Talk:Paul the Apostle/Archive 11

"a Christian missionary"

This reference is anachronistic. The "Christian Missionary" page says of Christian missionaries that they are charged to "improve economic development, literacy, education, health care, and orphanages." Except for improving literacy and education in the Hebrew Scriptures, these are above an beyond what Paul was charged to do and what he did. There are no references to any orphanage that Paul founded, no hospitals, no schools, no economic development policies outside of the teaching of the Bible, as so on. Furthermore, there are only three references to the term translated "Christian" in the New Testament and Paul never once refers to himself as such (Christian is from the Greek Χριστιανός, which appears in the following three passages, only: Acts 11:26, Acts 26:28, 1 Peter 4:16). Paul, therefore, does not refer to himself as a "Christian missionary", but rather as the Apostle (meaning Emissary) of the Lord Jesus Christ, and a follower of the/this "Way" (Cf. Acts 22:4, Acts 24:14). (YeshuaDaily (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC))

"the newly forming Christian church."

What is "the Christian church"? It would be more neutral to state this reference the way the writings of the New Testament states it: Paul says, "I persecuted this Way to the death, binding and delivering to prison both men and women..." (Acts 22:4) (YeshuaDaily (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC))

"relaxed or abandoned the ritual and dietary teachings of the Law of Moses."

This contradicts the testimony of numerous New Testament witnesses, including Paul's own words. Cf. Matthew 5:17-20, Matthew 28:16-20, Acts 21:17-26 (Cf. Numbers 6), Acts 24:14 (Cf. Deuteronomy 5:33), Romans 2:6-13, Romans 3:31, Romans 8:1-8, 2 Peter 3:13-18. These are but a few of many examples. According to Acts 6:11-14:, they were false witnesses who claimed that the disciples of Jesus were in any way doing away with the Law of Moses: "[11]Then they secretly instigated men who said, “We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God.” [12]And they stirred up the people and the elders and the scribes, and they came upon him and seized him and brought him before the council, [13]and they set up false witnesses who said, “This man never ceases to speak words against this holy place and the law, [14]for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and will change the customs that Moses delivered to us.”" (ESV) (YeshuaDaily (talk) 21:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC))

The disciples very clearly spoke against the requirement of Christians having to follow the Mosaic law. Two passages immediately spring to mind: 1) Peter being told by God "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean" in Acts 10 (which continues in Acts 11) and 2) The Council in Jerusalem in Acts 15 that confirmed that the Church will not put the requirements of the Mosaic law onto the Gentiles (which Paul specifically attended after preaching to the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria).

Also I somewhat puzzled by your Bible references that you have stated support your opinion. 2 Pet 3:13-18 says nothing about the Mosaic law (similar to many of the other passages you are quoting), Romans 8 specifically says that Christians are free from the "law of death" (i.e. the Mosaic Law), although Romans 3:31 "implies" that the Law is still in affect, if you read the context of the passage before and after 3:31, you'll see that this isn't what is being said, and your passage from Acts 6 doesn't outline Paul's support of the Mosaic Law - it shows a trumped up charge by the leaders of the Synagogue trying to get Paul & Barnabus in trouble.

This isn't meant to slam you or start a violent disagreement. Its possible (probable?) I'm just missing your point. Yours - Ckruschke (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Well, strictly speaking, Acts 10 was more to do with table fellowship with gentiles, which wasn't explicitly, d'oraita, forbidden. Luke doesn't seem to have been under the impression that Peter or anyone else (with the possible exception of Stephen) taught active disobedience to the written word of the Law. At any rate, these sources are far too primary for our purposes. If someone wants a change to be made, they need to cite high-quality secondary sources. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Ckruschke, the word law (Gk. nomos) is used to refer to a variety of different things, including the Law (Torah) of Moses. Consider the following example from Romans 7:21-23: "So I find it to be a law [not the Law of Moses] that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God [THE LAW OF MOSES], in my inner being, but I see in my members another law [Not the Law of Moses] waging war against the law of my mind [Not the Law of Moses] and making me captive to the law of sin [Not the Law of Moses] that dwells in my members." Only one of these instances of "law" refers to the Law of Moses. That is, "The Law of God". You have misunderstood Paul's words in Romans 8 as Peter warns you would, because you are ignorant and unstable in the Scriptures, which clearly state that the Law is to the World to Come (Hb. L'OLAM). Jesus agrees with this in Matthew 5:17-20, for examples, saying, 'whoever relaxes one of the least of them and teaches others so will be called least in the kingdom of Heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven'. In Romans 8, Paul again uses the word "law" in more than one way. Context is very important, and must be carefully understood. "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life [not the Law of Moses] has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death [not the Law of Moses]. For God has done what the law [THE LAW OF MOSES], weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law [THE LAW OF MOSES] might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law [THE LAW OF MOSES]; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God." In fact, Paul is saying that those who are in Christ Jesus, set their minds on God's words by faith and are therefore able to walk according to the Law of Moses. John likewise says, "By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome. For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith. Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?" (1 John 5:2-5, ESV) Furthermore, you are not interpreting Peter's vision the way he interprets it. The interpretation is given by him in Acts 10:28: "And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean." (ESV) This does not nullify the Torah in any way. Neither does anything in the NT in its proper context. It is the question of Gentile inclusion in the covenant community of God that is addressed by Paul at length, but Paul is difficult to understand, so Peter warns the disciples of Jesus not to be lead astray into error. In 2 Peter 3:17, he writes, "You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless (ἀθέσμων) people and lose your own stability." (ESV) Thayers Greek Lexicon defines ἀθέσμων as, "lawless (A. V. wicked); of one who breaks through the restraints of law and gratifies his lusts: 2 Peter 2:7; 2 Peter 3:17. (the Sept., Diodorus, Philo, Josephus, Plutarch.)" Yes, fellowship with Gentiles is a question, as Jewish law forbade it; especially eating with Gentiles. As we see in Acts 11, "So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcision party criticized him, saying, “You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them.”" (v.2-3, ESV) We find this same issue discussed by Paul in Galatians 2:11-14, referring to a time after the revelation in Acts 10, Peter having not learned the lesson he ought to have learned. But more than that, the question is about the inclusion of the Gentiles in the covenant community of God. As the brothers concluded in Acts 11:18, "Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life." (ESV) Notice carefully, they are Gentiles. They do not undergo ritual conversion to Judaism. As Peter says in Acts 10:34b-35, "Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him." This, however, is not consistent with the teaching of Pharisaic Judaism. Paul, a Pharisee, goes to great lengths to explain this. See, for example, his discussion about Gentiles being grafted into Israel in Romans 11, and his discussion on the same subject in Ephesians 2. As he says, "You are no longer strangers and sojourners, but fellow citizens and members of the household of God." (v.19, ESV) And as he says in Romans 10:12-13, "For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”" (ESV) This is the discussion that the believers were having in Acts 15, which also parallels Paul's words in Galatians 2:1-10. The term "circumcision" is used widely in the New Testament idiomatically to refer to ritual conversion "to Judaism", even as it is used to this day. This is what the apostle to the Gentiles he is addressing: how Gentiles are included in Israel without ritual conversion to Judaism. As Paul says, "But if I, brothers, still preach circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been removed." (Galatians 5:11, ESV) The question in Acts 15 is not whether or not Gentiles must keep the law of Israel, the question is about how they are included ("grafted in"). "But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the CUSTOM of Moses, you cannot be saved.” And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question." For more on the "custom of Moses", see Oral Torah. This is above and beyond what the written Law of Moses says. It is a reference to ritual conversion to Judaism. In other words, 'they believe in Jesus, but unless they become Jewish, they cannot be saved.' This is as opposed to salvation by grace through faith. Hear what Peter says, "Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”" (Acts 15:7-11, ESV, Emphasis Added) That is THEY don't need to be Jewish. WE are saved by grace and so are THEY. Notice carefully, they remain Gentiles. It is with this in mind, that basic requesites are provided for the inclusion of Gentiles in the assemblies of God: "Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”" (Acts 15:19-21) You will find numerous other commandments in the New Testament. These are a starting point, no more. These four prohibitions may parallel Leviticus 17 and 18, which discuss these matters. For breaking these commandments, people are "cut off" from the covenant community. Therefore, begin by applying these prohibitions so that you can join the assembly and hear the Torah in the synagogues where it is read every week on the Shabbat, since ancient times. You are "now saved", and you will grow in sanctification progressively. I'll leave you with one more example. Judge for yourself if you think Paul is contradicting himself, or whether he is speaking of two different matters, secondly to correct a misunderstanding about his statements in the first example, as follows: 1) "We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified." (Galatians 2:15-17) 2) "He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality. For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified." (Romans 2:6-13, ESV) Try to understand, there are two laws according to Judaism, the Oral Law and the written Law. You must be careful to read with this in mind. (YeshuaDaily (talk) 18:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC))

