Talk:Paul the Apostle/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Minor edit in Resurrection section and an opinion on the use of "Saint"

"Corporal" and not "corporate", please, for having to do with the body. Cf. OED. while "corporal" can also mean a low-level noncommissioned officer, its use to mean "having to do with the body, as opposed to the soul" is recognized, whereas "corporate" NEVER, in literate speech and texts, means "having to do with the body". Given the bloodlessness of the corporation, it is an insult to the body to call it corporate!

A truly NPOV in the sense of tolerant and small-c catholic in the sense of "as multicultural as possible" would indeed call Paul a Saint to acknowledge that BY CATHOLICS he is so regarded. It is a Puritan POV and iconoclasm at its worse to remove Saint, because it engages in a fallacious inference: because there are no Saints and we must worship G-d alone, we may not as part of our piety refer to a famous Christian as a Saint.

This, is nonsense, and intolerant, since IF there are no Saints as understood in Catholic theology, then G-d won't mind, being great (in Protestantism and Islam) if you refer to Saint Paul by his historical appelation by a major faith. It simply is to re-present what people thought about him with NPOV.

As Abraham Lincoln said, "if I call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?" When William Seward, his Secretary of State walked right into old Abe's canny Mr. Bones as the Interlocutor, and said, "five", Mr. Bones chuckled and said, "nope, Bill, calling it a leg don't make it a leg".

Calling old Saint Paul a Saint don't make him a Saint unless you believe in the Roman faith, pard, and is not to violate your Protestant sentiments; if they are four-square they will not be threatened by a little tolerance. A nasty and bogus notion of NPOV in wikipedia is narrowing its POV to that of middle-class Protestant and American white males, and this will make wikipedia useless for its intended purpose. True neutrality has quite a lot to do with tolerance and multiculturalism. Unfortunately, and increasingly, these are becoming foreign to the God-walloping convenience store clerks and maddened monks who seem, now, to be taking over, and turning wikipedia into the Thirty Years' War.

That is my POV, anyway.

(Spinoza)

Complaint

Okay, I have a major grievance here. This article has been utterly hijacked and taken over by Roger Arguile (and perhaps a few others), an admitted Roman Catholic priest with limited, if any, NPOV. Roger, your tending to this article and overt bias is all over the place. Give it a rest, please. We know where your POV is coming from. You are not the sole arbiter of perception or perspective here. Yes, there is a so-called majority viewpoint that is well known about Paul; but there are many others who have valid issues to provide about Paul without your personal grooming of the article against anything you simply disagree with. Just because you feel an issue about Paul is somehow "settled" (ie. Maccoby and Jefferson) does not mean that it is with others who have a much wider point of perspective than you allow yourself to have. Big deal if you're British and don't care about Jefferson. There are a lot of folks who would like to know what Jefferson thought and did with the canon. Are you the thought police also?? This article does not have to be "orthodox", it needs to be balanced and historical. Please restrain yourself from constantly grooming these articles with your own personal mission of bias even if you may disagree. --Solascriptura 21:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above as far as the bias that has been displayed. Catholics and Orthodox use "Saints" to refer to people but it's not a Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, or any other world religion POV, so it's certainly not "neutral". That's why I took those phrases out and replaced them with the more neutral "Paul" or "Paul of Tarsus" as is in the title. And this page really isn't the place to do an exposition of one's own version of Paul's beliefs and whether or not those are true or correct. To my understanding, that would better fit under "Pauline Christianity." Please, folks, let's try to keep this neutral, shall we? And for the person who stated that "St Paul" Minnesota is named after Paul and so it must be a NPOV, guess again. I live on a street named after "Saint Francis" but that doesn't mean I agree that he's a "saint". It just means someone thought so and I happen to live here after the fact. Standing for Truth 02:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I imagine I had better respond to the complaint(s).

