Talk:Apostle (Christian)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Religion / Interfaith (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Interfaith work group.
 
WikiProject Christianity / Catholicism / Anglicanism / Latter Day Saints (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (marked as Mid-importance).
 

Jesus's "Profession"[edit]

Using Jesus's status as "tekton," a word used at the time to connote a social status, is not a good way to establish his trade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.250.55.190 (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Bart Erhman says that tekton could mean carpenter, but more generally meant construction worker (it meant lower-class and builder, kind of day labor). Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
See e.g. [1]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Opening heading[edit]

I thought Apostle was a general name for someone who was choosen by a god, to represent the god in all forms. I do not think it applies only to the Christian Mythos. --Thapthim

Was not Judea somewhat of an ethnic melting pot, situated between Egypt, Syria, Persia, Arabia, Turkey, etc., (to identify them generically) and greatly influenced by Greece, while under Roman control for a few centuries? This would suggest some mixed cultural and ethnic backgrounds for the general population during this period. Would not the early Christian reflect this mix, as this was a movement "of the people". - I offer this comment to provide some insight into those who will ultimately correct and improve this entry. (---) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.66.75 (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

This message was originally posted at Talk:Apostle. Graham87 08:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Removed from the article:

Some people feel Paul was the apostle chosen by God to replace him.

If you're going to make that claim, then go into a little more detail about why.


I think the way the attitude of the apostles towards Jews link is done is really misleading and dishonest (I don't necessarily disgree with the sentiment, BTW). Whoever put it in should think of a more ethical way of doing it and should be ashamed of himself (or herself). JHK

I didn't put it in, but I've tried to rephrase it to be less misleading. I personally consider the charge to be ridiculous when you consider that all the Apostles were Jews, as well as most of the initial converts to Christianity. Right or wrong, they thought that Christianity was the fulfillment of Jewish belief and prophecies, and didn't think they were replacing Judaism with a completely foreign religion. --Wesley
Thanks!

According to the article:

"Judas Iscariot was one of the twelve disciples, but was never an apostle."

According to the Bible (Matthew 10:2-4):

"Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; and James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Zealot, and Judas Iscariot, the one who betrayed Him."

Slight discrepency? Bagpuss 19:26 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

You're quite correct. I think at the time I was thinking that they weren't called apostles until after Christ's resurrection, and before that they were disciples, but clearly I was wrong. The Seventy he sent out during his earthly ministry are probably also called apostles. Thanks for the catch. Wesley 02:56 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)
Also keep in mind that Judas was more likely than not slandered prior to the writing of the bible. He was a "traitor", so why list him as an Apostle?68.39.168.9 (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Deaths of Judas[edit]

I see that two are listed, but what of the accounts that Judas was stoned by the other apostles and even potentially was crucified in place of Jesus?68.39.168.9 (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


Proposal: Make "Mormon Apostles" its own entry, with a link from here. At some point, it deserves its own entry, and including all the material about Mormon apostles here would make the entry a mess. COGDEN Nov 10, 2003.

Sounds fine to me. Wesley 16:52, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
That article should be titled Apostle (Mormonism). —B 21:23, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)
Done. Moved material to Apostle (Mormonism). COGDEN

Any mention that the apostles might have been between 7 to 13 depending on the books ? PomPom

"Other apostles" and POV[edit]

I like Paul Tillich. I absolutely love C.S. Lewis. However, calling the former the "apostle to the intellectuals" and the latter "apostle to sceptics" is highly POV in a post-reformation age. Tillich is a Protestant who writes solely from that POV, so putting him up on the level of apostle is a bias. Lewis, too, is a Protestant. I think he wirtes to intellectuals fully as much as Tillich does, but he does so with a humane touch. For "apostle to the intellectuals," Thomas Merton and Søren Kierkegaard could also qualify. For apostle to skeptics, the list is enormous. Virtually all Christian writers attempt apologetics at some point, and I don't see Lewis as much of a converter. He assumes a Christian readership far more than a non-believing one. At any rate, I have removed the following from the article for these reasons:

Further "Apostles" would include:

Geogre 14:10, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Comments: The original ~12 [the gospel's names don't match and name more than 12] Apostles are probably Jewish ethnicity, although Andrew (Andreas), Philip (Philippos), Bartholomew (Bartholomaios), Thaddeus (Theodotus) are Greek names. Also, although James the brother of Jesus is never named an Apostle, he clearly is the leader of the Jerusalem Church (later called first bishop of Jerusalem), presumably because he is the brother of Jesus (those who believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary don't believe he is the son of Mary). And the church contains Aramaic speaking members [Ac1.19] and Greek speaking members [Ac6.1] and 7 Greeks are added to the 12 Apostles: Stephen, Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolaus.

One more comment regarding apostle/disciple. Disciple is the translation of the Greek mathetes or student. Apostle is the translation of the Greek apostolos or emissary. Thus Paul can claim to be an apostle (an emissary on a mission), but he is not part of the group of "12 Apostles" selected by Jesus or approved by the Jerusalem Church. Likewise Paul calls some people apostles/emissaries, but they may not be part of the "12 Apostles" of the Jerusalem Church.

One more comment: you say apostolos=messenger, it could, but in general apostolos=emissary is a better translation, messenger=angelos which is the word commonly translated as angel. A messenger carries a message (word), an emissary is on a mission (action), but at times the distinction is blurred. Ref: Greek-English Lexicon of the NT, Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker, Univ. of Chicago Press


About the "70" only mentioned in Luke 10:1-10

What English translation translates the Greek as apostle here? The Greek has the *verb* apostello which means to send away. Ref: Greek-English Lexicon of NT, Bauer et al


I removed the sentence "In Acts 6.1, seven Greeks are appointed by the 12 Apostles: Stephen, Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolaus." These Greeks were called deacons, not apostles, and the sentence really had nothing to do with the rest of the paragraph.


Mkehrt

Suggesting deleting[edit]

"A number of successful pioneering missionaries are known as Apostles. In this sense, in the traditional list below, the apostle first brought Christianity (or Arianism in the case of Ulfilas and the Goths) to a land. Or it may apply to the truly influential Christianizer, such as Patrick's mission to Ireland, where a few struggling Christian communities did already exist. The reader will soon think of more of the culture heroes." I don't really understand what the purpose of the sentence is. Whatever it is supposed to mean, the tone is also all wrong. The section and paragraph work without it. Suggesting deleting that sentance.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Flambergius (talkcontribs) 08:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

In 'The Twelve Apostles', it is stated that the Gospel of John does not mention the number of Apostles. However, my translation, in John6:67, says, 'Then Jesus said to the Twelve...'. I do not like to edit the article because of my inferior knowledge, though I think that if it is the case that John does support the idea of Twelve Apostles, then the article should be edited. Does anybody have any information on this point?

That could just mean "Jesus said to the twelve guys that happened to be following him on tuesday, pretty much what he had said to the fourteen guys that were following him on monday". The key thing is that John doesnt appear to state Apostles=Twelve anywhere, or make any statement where this is a concrete requirement (e.g. "twelve houses, one for each apostle" - madeupexamples.com). Clinkophonist 23:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The terms "The Twelve" and Apostles are not interchangeable, neither are the terms "disciple" and "apostle." According to Orthodox Christianity, the term "disciple" simply means follower, therefore the "Disciples" is used in reference to the original 12. The term "apostle" however is used in reference to a disciple of Christ (not just the 12) that had also see Christ after His resurrection. Therefore, Judas Iscariot was NOT an apostle, although he was a disciple, and was replaced by Matthias, who was an apostle. There were also apostles outside the 12, the most popular being the Apostle Paul.Gaburearu (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Jewish converts to Christianity[edit]

There is insufficient evidence to say that all twelve apostles were "Jewish converts to Christianity", which must imply some kind of renunciation of Judaism (e.g. Paul's declaration that circumcision was unnecessary). I've removed the article from that category. Grover cleveland 07:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