We're going to need secondary sources. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Evan, secondary sources like the one quoted for the following flagrant statement? "His leadership, influence, and legacy led to the formation of communities dominated by Gentile groups that worshiped Jesus, adhered to the "Judaic moral code", but relaxed or abandoned the ritual and dietary teachings of the Law of Moses. He taught that these laws and rituals had either been fulfilled in the life of Christ or were symbolic precursors of Christ, though the exact relationship between Paul the Apostle and Judaism is still disputed. Paul taught of the life and works of Jesus Christ and his teaching of a New Covenant, or "new testament"..." Where is your secondary source here? This is a POV, and as I have demonstrated, it is very much inconsistent with what the NT says. Why is this page pushing a POV? Yes it most certainly is. You deleted a correction with numerous references in favour of a POV that also refers to the NT, with a ridiculous reference---one verse that does not say what the page says, and Cf. a reference that doesn't even exist. You are being very inconsistent. (YeshuaDaily (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC))

The lead section of the article does not contain the totality of the article's sources. Stop pretending that it does. I'm not responsible for your inability to read past the third paragraph's footnotes. Here are three of the sources you've ignored relevant to the "relaxed" statement:

• "Atonement". Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005

• "Paul, St" Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005

• "New Perspectives on Paul". Ntwrightpage.com. 2003-08-28.

- Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Paul a citizen

We seem to have lost the fact that Paul claimed on one major occasion to be a Roman citizen (and didn't on other occasions). I think it was Porcius Festus who said that he could let Paul go, except that Paul had (previously) insisted on his "right" to a Roman trial, implying Roman citizenship. Beheading suggests that as well, but we don't have his method of death recorded. Student7 (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

"Good catch!" Thanks for your careful attention to this important article. I don't know what happened to the copy in the article, but I'll restore it. Afaprof01 (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Additional Sources

This topic cites the Christian bible and other sources whose primary source all link back to the same source. The context of this article is also written in such a way as to suggest events, such as miracles contributed to the life of Paul, are a matter of fact. More sources regarding these events from a source that is not in collaboration with the Christian bible are needed to ensure that this article meets the neutral point of view. Cyqotiq (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

No (contemporary) primary sources for Paul exist outside of the Christian Bible. Therefore it is not possible to add sources for Paul that do not ultimately rely on Biblical material. This article already uses many secondary sources that critically analyze the Biblical data. For improving the article it would be helpful if you give specific examples of where you think a more neutral point of view is needed. - Lindert (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the "Bible" is a collection of separate books and letters, collected into a "compendium." We probably have more information on Paul (through his letters and The Book of Acts, than on any other apostle. Student7 (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

That is correct Lindert, there is no independent historical evidence for Paul. As in many many wikipedia articles on Biblical figures, this is not made clear at all in the article. (Ironically over at the Jesus article, there is a never ending fight to stop people saying there is no evidence for Jesus' existence, when there is a lot for Jesus, for Peter, Paul, Judas, Matthew, Mary, Mary Magdalen, on and on and on, there is none whatsoever.) What would make this article neutral would be very clear statements of the fact that evidence for Paul comes entirely from the New Testament and that the depictions of Paul in Acts and the epistles are very different - Acts does not refer to Paul writing any letters at all, for instance.I will try to work on this at some point, but it will not be for a while.Smeat75 (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, let me make a small correction to my earlier post: there is possibly an independent tradition concerning Paul found in the Epistle of Clement (c. 96 AD), because it states that Paul was martyred, something that is not found anywhere in the Bible. Secondly, you seem to confuse 'no extra-biblical evidence' with 'no evidence whatsoever', thereby ignoring important first-century documents, and as Student7 correctly points out, these contain a number of independent sources. - Lindert (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes when I typed "no evidence whatsoever" I meant "no independent historical evidence", as I said the first time, excuse me for not repeating it, as in secular histories, inscriptions, anything of that kind. Jesus, John the Baptist, James the Just are mentioned by early secular historians,notably Josephus and Tacitus, none of the apostles are. Christian theological treatises or so forth do not count as independent.Smeat75 (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

By the way, when you refer to 1 Clement stating that Paul was martyred, do you mean "5:5 Through envy Paul, too, showed by example the prize that is given to patience:5:6 seven times was he cast into chains; he was banished; he was stoned; having become a herald, both in the East and in the West, he obtained the noble renown due to his faith;5:7 and having preached righteousness to the whole world, and having come to the extremity of the West, and having borne witness before rulers, he departed at length out of the world, and went to the holy place, having become the greatest example of patience"[[1]]? That certainly does not provide historical evidence of any kind and could mean any number of things. However this is not a debate page, I know, so I will be providing sources and references for various propsed edits over the next weeks.Smeat75 (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I cannot think of any reason why Clement's epistle would not qualify as independent historical evidence, and many scholarly sources treat it as such (e.g. [2], [3], [4]) . Harry W. Tajra writes (concerning Paul's journey to Spain): "The earliest witness is Clement of Rome who composed his Epistle to the Corinthians scarcely three decades after Paul's Martyrdom. The Pauline reminiscences in Clement's letter are probably first hand; that is to say that Clement was an eyewitness to the events to which he alludes in his composition." (source) By the way if you read the surrounding context of the passage you quote it's abundantly clear that Clement is talking about martyrdom, and another translation renders "and having borne witness before rulers" as "and suffered martyrdom under the prefects." ([5]) - Lindert (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

1 Clement is a Christian theological tract, not a work of secular history. The article should make clear that there is no evidence for Paul outside the New Testament and Christian tradition. However I will not continue to debate that on this page but when I have some edits to propose for the article, which will not be for a while, I will discuss them here.Smeat75 (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

And if so, its contributors should be content to discuss its subject and his teaching according to the text of the New Testament and Christian tradition, and should furthermore distinguish between the two for neutrality sake. I have inserted a number of references from the New Testament which discuss Paul's teaching and an administrator here has removed them altogether for 'not being from neutral sources.' A claim of neutrality without permitting the foremost evidence is dishonest at best. (YeshuaDaily (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC))

You don't need to make things up, YD. I'm not an administrator, and the phrase you quoted from me appears nowhere in anything I've said to you. As I explained at your talk page, the text of the NT, with the possible exception of the genuine Pauline epistles (and those only in combination with scholarly material), cannot be used to synthesize an objective judgement as to what Paul was and was not. The problem is that you took sourced material and changed it, using only the Bible to back up your claims. This is not acceptable, per WP:PRIMARY. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality

The NPOV tag has just been added to the article. In order to correct it, it would be helpful for editor(s) of that opinion to list specific examples that they find non-neutral. It's a long article, and from reading the past several months of the Talk page, I find discussion about extrabiblical sources, but did the flag go up over 1 Clement?