My first reaction is to draw attention to the fact that I am not a Roman Catholic priest . My second is that several editors in the past have guessed, quite wrongly, what my personal views are and that it is unwise to make assumptions. My third is to say that whilst I am open about my allegiance - and therefore my possible prejudices - it is always helpful if those who choose, quite reasonably, to conceal their identity and allegiance, would deal with the substance of any objections rather than making personal references. I should say that in England the expression 'grooming' is highly offensive and indicates grossly improper conduct. I assume that this is not the case in the United States. I shall, as we are enjoined, 'assume good faith'.

My mission, I confess it, is that the article should be of the highest encyclopaedic quality, a mission from which I do not propose to rest. If there are specific objections to anything that I have written, I should be very pleased to read them. As it is I would contest the contentions made vigorously. Clearly, both of the above editors think that they can see bias, in which case they are entitled to specify where they think it occurs. "Solascriptura" has, however, found that other editors than I disagree with him/her.

Fourthly, I think I detect an element of confusion. No one takes for granted the opinions of someone who uses the prefix 'Saint'. However, the use of the term 'Saint Francis' is widespread and comes from the founder of the order who came from Assisi. The capital of Minnesota is named after the Apostle Paul, whatever anyone thinks, and he is customarily titled St. Paul. To remove such a designation would be to cause confusion.

Fifthly, I have a high opinion of Jefferson - though his slave owning does not make him the best defender of Christian values - but, while his opinion on the US Constitution are very important, his views on the New Testament are not. I am sure that those who are qualitied to write on him may feel that his views on the New Testament should be included in the Jefferson article. Those people who wish to know of his views can than be satisfied.

Sixthly, English Protestants routinely call the Apostle 'St. Paul' pace the above.

Finally, whilst 'hijacked' may seem the appropriate term for my work on this article in the view of some of us, what I have attempted to do is to make the article coherant and to reflect a range of views. I happen to think that to include tangental opinions from however august a source indicated of POV.

But please ladies/gentlemen: it would be helpful to ascertain your precise objections. But do assume good faith. Roger Arguile 12:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Roger, first you say your are a priest, now you say you're not. So which is it? What is everyone supposed to believe about you? You said, "I am a parish priest in England and so am subject to bias. ... Roger Arguile 16:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)" Also, please refrain from leveling personal attacks and raising "strawman" issues (ie. "grooming"). I am reverting the article to remove the references of "St. Paul". Please remember not to violate the rules of this site including no more than 3 reverts. You do not own this or any other article. If you persist in violating the terms of Wikipedia, I will invite a moderator to settle the dispute and request that you access to the article be removed. --Solascriptura 18:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
To say someone has "hijacked" an article is a strong accusation, and is perhaps not the most generous read on the recent edits of this page. That said, how about a compromise? Yes, "Saint Paul" is used by most Christians -- Roman Catholics & Orthodox (there's 60% of the world's Christians), but also most Lutherans, Anglicans/Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Methodists. The aversion to calling him Saint Paul - at least within the Christian community - does represent the small minority -- mostly American non-denominational evangelicals. One option - which recognizes the use of the title saint while preserving a more nuetral tone - is to use Saint in the lead (Saint Paul the Apostle ...) and then simply refer to him as Paul throughout the rest of the article (See Maximus the Confessor for an example of how this looks in the article). -- Pastordavid 18:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Further, as style comments, in general usage "St X" refers to a building, town, etc; "Saint X" refers a person. Further, self-referential section headers are to be avoided per the wikipedia manual of style (avoiding the issue there altogether; Life of Paul or Life of Saint Paul ought to be simply "Life"). Pastordavid 18:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, how about this ... Paul of Tarsus (Saint Paul) ...? Keep in mind that the original article name is just that "Paul of Tarsus". Also, there are approximately 1.8 billion Christian worldwide, of which about 670 million are Protestants. The vast majority of these folks do not use the title "Saint" for anyone, not Paul, not Peter, and especially not anyone from latter Roman Catholic history. When was the last time you heard the RCC mention Saint Moses or Saint David or Saint Isaiah? Well .... ? --Solascriptura 18:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I would say that the consensus for the article title, from the discussion below, is Paul the Apostle. And, actually, the Roman martyrologies do in fact speak of Saint Moses, Isaiah, & David. Further, not all all 670 million Protestants agree with your position - as I noted above, in fact the majority use the term Saint. That is why I suggested the compromise above, "Saint Paul the Apostle" for the first mention in the article lead, simply "Paul" throughout the rest of the article. -- Pastordavid 19:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I will agree with a title construction which I have attempted to add and the removal of Saint throughout the article. The other issue here is that this article is literally FILLED with a bunch of Catholic doctrine of what Paul presumably taught, which is subject to wide interpretation. This needs to be removed and place within its own article, such as maybe, "The Doctrines of Paul" with various perspectives. As it is now, Wikipedia is complaining about the length of this article. --Solascriptura 19:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I think the cuts you made were fair and appropriate. I followed behind with a slight change, as the consensus in the discussion below is for "Paul the Apostle" not "Paul of Tarsus", and a move is impending (Although, NB: I only use "the Apostle" in the first reference - along with "Saint" - and then all qualifiers or titles are left off throughout the rest of the article). -- Pastordavid 19:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I should respond. I am not a Catholic priest but an Anglican one. 'Sola Scriptura' does not justify what is merely a descriptive material which allows a reader to know what is the major focus of St. Paul's belief. Such sweeping cuts need to be justified or characterised as a breach of WP codes. To suggest that the cuts are minor is an abuse. I think we do need a moderator. Roger Arguile 21:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