They were all Jews. They all became Christians. Do you mean that some of them could have been agnostics and/or not followers of Judaism? rossnixon 10:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
What does "became Christians" mean, though? Not just "followed Jesus". The word "Christian" doesn't appear anywhere in the Gospels, and is first found in Acts 11:26 in the context of Paul's followers in Antioch and the circumcision controversy. The word "convert" surely implies some kind of rejection of Judaism as well as an acceptance of Christianity. There's no evidence that any of the twelve apostles other than Peter approved of the rejection of the traditional requirements of Judaism (circumcision, food laws) described in Acts 11. 14:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure there is. There's the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15, which had the agreement of "the apostles and elders, with the whole church" in verse 22. There's also the Didache, or "Teaching of the Twelve", in which circumcision is conspicuous by its absence. This article should certainly belong in the 'Jewish converts to Christianity' category. Wesley 17:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Has there been any discussion on the background of Simon the Canaanite? If he truly was a canaanite, a descendant of Ham, does that mean he was probably not Jewish, who are descendants of Shem? Carter.pond 15:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Jewish converts to Christianity were not renouncing Judaism; in its truest sense Christianity is a completion of Judaism, because it teaches the coming of the Messiah, whereas in Christianity, the Messiah (Jesus) has already come. However, some Jews even today reject that Jesus was the Messiah, believing that the Messiah will still come. Some of the New Testament Jewish Christians had accepted Christianity, but were still holding to practices of Judaism, which in itself is not wrong, but some of these practices were in fact contradictory to Christianity. One example is Ephesians 2, where Paul writes that Christian salvation comes "by grace you have seen through faith" (verse 8) "not by works" (verse 9) which in reference to the principle of Judaism that each sin must be atoned for. Christians believe that once you accept Jesus as your Savior, all sins are atoned, by Jesus' sacrifice, where Jews believe they must offer continual sacrifices for every sin they commit. Gaburearu (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Identification of Judas as Thomas in the Gospel of John[edit]

Please cite chapter and verse in the Gospel of John where Thomas is called Judas. And in which edition of the Bible you found it. 83.227.152.132 17:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess the passage here about Thomas on Wikipedia is written confusingly: "Thomas (identified as also being called Judas and Didymus (John 20:24))". I didn't check John 20:24. This sentence should be changed if Thomas is not called Judas in John 20:24.Scottandrewhutchins 17:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for being inconsistent. I don't understand how I missed that line, I should have corrected that one too. But now I see 75.15.192.65 has fixed it. Thanks for your vigilance anyway. 83.227.152.132 19:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The Beloved Apostle[edit]

Why are references to Mary Magdalene constantly removed from the Beloved disciple paragraph? Her being an apostle did not originate with Dan Brown.--Tomtom9041 18:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Because the Beloved Disciple talks to Mary Magdalene in John 20. So they can't be the same person. You have to also note the Jewish traditions regarding the role of women. The disciples were surprised when Jesus talked to a woman who was not a relative (Samaritan woman at the well). rossnixon 10:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You are incorrect, read variuos versions in various bibles and none stated what you say. Which version are you using?

John 20:8 says Then the other disciple, who went to the tomb first, also went inside,and then he saw and believed.

Other does not translate into "beloved" does it?--Tomtom9041 14:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC) i used KJV,NKJV and NAB. et al --Tomtom9041 14:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC) Italics NKJV--Tomtom9041 14:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC) AND

John 20:1 state: Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene went to the tomb early.

and also

John 20:2 states:Then she ran away and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved...

does this not imply two seperate people?--Tomtom9041 14:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC) seems to be open to interpretation doesn't it--Tomtom9041 14:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Or do they contradict each other?--Tomtom9041 15:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