Mark Powell in his book Introducing the New Testament states: "We have to go outside the New Testament to find specific information concerning what happened to Paul after he was taken to Rome. Church tradition says that he was executed under the emperor Nero." Powell cites Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.22.3. He quotes Tertullian's Prescription against Heretics 36 as saying Paul was killed in the same manner as John the Baptist, by beheading. Powell writes, "These traditions are generally accepted as reliable." Powell also quotes 1 Clement 5:7 which suggests to some that Paul actually did make it to Spain as he had intended (Rom. 15:23), but maintains that "a 'second career' as a missionary between his imprisonment in Rome and his martyrdom has not found universal acceptance among scholars."

Would inclusion of the above info—plus clearly stating that there is no evidence for Paul outside the New Testament and Christian tradition" qualify removal of the NPOV tag? If so, I'll be glad to edit and include it. I regret seeing the whole article tainted by that tag. Please advise. Thanks for posting these valid concerns. Afaprof01 (talk) 04:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe the tag was added by user Cyqotiq on 24 February. I agree that such tags should be notices to discuss the issue on the talk page, resolve the dispute and remove the tags as soon as possible. Although I did not put the tag on the article, I think it is appropriate as the article is at the moment, but all that it would need in my opinion to justify its removal would be the addition in the first sentence of "According to the New Testament and Christian tradition, Paul the Apostle was etc." Or at the end of the sentence, as we agreed by consensus a few days ago on the article on St Peter [[6]] "Saint Peter, also known as Simon Peter, was an early Christian leader and one of the twelve apostles of Jesus, according to the New Testament and Christian tradition." The article does state "Neither the Bible nor other sources say how or when Paul died" and the longer discussion on his martyrdom is clearly marked "church tradition" so I do not have any problem with that.

However there would still be problems with the article's neutrality in my opinion (but I don't like those tags either, just add the bit about NT and Christian tradition and I vote to remove it).

Two very big non neutral elements in the article right now:

Somewhere in the article it must state that Acts of the Apostles does not refer to Paul writing letters.

The section "Damascus Road experience" must state that Paul's letters do not refer to any experience on the Damascus road.The statement in 1 Cor that Christ "appeared to me also" and in Galatians that God "was pleased to reveal his son in me" have been interpreted to refer to that experience, but they do not say anything about a road to Damascus. Also it is not right for that section to say "The account in Acts 9 says that both Saul/Paul and the men that were with him heard the voice asking, "Saul! Saul! Why are you persecuting me?" unless it is also going to say that the account in Acts 22:9 clearly says that the men who were with him did not hear the voice(or did not understand what the voice was saying in less literal translations although it still clearly says that they did not hear the voice ask "Saul!Saul!"etc.) Wikipedia articles are not Sunday school lessons where we just ignore glaring contradictions and inconsistencies.

Less major, but still important issues of neutrality:

Section "early life":

"His wide spectrum of experiences and education gave the "Apostle to the Gentiles"[Rom. 1:5] [11:13] [Gal. 2:8] the tools to effectively spread the Gospel and establish the church solidly in all parts of the Roman Empire.[30]" all parts of the Roman empire is a ludicrous overstatement

The discussion of Paul's family in the following sentences should include the information that in Romans 16:7 he states that members of his family were Christians and prominent apostles before he was: "Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives who were in prison with me; they are prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was."

"Later as a Christian missionary, that trade became a means of support for him, one that he could practice anywhere. It also was to become an initial connection with Priscilla and Aquila with whom he would partner in tent-making and later become very important teammates as fellow missionaries." needs citation

"he obtained mercy because he had "acted ignorantly in unbelief".[1 Tim. 1:13] and

"There are three passages in Paul's epistles that condemn homosexuality: Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and 1 Timothy 1:8-11." - the article should not attribute verses from 1 Timothy to Paul without stating, every time, that hardly any experts believe 1 Timothy was written by Paul

More general points

Although there are very brief mentions of the influence of Gnosticism on Paul this requires a little expansion in my opinion. There is one mention of Marcionism (saying some think he opposed it) but none of Marcion himself, who first presented a collection of Paul's letters. Tertullian called Paul "the apostle of Marcion and the apostle of the heretics" (quoted in Robert M Price, The Amazing Colossal Apostle,2012, p 37) and the connection Marcion/Paul needs a little explanation.

The ideas of the 19th century Dutch Radical School [[7]], revived recently by Hermann Detering and Robert M. Price (all scholars notable enough for their own wikipedia articles), which may be crudely summarised as "there are no authentic letters of Paul, they are all later forgeries, the accounts of Paul's life in Acts are fictional, and "Paul" himself is a largely or wholly fictionalised character, deserve at least a sentence or two in this article in my opinion. I do not have any edits to propose on these more general points at the moment, when I do I will discuss them here before adding them to the article.Smeat75 (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Smeat75, thanks very much for your excellent points to get the article to NPOV, and for getting them posted so quickly. I've completed the list down to "Less major, but still important." Work still in progress. Afaprof01 (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I have accomplished everything on the to-do list with the exception of Paul and Gnosticism. I've searched many sources, and found Pagel's older book where she reaches the same conclusion that Paul was a Gnostic. There needs to be a balanced contrary opinion, but I haven't been able to find one from a reputable source. Gnosticism is not in my arena of expertise, so I must defer beyond what few additions I made to that section. Per your suggestion, I'm removing the non-neutrality tag. (talk) 04:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for adapting the article according to almost all of the suggestions I made! I believe the article is considerably improved. Don't worry about trying to put Marcion/ Dutch Radical school references in, there is no rush, I may have a sentence or two to add to the article in a week or so.Smeat75 (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Excellent criticism by Smeat75 above.

Having said that, Detering and Price sound a bit WP:FRINGE IMO, article or no.

Saying that Acts does not record Paul writing any letters seems negative inventory to me (as opposed to quotes from Timothy, where we don't think Paul wrote them, a different matter). Acts say nothing about Paul swatting fleas, sweating, eating French Fries, etc. Acts tends to be early church and Luke and Paul appear to part company part way through. Many of Paul's letters appear to be written in prison at the end of his life; and all after his travels produced believers to write to. Paul (and Luke) both appear literate. Why would it be "recordable" when one wrote a letter? No one claims that all of Paul's letters were preserved. Doubtless most weren't. Today, who would have a Boswell following someone around recording when they wrote an email/texted?  :) Seems like pretty much the same thing.