hey wiki editors - the grievances are justly posted. the simple fact is that this article does present a very specific view point that could be called FAR from objective. it would be only honest to put a warning bar at the head of the article that says "this article may represent a one-sided view point" or something to that effect. i think that everyone who does not agree with the author's forcefully stated opinion would appreciate it. thanks! --91.124.17.194 16:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Please elaborate, if you will, on what exactly you see to be a problem. If you believe changes should be made, suggest them here, or be bold and add them yourself. If your change is removed, join the discussion and argue over the merit in including your changes. As it is, I see no problems with the article, so explain to me what you feel is an issue. --C.Logan 20:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Archive

I archived the old conversations. --Ephilei 16:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Article Rename

Paul is never called "Paul of Tarsus" in the New Testament, other non-cannonical documents, or the contemporary Christian Church and only rarely in academic circles. This causes confusion to the many readers ignorant of the minor location, Tarsus. I propose moving to either

"Paul of Tarsus" has only 100,000 Google hits. These titles follow Christian tradition, contemporary Christianity, academia, and many Christians. Only the over simple term "Paul" is more common. Both "saint" and "apostle" are NPOV titles that do not mean inherent ordination by God, unlike "prophet" or "messiah". They signal the approval of Christianity. There is a long precedent of using this on Wikipedia. Compare the 12 apostles of the Gospels:

The only exceptions are all people who share names with other apostles (James, Judas, Simon). All them are called by these names in the New Testament (except Matthew). Paul neither shares a name nor is named anything other than Paul (except "Saul", the Hebrew to Greek transliteration of "Paul"). Note that he is already called "Apostle Paul" on the Christianity tag on this article. Do you prefer Paul of Tarsus, Saint Paul, Apostle Paul, Paul the Apostle or Saint Paul the Apostle? --Ephilei 15:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Paul the Apostle or Saint Paul Just to get it started. Saint is more popular historically, but using Apostle is more consistent and doesn't need disambiguation. Comes out even. --Ephilei 15:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
There are several St. Paul's - St. Paul of Contantinople, St. Paul of the Cross etc. but otherwisde schoolls and cities are named after the apostle. I would go for 'St. Paul the Apostle'. Roger Arguile 16:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I like Saint Paul the Apostle most of all! --Ephilei 20:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I would go remain as is, Paul of Tarsus. Obviously, some qualifier is needed, other than just "Paul." Paul of Tarsus is, as I see it, the most neutral term and is also specific enough to clearly identify the person in question. (unrelated to my own opinion, I am cross-posting notice of this proposed change on the talk pages of some interested wikiprojects). -- Pastordavid 01:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Paul the Apostle. I really don't think titles like "Saint" should appear in article titles, generally speaking. There might be a redirect under that name, but the article title itself should be neutral. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Paul the Apostle would be an improvement over the current title. I tend to use the term "Saint Paul" but agree with TCC. Perhaps Saint Paul can redirect to Paul the Apostle. Majoreditor 02:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Paul the Apostle seems to be the most consistent. Paul of Tarsus should redirect to it. Itsmejudith 06:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Paul of Tarsus - because to the best of my knowledge it is at best dubiously indicated that Paul ever technically was an apostle. I can understand going for the most frequently used name, but accuracy should also be a consideration. John Carter 15:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: The first sentence of the article calls him an apostle, and I could find no indication in the article text that Paul wasn't (technically or otherwise) an apostle. -- Cat Whisperer 16:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment He most certainly was an apostle. See Chapter 1 of a randomly selected Pauline epistle. In the Orthodox Church, "The Apostle" unqualified almost always means St. Paul. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment I suspect that John may be confusing "apostle" with "disciple". Paul was not one of the 12 disciples, but he undoubtedly was an apostle, and specifically referred to himself as such - see Twelve Apostles#Paul of Tarsus. --Tim4christ17 talk 21:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

St. Paul is what he is known as by Christians. St. Paul, the city in Minnesota, is named after him. If one is not neutral, neither is the other. Those who disbelieve in the Christian faith may not believe in sainthood either, which is fine, but to call someone by a name that few of his co-religionists would recognise and to deny him the atribute of Apsotle, when there are other saints called Paul in the calender is to carry NPOVity to absurd lengths. After, all the most important reason for doing anything in WP is that readers should be able to find a reference. Describing St. Paul by an attribute which means nothing to Christians - the people who, by and large, tend to talk and write about him most - seems to me to suggest that non-belief is the real position of neutrality.Roger Arguile 14:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to come into this late. I don't like "Paul of Tarsus". He was called "Saul of Tarsus", but never "Paul of Tarsus" to my knowledge. "The Apostle Paul"/"Paul the Apostle" I prefer slightly to "St. Paul", but I prefer both to "Paul of Tarsus". I agree with the person who said that "Apostle" or "Saint" are used widely on Wikipedia and do not imply a POV judgement. They are simply the most common designation for many people. Rocksong 03:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Ditto, late here. Why not Paul (apostle)? I've never heard of many of the apostles named as "X the Apostle" (altho' I have heard "The Apostle X"), but then again "I've never heard of ---" cuts about as much ice as WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. But since the naming conventions, as I understand them, generally eschew the "Saint" title, why not just use the common name and with the disambig? And if that has already been discussed, my apologies... --SigPig |SEND - OVER 13:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC) PS My own personal POV druthers would have the apostles all at "X" (as in Paul) with the disambigs and names moved to "X (disambiguation)" and "X (name)". --Sig
  • It looks like the overwhelming majority is for Paul the Apostle. Someone want to ga ahead and boldly move it? Don't forget about the redirects when you do. -- Pastordavid 14:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I changed the name at the beginning of the article to Paul the Apostle. The word "Saint" is chiefly used in King James translations of the Bible. Catholics also use it as a title. As scriptural Christians you are saints but not "Saint's" as if it is some title to separate between the clergy and the laity or even the Apostles. There is no scriptural authority anywhere in the Bible to do this so therefore is not accurate and does not conform to a neutral POV. Refering to Paul, or any other apostles as "Saint's" cannot be backed up by scripture. It needs to be left out.Craig1974 01:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and High Protestants use the title. That means that nearly 1.7 billion individuals use the title 'Saint' when referring to Paul, whereas around 400 million do not (and even amongst these, there is no universal opposition to it).--C.Logan 01:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you want non-denominational scriptural accuracy or "facts" as determined by popular opinion? It needs to be Paul the Apostle. List for me anywhere in the Bible where Paul is referred to as a "Saint". That is what I thought, you cannot. The same thing goes for Peter and any other who is deemed by popular opinion "Saint" as a title in the Bible. Craig1974 00:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Who says the Bible is the only determining factor? I'm a Protestant and I happen to agree, but we also need to be aware that this is a dictionary for all people, and Catholics and Orthodox tend to prefer "Saint Paul". I slightly prefer "Paul the Apostle" because it is a more "universal" term, but I do not like the way that you seem to be unilaterally changing it without seeking consensus. Peter Ballard 00:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Paul the Apostle. Paul was designated a "saint" by the RC church. The NT refers to all regenerate true believers in and followers of Jesus Christ "saint."

