to him as being an apostle? And can't you use the word apostle without being POV? KittyHawker 05:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: KH, the intro should be a summary of the contents of the article.  If the intro has problems, then it is probably simply representative of the article as a whole.  If you would like to improve the article, then the solution is to find reliable sources with relevant pov's and properly include them.  My opinion is also that the article is too critical as well, but I have not had the time to gather up sources to add mateial to the article, and without sources it is difficult to add changes because it is harder to keep those changed from being removed.  I will say the article is a good deal better than it was some months ago.  Lostcaesar 10:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: I have removed piece inserted yesterday because a comparison is being made between St. Paul talking about judgment and Jesus talking about the overcoming of sin.  One is about our life in the world, the other about the judgment of our life. It is very hard to make definite comparisons between Jesus' teaching and that of Paul because they are often talking about different things, but also because we have four gospel writers with four different emphases. It would be more profitable to write about Jesus' continued references to the Kingdom of God and the relative paucity of its mention in the writings of Paul. But there is no simple set of terms, agreed in their meaning by all, in use in New Testament times. 
Likewise in the case of the attitude to the law: even within Matthew it is quite difficult to produce a simple account of our Lord's attitude. The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath; you have heard it said of old time...but I say to you etc. What does it mean to say  '..til all be fulfilled'? Do we avoid swearing falsely or at all? Do we forgive our enemies or not? Do we pluck the corn to eat on the sabbath or not? Sabbath breaking is characteristic of Mark's Jesus. His disciples eat with unwashed hands. He disagrees with Moses. All this has been the subject of considerable academic debate from which text-tasting does not free us - it depends on which text you quote. I think, with respect to the latest editor that his attempt is misdirected. Roger Arguile 17:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradictions

message: Speaking of contradictions: the intro says, "He was the second most prolific contributor to the New Testament, after Luke the Evangelist. Fourteen letters are attributed to him, with varying degrees of confidence."  There are only 27 books in the NT.  If 14 are attributed to Paul, how can he be the second most prolific contributor?
This was all I meant to contribute, and this seemed like the best place to add it.  I noticed above though Roger Arguile's statement about regarding Jesus' attitude about the law in Matthew.  I don't think Matthew is ambiguous at all.  According to Matthew, Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, sent by the Jewish God, in fulfillment of the Jewish scriptures and was himself thoroughly Jewish - meaning he kept the Mosaic Law. Tom McCann 18:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is highly debatable that Luke's writings are based on Paul's, see the article for details, there are several contradictions between Luke's accounts and Paul's accounts. 75.14.212.118 20:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: According to your count, they are approximately equal in word count. Many consider hebrews authored by paul but that is debatable. So if you include Hebrew's word count, then Paul had more greek words. Also, much of Luke quotes Paul directly too. Jesus was reveal directly to paul, and luke followed paul until his martyrdom (this is quoted by the Luke the Evangulist page). I think the statement is misleading, because it makes luke a more influential figure, when he was really dictating many things he had learned.  I am going to change it to say "paul, along with luke were the two most prolific writers".Wyatt 14:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: this word count actually violates wikipedia's no original research policy and the link is not to reputable source but a personal homepage. since the Epistle_to_the_Hebrews#Authorship lists paul as a possible writer of hebrews, that is credible enough for this purpose. So I am deleting this statement, unless it can be verified with a legitimate resource. Prolific is debatable, since paul has written possibly 14 epistles, and the word counts are ambiguous, it is not accurate to say that luke is more prolific. even if there are more words, a character count could reveal differences. Considering that paul wrote more letters would make him more prolific too. The length of various greek texts are different, and different versions are different lengths, without verified work, this needs to be removed. Wyatt 20:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another Contradiction