Whether good or bad, nearly all ancient historians put lengthy (and sometimes unlikely) speeches into the mouths of people they were writing about. I was just reading Livy (I think), and various Roman generals are supposed to have waxed at length trying to turn their armies around from retreat, a process that required action and very brief and direct speech, not oratory. Is it possible that Paul didn't use the exact words that Luke attributes to him? Probably. Worse, the gospels are all "according to" a writer (their disciples/school). None appear to be written directly. And none of the OT either, except (as I remember) 1st Isaiah.Student7 (talk) 01:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I was sorry that the passage about Acts not referring to Paul writing letters was removed. I put it back in. I believe it is absolutely essential for this article to be neutral to at least mention this fact which has been discussed for many many years by many different scholars. On the question as to whether Detering and Price are fringe or not, I wondered that myself, which is one reason why I mentioned it on the talk page. I opened a discussion on this question at the fringe theory notice board [8] to which participants here are of course welcome to contribute.Smeat75 (talk) 05:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Clearly, the reason for lack of material in Acts from Paul's epistles is due to Luke's concerns about WP:COPYVIO. Student7 (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The WP:Fringe / WP:Due tests are quite straightforward-looking: you look at how many scholars/academics support it against the majority view. If a very small number then it is "undue" or "fringe" if it really opposes the mainstream concepts. If a small number then it is a "significant minority view". The challenge is determining very small vs small, or WP:Due puts it "an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority". Cold fusion was a good example, the proponents were all physicists of note, but in the end they got cornered and outnumbered. If you ask me, these days Price and Detering look a little like Redford and Newman in the last scene in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid - pretty surrounded and pretty outnumbered. In the end WP:CON decides if it is fringe or minority. My bet would be on fringe until they get 8-9 more scholarly followers; and when they hit 10-12 people then it will be a minority view. History2007 (talk) 02:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

By the way, someone's notability does not necessarily make some of their views non-fringe; because the "fringe measure" applies to the proposed concept, the number of academics who support it, and its divergence from the mainstream position, not the person proposing it. A good example is Brian David Josephson who is pretty notable due to the Nobel he has, but has a number of fringe views, as well as a number of non-fringe views. History2007 (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Birth date

Article gives it as 4 BC and 5 AD in different places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.14.242.204 (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Conclusion section

Is the cited view representative? It seems like an opinion by a randomly selected source. Do we even need this section? Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

It totally fails WP:RS/AC - I say just zap it. This article has huge problems, and the Authorship of Pauline Epistles that I just looked at has even larger problems. Let me run away from here before I spend a month working on it... Running away now... History2007 (talk) 16:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. It's totally unnecessary (even inappropriate for a biographical article, imo), so I've removed it. - Lindert (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Paul, the Author of Hebrews?

In the intro, it reads: "Paul taught of the life and works of Jesus Christ and his teaching of a New Covenant (or "new testament") established through Jesus' death and resurrection.[cf. Heb. 9:15]"

I was really interested in where Paul speaks of this "New Covenant," only to find out it references Hebrews.

In my opinion since there is no consensus on who the author of Hebrews is, this statement should be removed or at the very least altered to reflect the ambiguity.184.0.192.146 (talk) 22:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Although Hebrews' author is not 100% rock-solid, most scholars accept it as Paul. However, we could slightly alter it to reflect that it is not a slamdunk. Ckruschke (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

On the contrary, most scholars do not accept it as Paul, according to James W. Thompson "In the modern era, scholars are virtually unanimous in concluding that Paul was not the author, and some have suggested the names of possible alternatives, including Luke, Barnabas, Apollos and Priscilla" (emphasis mine). It is true that until modern times, Paul has generally been regarded as the author, although doubts about this have been raised since the early church fathers, e.g. Tertullian suggested that Barnabas might be the author. (source)- Lindert (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Lindert. I think it is generally agreed that Paul was preaching a "New Covenant." But we need a new citation. Doesn't have to be biblical. Maybe just rm "cf" would do the trick. Student7 (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

According to the Cf. article, the abbreviation means "compare" – "It is an abbreviation for the Latin word confer, literally meaning 'bring together', and is used to refer to other material or ideas which may provide similar or different information or arguments." (underlining added) The words "new testament" (in quotes) earlier in the sentence are from 1Corinthians 11:25 and/or 2Corinthians 3:6. Matthew, Mark and Luke also speak of the "new testament" in their gospels.
—Telpardec  TALK  09:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Helpful edits

Thanks, 75.15.193.60, for your helpful edits—especially adding some Wikilinks that I for one would never have thought of! I hope you'll feel comfortable registering and will "join the club". We need your sharp eye and obvious knowledge of Christian and biblical subjects. Afaprof01 (talk) 02:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hermes = Paul

Acts 14:12 explains that Paul was referred to as "Hermes," while Barnabas was called "Zeus." Should this be included, as it may also be referring to Saul? Twillisjr (talk) 02:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Contextually, the verse is only relating that the Lycaonians referred to him as Hermes for miraculous works. Given Acts isn't a particularly reliable work, I think it'd be best for us not to engage in amateur exegesis and find a reliable secondary source instead. Blurpeace 04:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion regarding recent edits (copied from User talk page)

Regarding the faulty support for Luke, and the book of Acts, see Peerbolte, Paul the Missionary, page 105 - and Maccoby, The Mythmaker, passim. The burden of proof is actually on you - show me some reliable historians of the first or second century who quote Luke. The "Gospel According to Luke" was not even written by Luke (it's in 3rd person for one thing). Eusebius (c. 310) wrote that mere "tradition" is why the books have those names on them (Eusebius, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, VI, 25.4-5).MithrasPriest (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on the one changing a long standing article. If you believe that the citations are faulty, prove it. At this point all you did is come in and add some negative peacock words. ReformedArsenal (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I already proved it, above. Luke is NOT a valid source, neither is Acts. And regarding "long standing article" please see the logical fallacy "argument from authority" and stop reverting my valid edits please.MithrasPriest (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a debate, and Wikipedia operates on sources and precedent. The article is long standing, and changes to a long standing argument required WP:RS. Saying "no recognizes Luke" isn't an argument, and it certainly doesn't constitute proof. The article has TONS of WP:RS who consider both Luke and Acts to be reliable enough. Unless you have published sources that say otherwise, your simply making assertions. ReformedArsenal (talk) 15:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

You asked for sources, and I supplied 3. An hour later you give me DIFFERENT reasons why my edits are to be rejected - so I assume you got your copies of Peerbolte, Maccoby, and Eusebius, and you agreed with me, so you needed other excuses to use the UNRELIABLE words of the UNKNOWN authors of Luke and Acts? I'm sorry, this IS a debate, and your talk page alone proves you are anything but an unbiased contributor! "Wikipedia operates on sources and precedent" - no, WP has rules, and "it was that way for a long time on WP" is not one of them. "Unless you have published sources that say otherwise..." - I PROVIDED THREE INCLUDING EUSEBIUS HIMSELF!!! Utter failure.MithrasPriest (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, Wikipedia editing is based on consensus. According to the policy: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.".

Secondly, Macoby's "The Mythmaker" is strongly criticized by contemporary scholars and does not reflect the mainstream scholarly view. Eusebius does not qualify as a WP:RS any more than Luke, and he is much further removed from the events. By the way, it doesn't matter if the author of Luke-Acts was really called 'Luke'. What matters is that it was written in the 1st century by a contemporary of Paul. That fact is not disputed in scholarly sources, and that is the reason 'Luke' is commonly used as a (fallible) source for Paul's life.

Finally, you need to be more specific about the changes you are making. For example, the addition of "self-claimed" asserts that Paul may have falsely claimed to be both a Jew and Roman citizen. That in itself requires a source and not just a general statement such as 'Acts is unreliable'. And in the sentence "Paul began to preach that Jesus is the Christ, who he believed was the Son of God", what exactly is the purpose of the qualification "who he believed was"? The article is saying that this was Paul's preaching, not that Jesus was actually the Son of God. The fact that this was part of Paul's message is really not in dispute, or you would need to provide a specific reference for that. - Lindert (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

MithrasPriest, like Lindert I am having trouble seeing the motivation behind some of your edits (e.g. why did you add "is said to have" to a sentence already modified by the phrase "in the book of Acts"?). That said, this entry is sorely in need of improvement; it currently gives undue weight to Acts, a primary source that is not widely viewed as reliable. I for one would welcome changes that address these problems -- changes including (but certainly not limited to) further use of qualifying phrases such as "According to the book of Acts". -- Marie Paradox (talk) 05:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, although I'm not so quick to question the authorship of Luke/Acts as Marie.