I wonder why there cannot be a little more tolerance. Throughout most of the article the Apostle is called 'Paul'. He is only called St. Paul at the beginning (and in the ref to the painting by El Greco (who would have known him as St. Paul). He is thus distinguished from Paul of Samosata, Paul the Deacon. St. Paul of thebes, Paul of the Cross and St. Paul of Constantinople. The article is headed 'Paul the Apostle'. If this degree of flexibility and tolerance cannot prevail amongst Christians, let alone editors, it is a shame. Religious people, of whom I am one, are not made to seem more credible by being intolerant of different views. I would hope that those who take the Bible as the Church's rule book rather than its necessary handbook, might accept the other point of view. It's a pity we can't meet face to face. A grin would empty out our firmness of purpose and determination to have our opinion take precedence. Isn't it OK to have BOTH usages in the article? Roger Arguile 08:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

What about Saul of Tarsus (Paul the Apostle)?

RJRocket53 (talk) 01:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Acts and St. Paul's letters

Hello everyone,

Reading through the article, I came across two paragraphs that seemed out of place in St. Paul's early history. They regarded the reliability of Acts vs. St. Paul's letters; the first paragraph argued against the reliability of Acts, and the second paragraph argued for the historical reliability of Acts. They fell in the middle of his biography and were very disconnected from the article.

Though the historical reliability of Acts is an extremely important subject, I'm not sure an article devoted to St. Paul's life can do it justice. Consequentially, I tried to unite and cut down the two paragraphs, pointing people instead to a link on the Acts wiki page for a full discussion. I moved the new paragraph to a spot at the beginning on his life, in a new section, and I tried to include both viewpoints equally.

I understand why someone added these paragraphs in the first place. Since we're trying to give the details of Paul's life, and some people are arguing that one of our two sources is in dispute while the other is not, it makes sense to mention this in passing. It also frames the article nicely, since most of St. Paul's biography that follows cites either Acts or his letters, and we note any (possible) difficulty uniting them. However, it's important that we don't get sidetracked from the main point of the article.

I tried to make this changes in the most NPOV way possible, and I welcome any feedback.

Take care, --Glistenray 19:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


General question on article overlap

I'm new to this article, so I'm not sure if this has been discussed before. But I noticed that several of the article's sections duplicate work found on other pages on wikipedia. Some overlap is inevitable; if there's a specific article on St. Paul's writing, then in his biography of course we're still going to mention that St. Paul wrote. But what about the lengthy paragraphs on the disputes over the Council of Jerusalem? We might be able to cut that down a little, especially if there is already a separate article on this topic. Same might go for the disputes over the authorship of St. Paul's work; if there are specific, separate articles on them elsewhere on wikipedia, there's no point in reinventing the wheel here.