message: I noticed that some other wikipedia articles, such as homosexuality and the bible, already go into this debate at some length.  Rather than making this article any longer, I suggest linking to the "homosexuality and the bible"'s section on Paul's writings.  I also added some scholars who represent both points of view, so anyone who wishes to explore these points further can look them up on their own. Finally, I changed some wording so that the debate between the two groups has some context.  Thanks!  JKB 17:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Homosexuality and Paul

message: I am appalled by the fact that this article does not mention the fact that part of St. Pauls first missionary journey was to Cyprus.  Read the Bible as the source.  In this regard I will probably make the amendments.(UNFanatic 00:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  St.Pauls First Missionary Journey also included Cyprus 

message: I'm not a highly religious person, nor do I know much about the intricacies of Christianity unfortunately and thus I come here with this problem.  I overheard, in of all places, a bar, two gentlemen of elderly appearance discussing something intensively, they made reference to 'the paulians'.  I couldn't work out for the life of me what I was overhearing but it was obviously theocratic and overtly Christian based.  After about fifteen minutes of hearing all sorts of things I couldn't help but ask, what 'paulians' are and which paul.  On that, both answered simultaniously, one said 'Paul of Tarsus' at the same time the other answered 'Paul the spouter of lies'.  There is obviously a anti-'paulian' movement out there for one late night in the middle of a busy Sydney bar for me to overhear a public discussion of it, given that public discussions of religion are rarely heard nor are there substantially overtly religious folk around enough that discussion of religion is a day to day oddity per se.  Could anyone extrapolate on this? 211.30.71.59 18:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Query

message: It would be kind if you would register so that discussion could take place. It is a courtesy that helps other editors. The piece which I deleted and which you have put back was not removed for POV reasons but because the article is too long. I have tried, even by removing material which I had contributed, to shorten it. It is the easiest thing in the world to add material from Acts - there are 28 chapters of it. What WP lacks is an approach which looks at material to see whether it can be removed, not on the grounds that it is offensive or wrong, or that somebody's word count can be questioned, but that it makes the text too long. One really does need people who will patiently collaborate, rather than getting upset or irritated. That requires open participation. Roger Arguile 12:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the recent size increase is due to your additions, perhaps that is where you should look to trim things down, assuming that is even necessary. For starters, much of the space is taken up by images, secondly, much of the theological material can be moved to Pauline Christianity, this article should be about the person Paul of Tarsus. 64.149.82.237 18:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: to 75.15.193.4

message: I think 'Lostcaesar' has attempted to make changes under the above general title, some of which need discussion. Ian Markham's view may not be typical but it is that of the reputable theologian. What the reasons there are for removing him is a matter of speculation in the absence of an explanation. The excision of the section on predestination may have been justified on the grounds of space but having attempted my own reductions and had them rejected I think some explanation is helpful. The removal of the the piece on the resurrection which provides another metaphor is unhelpful. The insertion of the technical word 'Echatology' rather than the plan ungreeked words replaced (the World to Come) may satisfy purists but maybe not those who are seeking illumination. The line between dogmatically driven editing and the search for factual accuracy may be a thin one. For that reason it is always helpful to explain why one has done something. The alteration of the line on indulgences corrects a popular usage but is more correct of course. I have tried to respond to criticisms about citations (and can add more). Reciprocal favours are always appreciated. Roger Arguile 15:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I recently made certain changes, preserving some of what you wished but making certain changes that I saw as necessary.  I altered the sentence on indulgence.  It is an oversimplification to say that the controversy over indulgences caused the reformation; its better to say "contributed to", since it was one of other factors.  Also, I changed "payment" to "acquiring" to better represent the nature of an indulgence.  Indulgences are not permitted to be sold, and doing such constitutes an abuse.  About predestination, the passage confused predestination with double predestination, the former of which does not entail pre-determined reprobation / damnation.  The subsequent commentary didn't exactly make sense, so I removed it; perhaps it could be included in a reworded manner.  About the bit on the resurrection, I changed the text because it previously implied that, according to Paul, the general resurrection will not involve a physical body.  The passage in question, if that is what it implied, clearly violated the "no original research" requirement.  Lostcaesar 00:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: All I can do is repeat myself: About the bit on the resurrection, I changed the text because it previously implied that, according to Paul, the general resurrection will not involve a physical body — its at least a minority opinion. Lostcaesar 08:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I am not trying to enforce some monolithic presentation of Catholic doctrine.  Rather, I think the article ought to present the most standard understanding of what St. Paul taught.  There is room for differing views, of course.  At present, however, the article only includes one PoV, unsourced, which represents the minority position.  That is not to say that it isn't the Catholic position (though it isn't), but that it is a non-standard interpretation of St. Paul.  The quotation you provided from Williams (whose spiritual beliefs I know to little on to pass judgment, and would prefer not to anyway) seems to support the standard interpretation that Paul taught a corporal resurrection, i.e. the early Church's "robust belief in the materiality of the resurrection...", if I understand that correctly.  As for the text in question, its not the quote of St. Paul that I object to, but the interpretation which immediately follows.  That interpretive commentary is obscure and implies something which seems inaccurate to me.  It is a PoV that can be included, if sourced, but not as the only, or primary, PoV. Lostcaesar 23:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Editorial changes'