MithrasPriest - it appears from your edits that you are bent on subverting certain portions of the page which makes me question your non-NPOV. If you are trying to improve the page - GREAT! However, if you are trying to grind your axe, that is obviously less welcome. Regardless of how long this page has been in its current state, insertion of non-NPOV and possibly unsupported opinion clearly is against Wiki standards. Ckruschke (talk) 14:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Ckruschke - "grind my axe" and "subvert"? That page is breathtakingly arrogant in its claims of facts. I was giving it very minor improvements. It says Paul "took the gospel of Christ to the first-century world" and "Paul taught of the life and works of Jesus Christ" - yet Paul seems to know nothing of Jesus' earthly visit except that he has a brother, and was crucified. He never mentions any nativity, virgin birth ("mother" is mentioned once, but everyone has a mother), father, childhood, genealogy, ministry, life events, miracles, apostles, betrayal, trial, or when or where Jesus did whatever he did (source: Paul's Epistles). NEVER. He did not preach the words or life of Jesus, the "Gospel" as the article claims he did. He offers nebulous concepts of faith and mentions the name Jesus but not the facts of Jesus, his life, and his words as given in the Gospels.MithrasPriest (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah... except when he explicitly quotes Jesus in the discussion about divorce and remarriage in Corinthians... do you even read the things that you're writing? All this goes away if you bring in some WP:RS that are not WP:FRINGE ReformedArsenal (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah - ReformedArsenal and where does he explicitly quote Jesus please? Give the Corinthians chapter/verse, and the Gospel Paul is referring to.MithrasPriest (talk) 22:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and what is WP:FRINGE about Peerbolte, Paul the Missionary, and Maccoby, The Mythmaker, and Eusebius???MithrasPriest (talk) 23:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Say, ReformedArsenal, as long as we're being all friendly and the like, how about we raise the stakes just a little. Tell me where Paul talks about, as I said, Jesus' nativity, virgin birth mother, father, childhood, genealogy, ministry, life events, apostles, betrayal, trial, or when or where Jesus lived? Show me where Paul mentions Nazareth or Bethlehem? In Gergesa the "whole city came out to meet Jesus" (Mt 8). Show me where Paul was aware of this. MithrasPriest (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

That's a pretty good argument from silence you've got going there. I know that if I was going to utilize papyrus (which was extremely expensive) and send the letter with someone who would have to travel hundreds of miles on foot, I would make sure that I spent time repeating things that other people had already written about... Paul quotes the Gospel of Luke, so those narratives were already available to people. Why spend time, money, and energy writing about things that other people already have? Regardless of if Paul was aware of those things or not, bring some WP:RS that aren't WP:FRINGE to the party and we can talk. ReformedArsenal (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

So you admit that, although this article makes fantastic claims about Paul propagating Jesus' words, he in fact does not. This is not a logical fallacy, the argument from silence, this is MAKING THIS WP ARTICLE ACCURATE. Paul seems to know ALMOST NOTHING about Jesus. And again, what is fringe about Eusebius? Do you know who Eusebius is? What is fringe about Peerbolte? Do you know who Peerbolte is, from the Theological University of Kampen? Why can't you back up your claim that Paul quotes Jesus about remarriage? Why can't you provide ANYTHING that Paul wrote about Jesus' life (other than a brother and a crucifixion)? You failed at every challenge I have given you, and all you can come up with is a faulty application of the argument from silence. Do you even read the things that you're writing? MithrasPriest (talk) 23:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, if you read what I wrote, we have specific instances of Paul QUOTING Jesus. So your claim is prima facia incorrect. Not only do we have Paul explicitly quoting Jesus, but Romans 12:9-21 is practically a summary of the Sermon on the Mount. Have you even read Paul? ReformedArsenal (talk) 23:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and the statement about Paul quoting Jesus when referencing marriage is from 1 Corinthaisn 7:1 where he explicitly says "not I, but the Lord" indicating that he is quoting Jesus, and then goes on to give Christ's teaching on marriage found in the Gospels (Mark 10:1-12 and synoptic parallels). It's clear that not only is Paul aware of Christ's teaching, but he CITES Christ's teaching, and encourages others to follow it by reaffirming it. Your argument has been shown to be false, give it up. ReformedArsenal (talk) 23:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh my god, do you even read what you write? "Romans 12:9-21 is practically a summary of the Sermon on the Mount" - THIRTEEN TERSE SENTENCES, not even close to a blurb-level presentation of the Sermon on the Mount! Therein Paul says "for it is written..." - why did he not say "for Jesus hath said..."?? Paul says "Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink" - this is the exact opposite of Jesus saying "take no thought for the morrow" (Mt 7) because "Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not...". And you haven't shown where Paul is "quoting" Jesus. Just because Paul refers to "the Lord" saying something does not mean he's referring to Jesus, it means he's referring to the Lord of the Old Testament - God. How about Jesus' geographical location in Paul's writing? Please address that. And his time-period? You have nothing. Paul has nothing. Sorry, you have lost in every way. Paul knows almost nothing about Jesus, as I have demonstrated thoroughly. He could just as well have been writing about Horus or Sandan or Attis. Every argument you have given have been shown to be false, give it all up. MithrasPriest (talk) 00:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC")

Oh, and note that Jesus' Sermon on the Mount did not have original ideas from Jesus. See The Jewish Sources Of The Sermon On The Mount by Gerald Friedlander. Jesus was just repeating accepted Hebrew thought. MithrasPriest (talk) 00:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

You've been proven wrong. Your argument is "Paul didn't teach Jesus' message". I have given you two explicit instances where he repeats Christ's teachings, one of which he explicitly attributes to Christ. The fact is that you have an overwhelming majority of scholarship that doesn't agree with your fringe position, and it's clear because you can't back up your words. The fact that Paul does not explicitly talk about Jesus' geographical location, his time period, or anything of the sorts means no more than me not explicitly talking about President Bill Clinton's geographical location or time period. He expected his readers to know those things, so he didn't spend time rehashing them (just as I would say "President Bill Clinton, who lived in Washington DC during his presidency, which was between the years x and x..." when I expect my audience to know those facts). An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, you are making a classic skeptic mistake, and your bias is showing. ReformedArsenal (talk) 00:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

You have been soundly proven wrong again and again. Further, let's refer to Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium by Bart D. Ehrman, one of the world's most foremost Bible scholars, page 79: "Paul does not say a lot about the importance of Jesus, especially the importance of his death, resurrection, and imminent return from heaven. ...We hear nothing here of the details of Jesus' birth or parents or early life, nothing of his baptism or temptation in the wilderness, nothing of his teaching about the coming Kingdom of God. We have no indication that he ever told a parable, that he ever healed anyone, cast out a demon, or raised the dead. We learn nothing of this transfiguration or the triumphal entry, nothing of this cleansing of the Temple, nothing of his interrogation by the Sanhedrin or trial before Pilate, nothing of his being rejected in favor of Barabbas, of his being mocked, of his being flogged, and so on. The historian who wants to know about the traditions concerning Jesus--or indeed, about the historical Jesus himself--will not be much helped by the surviving letters of Paul." Give it up, Paul knows almost NOTHING about Jesus. We have an overwhelming majority of scholarship against with your fringe position, and WE HAVE PAUL'S LETTERS! Your couple of examples is all you have, and they only help to prove my point, and Professor Ehrman's point, and most Bible scholars who have actually studied the Epistles of Paul vs. the Gospels. You have lost. MithrasPriest (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