Other lengthy biographical articles must run into this constantly, especially if they're related to other sub-articles. How did they choose the level of detail in the main article vs. the sub-articles? I guess one concern would be that controversial material (disputes over St. Paul's writings, etc) would always get hidden on subpages, which wouldn't be NPOV.

I'm happy to make the necessary changes myself, but I thought I would check with the community first.

Take care, --Glistenray 20:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

My view on the 'Council of Jerusalem' is that some account can't be avoided. I wrote it so I am a bit precious about it. Becuase of the way WP is produced, one can't make all article sfit together. Try not to tread on our corns. Roger Arguile 23:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Very lengthy sectarian doctrinal exposition

This article is just WAY TOO LONG. This is not a dissertation on Pauline "doctrine". It contains 3,500+ words of "doctrinal" exposition that is completely sectarian and biased toward an orthodox interpretation whereas the so-called "alternate view" contains just 1/6th this length. I suggest moving the doctrinal review to another article where doctrine can be better illustrated. Finally, there needs to be a reference to Pauline Christianity in the head of this article. Do not remove the POV dispute tag until these issues are resolved! --Standing for Truth 23:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

New threads really should go on the bottom of talk pages, please.
I don't understand your problem here. The article would be incomplete without an analysis of the theology Paul taught. And surely it's more than fair to devote 1/6 of the space to a view shared by fewer than 1/6 of those calling themselves "Christian". If anything, it's undue weight.
I agree the reference should be in the article, but there's no reason to put it in a hatnote. It should go in the "See also" section along with all other related articles. Hatnotes are for disambiguation and so forth. This is not an article someone is likely to stumble on when searching for an article on the viewpoints described in "Pauline Christianity". Actually, if you want to treat your group's POV at length, that seems the place to do it. If so, then it's worth a {{main}} at the head of the summary given here. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If this were the ONLY page on Paul, then I could perhaps see putting more doctrinal review in it. But "Pauline Christianity" is ALL ABOUT HIS DOCTRINE! An entire web page. And surely, you really didn't mean what you said about "it's more than fair to devote 1/6 of the space to a view shared by fewer than 1/6 of those calling themselves "Christian". If anything, it's undue weight." ????? In other words, one POV (those feeling a certain way about something) is OK if the majority feels that way, and alternative viewpoints are pretty much shunned or limited because the majority don't like what those alternative viewpoints are? How NEUTRAL is that, really?

I believe it's really important to keep in mind that this is not an "evangelism" page but an "information" page. In other words, the good, the bad, and the ugly should all be weighted equally. If the "alternative" viewpoint being shunned had historically always been the rule, the earth would still be considered flat, there wouldn't be such a thing as a "Protestant" or a "Protestant Reformation" and Jesus Christ's message wouldn't have impacted the world like it has. "Because the majority believes it" is not always where the truth lies. And to my understanding, wikipedia is not meant to cater only to the majority, or popular, opinion. Standing for Truth 03:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Your understanding is off. I think you need to read up on WP:NPOV. Ideas that are relatively in the fringe do not need -- in fact, should not receive -- equal coverage with mainstream ideas. That's why we don't treat, for example Bigfoot as if its existence were as credible as the raccoon, and do not include it in taxonomies. We do not give the ideas of a small minority equal weight because this is not an evangelism page which small groups use in order to get more exposure for their beliefs.
You use a very apt example when you mention the Lord. It's true that Christ's teachings were something new in the Roman Empire and that his Church has subsequently become very large. But if you were writing an article on the major religions of 1st century Rome, you would be giving Christianity undue weight if it was given as much attention as Roman paganism and various mystery religions. It was simply not a very important or influential religion at the time, and you wouldn't be justified in presenting it as if it was. Similarly, you are not justified here in presenting a minority theory as if it carried as much influence as the mainstream view. It simply doesn't, no matter how sincerely it's believed in by its adherents.
Pauline Christianity should certainly be, if it is not now, about this minority view. Nearly all Christians do not believe their faith was primarily shaped by Paul or that he distorted or misrepresented Jesus' teachings; they therefore do not use the term. It's really rather insulting. It should therefore be about the ideas of those who do use it, in the same way that you'd create a separate article on the 1st century Christian Church in Rome if you wanted to go into it in detail. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