message: There is no reference here to Coneybeare & Howsen's work on the life of Paul. It is a standard text and it is missing. Malangthon 18:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Extraordinary omission

message: Many individuals and groups believe Paul distorted Jesus' message away from virtues such as simple living and nonviolence. I see no reference to this under Paul_of_Tarsus#Alternative_views. 86.143.36.218 09:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Many individuals and groups" are Weasel words. Can you cite Wikipedia: Reliable sources? 69.104.122.102 00:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I would suggest that Thomas Jefferson and Nietzsche would be among the sincere detractors of Paul.  One example is here. Mike Ely 23:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul an [[antichrist]]? 

message: "...raising the question, still disputed, as to how consistent his account of the  faith is with that of the four canonical Gospels, Acts, and the Epistle of James...."
:Now, Reader, notice how Pauline Christianity is secreted in a piped link, so that the phrase doesn't appear in the visible text, and how "disputed" modifies the very question itself, as if the very possibility of a specifically "Pauline" Christianity were perhaps itself in doubt. The authentic contrast is not with that of the four canonical gospels, (to which a historian might add the perfectly orthodox Gospel of Peter) but with material that did not become non-canonical until the fourth century: Didache, Gospel of Thomas, the Christians following James the Just, gnostic Christians, et al.. I wish that I were not culpable of such shameful tricks: I suppose I am, but can't detect them. Perhaps some wholesome editing would refresh the air here. --Wetman 14:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Manipulations

message: I am no way qualified to assess the importance, relevance or accuracy of this information, but it certainly didn't belong on the Saint Paul dab page, so I leave it here, in case there's something worth extracting:
:Paul of Tarsus, or The Apostle Paul, originally called Saul of Tarsus (Tarsus is in modern day Turkey). — one of the early leaders of the Christian Church. Paul was a young Jew when he was taught that Christians were enemies. In the 7th Chapter of ACTS in the bible, it tells us that Paul was present at the stoning of St. Stephen and was the person who made it happen. On his way to Damascus, Paul was struck off his horse, for God had appeard to him. Paul was  temporarorly blinded and had a vision of him helping not hurting Christians. This changed Paul's life.' He is also considered to be a saint by the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, among others.  His name has been lent to various buildings, institutions and locations throughout the world.
:On December 7th, 2006, a Catholic news agency reported that Giorgio Filippi, an archaeologist and inscriptions expert at the Vatican Museums and working for the Vatican, had unearthed a marble sarcophagus dating from "at least 390AD". The sarcophagus has Paolo Apostolo Martyr (Paul Apostle Martyr) written on its top is very likely contains the remains of Saint Paul who was executed by the Emperor Nero in 65AD.
:In 2002 and 2003, Filippi examined the sarcophagus after having removed pavement stones to access chambers below the basilica. Three vertical holes leading down to the lid were found, one of which is closed but thought to have lead directly into the sarcophagus. This was likely used to allow objects to come into contact with the remains of St. Paul in order to create secondary relics. These were popular in the late fourth century after Emperor Theodosius banned the trade of corporal relics. The New Testament states in Acts 19:11-12 "God did extraordinary miracles through Paul, so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them." Planetneutral 00:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content from Saint Paul page 