It took just a couple minutes to find that in Ehrman's book, and a couple more minutes to find more scholars who have realized that Paul seems to know very very little about Jesus: F. B. Baur, D. F. Strauss, W. Wrede, J. K. L. Gieseler, J. H. A. Abrard, O. Thenius, H. Paren, A. von Harnak, P. Feins, A. Resch, A. Schlatter. See Faith in Jesus and Paul: A Comparison with Special Reference by Maureen W. Yeung, page 5, who lists those scholars, saying "Paul knows nearly nothing about the pre-Easter teachings of Jesus." Sorry your knowledge of the NT is so sparse. MithrasPriest (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you have an impressive group of scholars from one branch of Biblical Studies, I could gather an equally impressive group of conservative scholars. It may be true that we don't get a lot of information about the historical Jesus from Paul, BECAUSE THAT WASN'T WHAT HE WAS TRYING TO TEACH and there were other documents around that already did that. However, your statement that Paul does not teach Jesus' words is demonstrably false (I've given you two clear examples, we could add the words of Institution, among others if you insist). ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

You folks appear to have some scholarly background- I do not. That being said, I have a hard time getting the logic behind how exluding a mention that Jesus did NOT say something about homsexuality is pushing a POV. I recognize that Jesus' lack of statements on homosexuality is part of the discussion of gay marriage, but I don't see what the basis would be for including it here. If you think I am missing something please say so. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Married or not

On the Feedback page, there are two queries as to whether Paul was ever married. I was about to add it to the article, but I can't figure out where to put it. There's not a general biographical overview (or conclusion) section (and the lead doesn't count -- it's already too long [4 paragraphs max.] and it doesn't go there anyway), and there's no mention of his views on marriage -- which is surprising because of what he wrote in I Corinthians -- but it could have been added to that. --Musdan77 (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I've created a "Life" section, and inserted available informaiton on his marital status there. Good idea to have a "bio section". Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 20:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

There's currently a section titled Views on homosexuality, which contains only one sentence and lacks references to secondary sources. I'd say we could expand that and rename the section Views on marriage and sexuality. - Lindert (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Shortening article

I highly recommend shortening the article by removing "Sources" section, and move the links down to "references" or "see also". — Jerm729 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - section is necessary to establish histority of the subject and are (presumably) near the top to counteract the many naysayers who come to Christian Wiki pages and state their opinion that Paul is fictitious. Beyond that, the Sources section is - what - seven lines long? If you want suggest moving the "Sources" down to the References section, that's one thing, but I don't support its deletion. Ckruschke (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

I did not state Paul was "fictitious" if you think I'm trying to discredit Paul. Most Christian articles don't even have a "Source" section at the beginning of their article, and seven sentences take plenty of space for this article alone because of that particular section. The original good version of the article didn't even have the "Source" section at the time it was close to being nominated as a "good article". I highly recommend moving the links from the "Source" section to "See also". If majority oppose, then some reference links should be deleted. Either way, something from the article has to be deleted to shorten it. — Jerm729 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Just to make it standard, it does seem to me that the "sources" subsection should be moved closer to the bottom, even below "See also" IMO. This would not shorten the article, of course. (nor do I believe that Ckruschke was trying to say that Paul was fictitious, but to prevent new editors from jumping in too soon to label him a "fiction.")Student7 (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

Mavgogun, as I warned you, please, do not revert again, as you are past the revert limit already. Three different users disagree with you and nevertheless you refuse to bring the issue here to be discussed, so I did it. Their opinions were:

1. Removed the parenthetical explanation about Jesus' views on homosexuality as they are not the subject of this entry. Your reply: contextually appropriate
2. 1) non-WP:TOPIC. This is about Paul. 2) negative inventory. No teachings about the internet are found either. A lot is "missing.".. Your reply: The note is topical- Paul spoke on homosexuality, and those comments are contrasted with his teacher- the same as Aristotle and Plato are contrasted when qualifying the teachings of ether.
3. There is no contrast here. If Jesus had contradicted Paul, that would constitute a contrast; this is just irrelevant.. Your reply: It is completely relevant and topical to any who would qualify the difference in Paul's teachings from the figurehead of his religious dogma. Take this to the talk page.
4. I agree. Since you are the only one defending this, I think it' appropriate that you take your arguments to the Talk Page, don't you think?. Your reply: Sure, talk page - then edit.

Would you please now explain how a statement like "(Within the Gospels, no teachings from Jesus concerning homosexual behavior are to be found.)" following another like "There are three passages in Paul's epistles in which Paul clearly condemns homosexuality: Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and 1 Timothy 1:8-11." is not intended to create a false contrast between what "Paul says" and what "Jesus didn't say" (all the more because it's unsourced). It may be appropriate in Homosexuality and Christianity, but not here, as others have already noted because Paul said a lot of things not explictly said by Jesus and this article is not the place to engage in a theological discussion about authority and dogma. Perhaps you can even create an article about Paul's views on homosexuality and link it here. José Luiz ^talk 12:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Essentially concur with JL. I think we have a consensus to proceed.

Contrasting something not said with something stated seems frivolous and certainly not encyclopedic. Paul wrote well before the gospels were written. The gospel writers may well have figured that "Paul well stated the church's opinion" and simply omitted it, focusing on furnishing information not available to Paul. Paul's epistles are often theology, the gospels often narrative. It was Paul who constructed the theology from the narrative which he received verbally from Peter and others. Student7 (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I also agree with Jose. I see your point, but I don't think this article is the place to make it. Furthermore, many interpret the "male and female joined together clauses" in Matthew 19 as Jesus's implicit rejection of homosexuality. Lahaun (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

No teaching in the Gospels on homosexual behaviour? Well, by name, no, but there is certainly a wholesale condemnation of every form of sexual depravity (porneiai - in the plural) as being evil in Mt.15:19 (cf. Mk.7:21). Ridiculus mus (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Even the idea that Paul clearly condemns homosexual behavior is questionable. The word "homosexual" is not a good translation for arsenokoites, and even the Romans 1 passage was read by several early figures as NOT being about lesbians. I'm not saying Paul would have picked up the rainbow flag, but the issue with Paul is much more complex than what is being argued about here. However, I *do* agree that pointing out Jesus' silence on the issue is a reasonable thing to add to the article, given how important the debate over Jesus &/v. Paul has been in the past few generations. Aristophanes68 (talk) 00:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Jesus' teachings (or lack thereof) regarding homosexuality