In John 20:2, surely "the other disciple whom Jesus loved" would be the "beloved disciple", so here we clearly see Mary coming to this disciple and talking to him. In the next several verses, it's reasonable to assume that "the other disciple" refers to the same "other disciple whom Jesus loved" in verse 2. In verse 8, the other disciple is referred to as "he" indicating it's a man not a woman. And in verse 11, Peter and the other disciple have left, but Mary is still there. This isn't any feat of theological gymnastics, it's just reading the story at the simple level of a narrative to reasonably identify the characters. Wesley 16:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I should add, regarding Mary Magdalene's being an apostle, you are correct that that idea did not originate with Dan Brown. The Church has always called her an "apostle to the apostles," chiefly because of this passage in which she proclaims to the apostles the good news of Jesus' resurrection, and because of the role she later played in proclaiming the Gospel. But being an apostle and being the specific "beloved apostle" in the gospel of John are not the same thing. Wesley 16:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Reasonable to whom, pre-established traditions? Why is that a reasonable "assumption"? The way it is reason would seem to indicate two or more. Mary Magdalene is still believed by some to have been an apostle and also to be the "beloved" apostle. See Authorship of Johannine works.--68.32.11.74 17:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Mary Magdalene is presumed to be an apostle by several groups, and don't many Christians in Europe, esp France believe, the Charttrists etc.--Tomtom 00:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Pardon my possible ignorance of other Christian traditions, but what is a section on the beloved disciple doing in this article at all? He is never called an apostle, is he? Or are there traditions that call any gospel disciple an apostle? Rocksong 12:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
This article needs to establish how (and by who) the beloved disciple is considered an apostle. Otherwise I propose deleting that section. Peter Ballard 01:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

{John 19:26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, "Woman, behold your son!" 27 Then He said to the disciple, "Behold your mother!" And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.} Jesus refers to the "beloved disciple" as "son" and the author refers to the "beloved disciple" as he, both terms that clearly indicate it was a man, not a woman. Many believe "the disciple whom Jesus loved" to be John, the disciple, who was also an apostle and the brother of Jesus (Matthew 17:1) (See also John Darby's Synopsis of the New Testament) Gaburearu (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The Andronicus and Junia section of Twelve Apostles[edit]

The comments about Junia seem slanted heavily toward the belief that Junia was male and, in any event, not really an apostle. The consensus of recent scholarship, I believe, is that Junia was almost certainly female and, though the grammatical construction is ambiguous, very possibly an apostle. That was the view of John Chrysostom quite some time ago. Jim Lacey 19:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've rewritten the section so it's (hopefully) NPOV, pointing to the Junia article if people want to read a fuller discussion. Rocksong 00:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

DESCRIPTION[edit]

what really is the definition of the word apostle —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.74.96.100 (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Fishers of Men[edit]

A patchwork of erroneous phrases pretends to be a paragraph; citation of John 21 does not support statement; "where Christ was ironically already feasting!" Writer supposes the easier task of dragging a net to shore, rather than the more difficult task of lifting a net into a boat, prooves papal infallibility.

The biblical references to "The Twelve" as "fishers of men", especially the image of Peter's sole role of pulling the net full of "153 large fish" onto the shore (where Christ was ironically already feasting! John 21) without tearing the net, when all the apostles present couldn't lift the net into the boat just moments earlier, portray and confirm, among faithful Catholics, the Church's teaching on "papal infallibility" - that Christ's "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic" Church is divinely guided and protected from teaching error, so that all who desire to know his teachings (including His written, inspired word, the bible, but not exclusively, as in the Protestant belief in "Sola Scriptura", the bible alone) may have that opportunity.