As the person who worte the section on St. Paul's thought I would like to repeat my plea for objectors to be specific. There is nothing, in my view which is sectarian. Perhaps it may help if I explain the procedure.: 1) If readers are to understand the arguments they need to have some exposition of Paul's thought on, for instance, the atonement, a subject which is central to the Reformation among others. the article early notes the controversies in which his work has been central. It would have been possible to have peppered that exposition with terms like 'he claimed that..', 'he assserted that..' but it would have not added much. If SfT thinks that the exposition indicates a sympathy for Paul's thought, then I have to say that this is only partly true. 2) There follows a brief history of dispute featuring those who hold to the substitionary doctrine of the atonement and those who abhor it - both views are mentioned. Major players, like Luther and Calvin, are included, not at length admittedly, but this enables readers who have a fairly full exposition of Paul's thought to look up articles on the featured figures in order to see in more detail what they made of Paul. To call this 'sectarian' is not to use the word in a sense recognisable by me. It includes the opinions of Catholics, Evangelicals, Calvinists and Reformed Christians who constitute the majority of the world's followers of Jesus. Csernica makes the same point above. 3) Finally, I have repeated the request for specific objections as against the broad brush allegatiions but in vain. I am sure that specific sentences can be improved and there will be omissions, but I do not see that the exposition on St. Paul's ideas on 'justification' etc. are anything more than an attempt to show readers what he was trying to say. Abelard and his followers took a very different line and proposed that Christ's work was exemplary; his work has been called 'muddled' (I think the case for that is strong but I had to fight to keep it in). I beg SfT to read the article carefully and to raise objections that enable the editing of these important sections, not their excision. Roger Arguile 08:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

'Pauline Christianity' is not about Paul's dotrine: it is, as it says, an article about that expression, used sometimes perjoratively to contrast that body of ideas with the teachings of Jesus from which it is held to differ. Catholic and Protestants would, broadly, want to say that Paul's views are simply part of the ground work of christian doctrine and that there is no such thing as 'Pauline Christianity'. Roger Arguile 08:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

PS There IS a link to 'Pauline Christianity' -at the end. It has been there for some time! Roger Arguile 09:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If in indeed "Pauline Christianity" is where "alternative views" "should" be espoused, by those who believe that Paul taught completely different doctrine than Messiah did, then Mr Arguile, why is your hand all over it? You appear to have completely taken control of it. It rather feels like both of these pages do not have a chance of taking a NPOV because alternative viewpoints are simply not allowed to stand by you (take for example, the section on the Ebionites which you deemed "not relevant" and those other things you kindly deemed "hopeless POV".) I guess in wikipedia, it's those who have the most time who get to control the viewpoint of the article. I'm getting pretty disillusioned about Wikipedia. Standing for Truth 11:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I repeat: I am very happy to discuss with anyone what I have put if they are specific. I am very bad at dealing with generalised remarks. I confess that I do take an interest in a very few articles about which I know a certain amount. I do so because the Paul of Tarsus article was wrecked (before my time) by those with bees in their bonnets. It is still tagged as a former good article. I did not write it and had nothing to do with it; I was not a party to the adjudged wrecking. I simply tried, with collaboration with others to rewrite it subsequently. I have a certain amount of time which others may lack. On the other hand it does not seem to me that the fact that one person has made most of the contributions makes the article lack balance. The Ebionite question which keeps on coming up is vitiated by sheer lack of contemporaneous evidence. James Tabor, who takes an interest in this and is an academic is, on his own admission, more interested in speculation that many of his peers are. His book 'the Jesus Dynasty' is fascinating but, recognising that his ideas are possibilities rather than defensible in court, he is much less dogmatic than some of his readers.