Wikipedia is not meant to be a board of censors. A fact is a fact, and generally Wikipedia trusts the public to derive its own conclusions about facts, and does not try to "force" the viewpoints of various Wikipedia editors upon the public. The fact is: that Jesus was never recorded as specifically teaching about homosexuality. If some editors are of the view that such a fact must be hidden from the public, then that would be POV, and against Wikipedia policies. Obviously Jesus' teachings are not irrelevant to Paul's as the entire premise of Paul was that he was the "clarifier" of Jesus' teachings. To try to cloud, hide, or "pre-interpret" facts about the exact relationship between Paul's teachings and Jesus' teachings does not seem to me to be consistent with Wikipedia policy. Scott P. (talk) 12:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is the fact: "It is of note that no teachings specifically regarding homosexuality, which can be attributed directly to Jesus, can be found in the four Gospels." Isn't it a certain form of "Biblical review committee censorship" to hide this simple fact from the public? Isn't the public yet "grown up enough" to be able to know this fact for themselves? Who are we to determine what the public is "grown up enough" yet to know? Scott P. (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with censorship or 'hiding facts'. Have you read the comments above? We are all trying to improve Wikipedia, and your efforts in doing so are also appreciated. However, Wikipedia's editing principles are based on establishing concensus. Wikipedians can be of the opinion that a certain edit is not an improvement to the article, regardless of the good intentions of the one making it. Not all 'facts' are relevant in all articles, and we must necessarily be selective in deciding which information is relevant and appropriate in which articles/paragraphs. When people disagree with you, I don't think it's particularly helpful to call that 'censorship'. Please address the specific concerns that editors have raised in the section above, firstly that the comment "is intended to create a false contrast", and secondly that it does not actually deal with a topic that Jesus addressed, but rather with something he did not address and therefore it seems "frivolous" and "not encyclopedic" to put that comment there. - Lindert (talk) 13:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The fact that Jesus is not recorded as having taught anything about homosexuality is a simple fact. Contrasts and false contrasts are merely points of view being put forward by specific editors that are not a part of the fact itself. Jesus' teachings are not irrelevant, and are very much a part of Paul's teachings. To point out facts that might contrast the teachings of the two men is definitely kosher and not taboo or 'frivolous' per Wikipedia policy of allowing readers to choose for themselves in "unclear circumstances", and generally allowing potentially controversial information to be listed, so long as it is accurate and well documented. Scott P. (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Scott P. - what is your end state goal in all this? A sentence that reads "Jesus did not condemn homosexuality"? So if you ended up getting this "FACT" on Wikipedia, what then? Simply trying to figure out your POV because you have started two separate threads on the same issue, you have several editors already giving you specific, defined reasons why this text won't work, and your continued response is an ad hominem attack on this editors of censorship. Ckruschke (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

My hope is that Wikipedia would be a suitable place to allow simple logic to prevail in the analysis of Paul's teachings. Simple logic would tell us that potentially controversial facts about the teachings of Paul should be allowed in this article, so long as they are accurate and well documented. I started this thread (I didn't start the last thread) because I felt that a thread of this title would be appropriate. I have not mentioned any specific editors by name, and have not made any personal-level remarks that I know of. Please correct me if I am wrong in this. Scott P. (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Note that I did not say you mentioned other editors by name - an ad hominem is choosing to discuss something other than the facts that are presented. You mentioned censorship in a broad context above when the previous thread's comments were met with facts. And forgive me for saying you started the previous thread - because the thrust of the previous thread/editor is identical, I missed that it wasn't you - apologize. So obviously my point that several editors have said "this doesn't work" to you specifically is wrong, but the intent of this (since the previous thread is essentially the same) is not and thus my point remains the same.

Your goal is honorable, but I'm in agreement with the other editors that your requested edit fails any notability and/or strictly truthful test (and the "So what?" test). Also I continue to scratch my head on your overall goal. Jesus also didn't talk about being scourged, so should we put something in here that says "Jesus had no idea what he was getting into on His last days because he doesn't talk about the specifics of scourging and thus he's not all-knowing". I realize this is a bad example, but that's what my impression of your argument - I mean Jesus' words can be parsed any way you want.

I realize this is an important topic for you and I'm not belittling your passion or thoughts, but again, what is your end state point here? That the general public should be allowed to see that Paul is anti-homosexual and that his teachings diverged from what Jesus said (or were silent on) and thus you are trying to say... what...? All over the Bible it says that Jews/Christians should refrain from homosexuality or that "non-natural" lust/love (i.e. not heterosexual) was either frowned upon or a sin (as well as sex outside of marriage, lust after women w/o physical contact, masturbation, etc ,etc, etc - homosexuality isn't the only sexual sin). Paul is not the sole person saying this. This is also well documented. Ckruschke (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Contrast in the teachings of Paul with that of Jesus is plainly topical, the subject of contemporary import, and of common interest. Paul, who is notable only for his relation to Christianity and, to a degree, the teachings of Jesus, is better illustrated with this contrast; such predecessor-successor contrasts are not just typical, they are expected- and useful; Socrates and Plato are an archetypical example. The recognition here was both brief and adequate; I found it useful and in scale to its utility- there was no undue burden. I entered into this discussion after seeking information on Paul's contribution to Christian tradition- and this bit exemplified that. Redaction would be an injury to the article- it will make it a less perfect tool for learning what "Paul the Apostle" means.Mavigogun (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, apology accepted. Still, non-notable? Do a Google search on the three words, "Jesus Paul and Homosexuality" and you will find 10,400 hits. Dozens of books on the subject, etc, etc. I find it notable that Jesus took the trouble to go into great detail about marital sex, extramarital sex, sex in heaven, etc. etc. Yet not a word specifically on homosexual sex. To me, his silence on the topic seems to be notable. I appreciate your passionate defense of the status quo belief that Jesus and Paul were entirely of the same voice, but evidence that might call that view into question ought not to be silenced, simply because it might call that into question. Scott P. (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with other editors that the note, '(Within the Gospels, no teachings from Jesus concerning homosexual behavior are to be found.)" isn't necessary or appropriate to the article. The subject of the article is Paul, after all, not Jesus, so it seems like an unwarranted digression. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

True the article is about Paul, but saying that Jesus is irrelevant to Paul seems to me to be saying something like King Henry VIII ought not to be mentioned in an article about Elizabeth I. They are intricately interrelated, and one is the child of the other. To for some reason choose to arbitrarily ignore the influence Henry VIII had (or did not have) on Elizabeth I, would seem to me to do them both a disservice. In the case of Jesus and Paul, one exists only in the shadow of the other. To ignore this relationship between them, would seem to me to be like one person explaining to another that, "When attempting to describe the pathway of the moon, it is best not to mention the Earth." Scott P. (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

But Jesus is mentioned in the article, multiple times: wherever it is relevant to do so in an article about Paul. There is a very clear consensus that your suggested addition regarding Jesus is not relevant enough to Paul to merit inclusion. VQuakr (talk) 02:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Does this article have a Pauline Christian POV acting to censor out the Jesuist POV?

In the two sections above, seven or eight editors have argued forcefully against the inclusion of any material in the article that might point up any specific examples of how there might be a slight difference in teaching between Paul and Jesus, while three editors have supported the inclusion of such material in the article. The specific example around which this rather lengthy debate has revolved has been the question of a comparison of the teachings (or lack thereof) between Jesus and Paul re: homosexuality. In the last comment above, VQuakr explained his sense that the article was essentially neutral, and that the inclusion of such potentially controversial material was against "consensus". Since I am introducing a somewhat new line of thought or "angle" below, and since the above section is already somewhat lengthy, I have started a new section here. Here is my reply to VQuakr

--VQuakr, you are entirely correct that Jesus is mentioned multiple times in the article, but my question becomes: "Exactly why has this specific reference to Jesus been singled out as irrelevant to Paul?" Here is one possibility: Because the article as it now stands happens to be dominated by a Pauline Christian POV. Please note that none of the 76 references to Jesus' name recount a single specific example that might point to the possibility of there being any differences between Paul's teachings and Jesus' teachings.