message: The paragraph currently (4th Feb 2007) reads - 
Paul of Tarsus (b. c. 10, d. c. 67), the Apostle to the Gentiles (Romans 11:13, Galatians 2:8) was, together with Simon Peter, the most notable of Early Christian missionaries. Unlike the Twelve Apostles, Paul did not know Jesus in life; he came to faith through a vision of the resurrected Jesus (1 Cor 15:8-9). As he wrote, he "received it [the Gospel] by revelation from Jesus Christ" (Gal 1:11-12); according to Acts, his conversion was on the Road to Damascus.
Wouldn't the below be more neutral - 
Paul of Tarsus (b. c. 10, d. c. 67), the Apostle to the Gentiles (Romans 11:13, Galatians 2:8) was, together with Simon Peter, the most notable of Early Christian missionaries. Unlike the Twelve Apostles Paul never knew Jesus; he claimed to have had a vision of Jesus after the latter's death (1 Cor 15:8-9) and to have under gone a religious conversion. As he wrote, he "received it [the Gospel] by revelation from Jesus Christ" (Gal 1:11-12); according to Acts, his conversion was on the Road to Damascus.
My other suggestion would be to make it clear that the paragraph refers to Christian beliefs rather than objective facts.
I haven't changed the paragraph because I suspect it would last all of 3 seconds :-). The point I'm trying to make is that the current paragraph only appears unbiased if you are a Christian. --Boreas 19:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening paragraph POV? 

message: "To determine St. Paul's beliefs on homosexuality, several passages are frequently cited. In 1 Cor. 6:9-10, Paul lists a number of actions which are so wicked that they will deprive whoever commits them of their divine inheritance: "Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners shall inherit the Kingdom of God." "
In many Protestant beliefs this scripture doesn't mean that the acts will "deprive whoever commits them of their divine inheritance". Within the doctrine of persistent salvation, Paul is understood to be referring to people who are persistent in pursuing the life of sin and denial of Christ reflected by the characteristics he describes. His words in this passage indicate that idolaters, sexually immoral, and other sinners who follow that pattern of life and don't accept the grace of Christ will not inherit the Kingdom of God, not because they commit those acts, but because their pattern of committing them reveals that they are not in fact followers of Christ, which is the only condition of salvation (John 3:16). So for Christ followers who commit the acts of immorality described in the verses, there is not the consequence of a revoked eternal life, because Christ's salvation is persistent and covers all future sins. Rather, the mark of the true faith is that the pattern of the believer's life is not that there is no sin, but that it is marked by an acknowledgement of those sins when they are committed, a repentance in turning away from them go in the opposite direction, and a consistent and growing relationship of obedience to the teachings of Christ.
Could someone could find a way to word that into an appropriate sidenote in that not all interpretations of this scripture are that people lose their salvation by committing sins, please? I think it's unfair to include one interpretation of such an important verse without including another, especially one that is espoused by a large number of protestant churches in the world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.82.118.232 (talk) 00:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Losing Divine Inheritance 

message: As I understand it, a number of historians suspect that Paul himself was homosexual, or perhaps a repressed homosexual, and that this has some bearing on his view of women.  This should be briefly referenced in the section on his views of homosexuality.  JeffBurdges 15:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are probably repressed devil-worshipers. This has some bearing on their view of Paul. KittyHawker 21:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homosexuality of Paul himself