I am sorry that SfT dislikes my approach. I am not alone. There are other articles which have defenders who try to prevent the well meaning but less informed from editing. By that I am not saying that SfT is either, but I keep on asking for specific instances of bias or distortion; I keep on trying to explain why some insertions are either repetitive or irrelevant; I believe that our service is primarily to readers not to the holders of opinions. I have quoted or preserved the quotations of quite a number of people; I possess most of the books I cite and have read them. I do not agree with all or even most; but Csernica has made some of my points above. If SfT is disillusioned about WP he must know have read that any contribution may be mercilessly reedited. By this strange means knowledge may be improved.. or not, as the case may be.

A good example of bias, I feel, is the following: "Certainly Jesus was foremost in importance to Paul, just as he should be in the hearts of men today" Thesuperpower (talk) 00:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I recognise I am sorry about the terse notes on edits. I should have set out my reasons more fully. Impatience is a vice and I sometimes suffer from it. Roger Arguile 10:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Three Missionary Journey Format

Townsend in 1985 “Missionary Journeys in Acts and European Missionary Societies” indicated: "there is no evidence, before the preface to Acts in the first edition of J. A. Bengel’s Gnomon Novi Testamenti (1742), that any previous Christian reader or commentator on the narratives of Paul’s travels in Acts ever thought to observe, in the sequence of Paul’s various encounters and diverse experiences, a series of intentional missionary journeys" (quoted from Vaage, Leif E.(Editor). Religious Rivalries in the Early Roman Empire and the Rise of Christianity. Waterloo, ON, CAN: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2006. p 16.) It seemed to indicate that the concept thereafter became quite popular and has been used since. 70.20.49.113 03:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


In what language did Paul write? Which languages did he speak? I have been unable to locate that information in this article. §

He wrote in Greek. That is now added ot the articleRoger Arguile 16:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Archives are back

Sorry, when I moved/renamed the article, I forgot about the archives. It is now taken care of, and the archives are back where they belong. -- Pastordavid 17:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Authorship section

Most of this is duplicated in Authorship of the Pauline epistles. I propose deleting the entire section, except for the first paragraph. Rocksong 23:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I wold rather you didn't. I am sure that in a perfect world, WP would be edited fully so that all articles matched each other. There are other articles in much greater need of attention than this one. Roger Arguile 12:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC) PS a more germane quesiton would be whether one needs the 'main article'. Roger Arguile 12:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Nietzsche

had a few things to say about Paul, for the 'Alternative views' section. The epithet 'false-coiner' springs to mind. Vranak

Nietzsche said, and correct me if I am wrong, "God is dead." Now, I have one question for you, 'Where is Nietzsche?" Virtue Lord Purple 75.195.2.74 01:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

"Where is Nietzsche?" - so, if Nietzsche is dead, does that invalidate his point of view? Is that the best you can come up with, just shrug it off with a personal insult (and even towards a dead person - someone who cannot defend himself) Unlike your "Where is Nietzsche", Nietzsche's "God is dead" quote has a strong context and history. One should never quote something without first understanding the context of the quotation, it makes one look stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.54.29.43 (talk) 12:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that you're aware that "Nietzsche is dead" is not something that this user made up, being a somewhat common t-shirt, bumper-sticker and billboard slogan. Therefore, I think your response is a little rude; you're not proving anything by scolding an editor who responded to a snarky comment with a snarky comment.--C.Logan 12:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes I am aware of it, there has been at least one song (and possible many more) made about it too... But all in all, people only learn if they are willing to look from a bigger perspective than their own. You can't just dismiss every views that are in conflict with your's with a shimple shrug and expect to learn anything. True that my post was a bit rude, but I think sometimes rudeness is called for also. 

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.54.23.37 (talk) 21:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paul_the_Apostle/Archive_4&oldid=1046608208"