--Why is this one instance of Jesus' name so uncomfortable for so many editors? Because they all subscribe (though unknowingly) to the Pauline Christian belief system, which has dominated Christian thought for two thousand years. However, Wikipedia is not a place where discordant lines of thought should be censored, deleted, or rooted out, simply because they might not be in the majority. I have shown above that there is a notable minority that subscribes to the Jesuism belief system, particularly on this one question on teachings regarding homosexuality, and I feel that it is now time for rationality, and balance, rather than a single mindset and POV to be allowed to govern this article. By the way, consensus means harmony. There are still some of us who do not yet see the harmony of a one sided POV article. Scott P. (talk) 03:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The word "harmony" does not occur within our policy at WP:Consensus. It does, however, note that a consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Since half a dozen or so editors have taken your suggestion into account and agreed that it is irrelevant, I think it is reasonable to say that consensus has been reached. If you disagree, I suggest using a request for comment to get additional opinions. Your inference that no discussion of Jesuism vs Pauline Christianity is present in the article is demonstrably false; see Paul the Apostle#Controversy. VQuakr (talk) 03:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Could you please address my concern that no specific example of the Jesuist view has yet been permitted to be listed in the article? True, a general, yet vague reference to the Jesuist view has been permitted in the article very briefly, at the very bottom of the article in the controversy section, however not a single specific example of it has yet been permitted into the article. Is that a balanced view being presented, or a biased one? This is a concern of mine, that I have not yet seen being answered or addressed here.Scott P. (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:DEADHORSE. The subject of the article is Paul, not the related concepts of Pauline Christianity, Jesuism, The Bible and homosexuality, or Homosexuality in the New Testament. Crying "censorship" when multiple editors agree that the content you want to add is drifting off-topic for this article is poor form. VQuakr (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Does this article have a Pauline Christian POV acting to censor out the Jesuist POV?

A "rather lively" and definitely "lengthy" debate has just taken place above, where approximately 3 editors strongly support the inclusion of a potentially "controversial fact" about Paul the apostle's teachings, in the article about him, and approximately 8 editors strongly oppose the inclusion of such material in the article. This fact, is the fact that Jesus' teachings in the Bible are entirely silent on the question of the morality of homosexuality. The claim has been made that by excluding this fact, the article becomes unnecessarily biased in the direction of traditionalism and orthodoxy, while others have claimed that the inclusion of the fact is a sort of a "double negative", since the absence of one thing does not necessarily prove the presence of another. The fresh and unbiased opinions of others who do not necessarily edit in this article are welcomed here. Thank you. Scott P. (talk) 04:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I would add to Scottperry's good faith attempt at summarizing both sides above: an argument to exclude this particular information is that it is already extant in more relevant articles, as noted here. VQuakr (talk) 05:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding: "an argument to exclude this particular information is that it is already extant/exists in more relevant articles." With all due respect to VQuakr, this is a bad argument. 1-"more relevant" is not a measuring stick, "relevance" is. 2-if the information is relevant to this article, then it should be included in this article. Because if it is relevant and not included, then your argument boils down to "readers should jump to other articles to fill in the blanks." I am sure you agree that that's a bad recipe. TrentonC5 (talk) 07:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Since the opinions of others who have not edited in this article are welcome here, I have a few observations on the current state of the article, and a suggestion based on those observations.

The controversial section is extremely short. It contains a link to Homosexuality in the New Testament, then has a single sentence which claims that "Paul clearly condemns homosexuality" based on three Biblical references.

One of these references (1 Timothy) is, according to the current academic consensus, probably not authentically Pauline. I note that Homosexuality in the New Testament doesn't seem to point this out either (I only skimmed it). That other article does, however, go to some trouble to point out that the meaning of the key words arsenokoites and malakoi in 1 Tim and 1 Cor are the subject of some debate (though there are some notable omissions in the discussion there, such as the use of the word arsenokoites in the Sibylline oracles). However, the purpose of this discussion is not to critique of that article.

To my mind, a more important issue than the question of what Jesus is or is not reported as having said in the texts that we have, this single sentence contains one clear mistake and one important omission, the effect of which is to leave a misleading impression of the current academic opinion of Paul. The clear mistake is that Paul almost certainly didn't write 1 Tim. The omission is that there is considerable dispute about what 1 Cor means. The reference to Romans is the only part which is indisputably accurate.

My suggestion, therefore, is to punt. Delete the text in the section, keep the link to the other article, and leave it at that. This has the added advantage of making this dispute moot. De Guerre (talk) 07:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I can accept De Guerre's idea, except that the other topics in this section have both the links and summary. One way to avoid punting is to simply lay out the scholastic questions about the key texts: (1) scholars aren't sure if all the texts are really by Paul; (2) the translation of arsenokoites etc. is still debated and is certainly mistranslated as homosexual (since the term clearly doesn't refer to lesbians); (3) the Romans passage has been debated in terms of what "contrary to nature" means, and even some important early authorities did not interpret it as referring to lesbianism. This approach would lay out the key problems with the current paragraph without having to take a strong stand on whether Paul was clearly anti-gay. If we want to include a short comment about this also being an issue on which Jesus's own teachings give no clear direction by which to interpret Paul, I'm fine with that -- I think such a statement is a reasonable thing to add. Aristophanes68 (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

It would also work to expand the section to lay out the dispute more thoroughly, sure. I suggested what I suggested partly because it avoids doubling up the other article, but mostly because it was less work. De Guerre (talk) 05:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I would more strongly support De Guerre's original suggestion than Aristophanes68 somewhat "50/50" solution as it again includes adding text that we've now had two threads that discussed and denied as relevant ("If we want to include a short comment about this also being an issue on which Jesus's own teachings give no clear direction by which to interpret Paul"). The simplist solution is often the best - especially when there is another complete page devoted to the topic. Ckruschke (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Then leave out the comparison to Jesus and include the other three points I mentioned. I just don't see how we can justify having other sections that duplicate other articles but then claim that we don't need to do the same with this section. Aristophanes68 (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Ckruschke (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Brief summations that are topical and link out to other articles that treat the material in greater detail are entirely appropriate ( though leaving out topical material as a solution to editorial creativity failures ain't). Arguments and conclusions need not be included- only sufficient information for the reader to judge applicability to their research. As one such reader, I would find it useful; consolidated into a section, those who aren't looking for this material can skip it without incurring any sort of burden.Mavigogun (talk) 09:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Why exclude this particular information is that it is already extant/exists in more relevant articles? I don't get your point. Are you afraid that this information will be used against homosexuality as something negative? I think the problem is that those views are not discussed in the right historical perspective. The views of Paulus are more than 2000 years old. Things have changed since then, we don’t wear the clothes Paulus wore, eat the food he use to eat, behave in the way people behaved then, - the world changes! Brief summations that are topical and link out to other articles that treat the material in greater detail are entirely appropriate. But I seriously think you need to stress the historical point of view. This topic can’t stand alone; historical arguments need to follow with it. Hafspajen (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Reza Aslan

I can't believe that Reza Aslan is being used in an article about Paul. This is absurd. We should carefully analyze the motivations of "modern" analysis of Christian figures by those with a vicious agenda. The Satan's most accomplished work is simply this - DOUBT. Wikipedians should tread carefully allowing the speculation of self-serving living populists entering into a discussion about the Gospel as authoritative. mickrussom (talk) 09:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia is not to create a "discussion" about the status of any religious text as authoritative. We summarize opinions by secondary sources, and we are not going to restrict this to only 19th century and earlier commentators. VQuakr (talk) 05:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

He is notable. I've added the adjectives "controversial religious scholar" before his name. That, according to the Wikipedia bio. Note that all doctoral candidates are expected to come up with something "new" in their field. That doesn't mean "truth", per se. Gets tougher as the number of candidates rise, and the number of possible topics for discussion stays the same (for the liberal arts, as opposed to technological fields). Student7 (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)