In other words: "biblical references to "fishers of men" confirm the Church's teaching on "papal infallibility" so all who desire to know have opportunity." Does this need fixing? Robert D. 69.153.169.63 08:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


James The Just[edit]

In the Section "The Twelve Apostles," there are two apostles listed as being named James the Just. I don't know if that is accurate, or if not, which one should be "James the Just" rather than simply "James". Could someone with more knowledge take a look at this please? Nickers (talk) 04:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone made a mistake. James, son of Alphaeus is the only one who might be James the Just. But James, son of Zebedee is definitely a different James. I've fixed it now. Peter Ballard (talk) 04:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup[edit]

This page is becoming cluttered - it is difficult to sort through all the information, as it is presented. The article needs cleanup. This will be quite a task, based on referencing and POV issues. A few points to keep in mind: 1) Clarify which sect/religion is being described (in relation to the Apostles). 2) Try to put information in the appropriate section (it may be necessary to create sections based on the Apostles' role in various sects/religions). 3) Avoid inserting opinions; use citations (reputable sources) as much as possible, but not excessively. 4) Avoid using exclamation points. Fuzzform (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, use {{bibleverse||BookName|v.:vv.}} (e.g. {{bibleverse||Matthew|10:1-6}} ) for all Bible citations. That seems to be the standard citation format for this article. Fuzzform (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Title and Cleanup[edit]

The title of this page Twelve Apostles would lead the naive reader to expect something about twelve people; and then the sophisticated reader would know that both Judas Iscariot and Matthias would be discussed. Why then a discussion of Paul, and a tiny discussion of Barnabas, and so forth? Ah! There is no page on apostles in general. Ah! So I propose that this page be retitled accordingly, and then that it would naturally have a different structure, which could help some of the clutter in the cleanup request noted juts above. Tb (talk) 19:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree a rename is required. But Apostle already exists as a disambiguation page. So what should we use? Christian Apostles? Apostles (Christian)? Apostles (New Testament)? Peter Ballard (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Changed it to Apostle (Christian) and started working on the lead. Page needs more restructuring, and work. Leadwind (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Good move. A bit more work is required now, but it's a good step forward. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

what was their job[edit]

before they joined the club? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.16.123.194 (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Profetions[edit]

John,Andrew,James were fishermen. Mathew was a tax collector. Simon the Zelot was a political activist, Judas Iscariot a banker the others unknown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.55.36 (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Why does this article (and some others like it) argue from completely within the Christian tradition?[edit]

This article, and others like it, seem to take as given the traditional Christian interpretation as being historical fact. In essence, it comes off as little more than a recapitulation of the relevant parts of the Christian New Testament. There is no discussion in the article of whether any or all of these people ever really existed, and what evidence there is for their existence. This may be fine for Christians reading the article, but for the rest of us, self referential referral to the Bible as sufficient evidence for the truth of a postulation is not enough to make that postulation acceptable. Is there any evidence outside of Christian scripture that any of these people ever existed, and if so, if any of the acts traditionally attributed to them ever took place? And whether there is or not, the article should have a section discussing this. Otherwise, the article is not objective or illuminating of fact, the way an encyclopedia article should be — every page in Wikipedia bears the admonition “Encyclopedic content must be verifiable”. Where is the verifiability from outside sources for this article, which presumes factuality? What you have here now is hagiography; the perpetuation of a myth by and for believers of the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.160.130 (talk) 04:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Some articles do, some don't. But this one doesn't, I agree. It needs scholarly, non-Biblical sources. Peter Ballard (talk) 06:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree as well and am not signing my comment out of concern for attacks. A lot of mainstream Christian scholars do not believe, for example, that the epistles of "Paul" were the letters of the Apostle Paul. Different person, same name. Wikipedia is supposed to be scholarly, and to leave out a discussion of these issues serves neither Wikipedia nor Christianity but only hagiography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.32.29.90 (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Lead has too much cruft[edit]

A lot of stuff has been added recently to the lead, but it is out of place there. It is detail which belongs only in the body of the article, if at all. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I've realised the problem: the lead is meant to be a summary of the contents of the article. Instead it is a mini-article, quite different in content to the main article. And also laregly unreferenced. I intend to move most of the recent additions out of the lead and into the main body of the article. Peter Ballard (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Lots of leads in WP are too thin, some merely definitions of the topic. Per WP:LEAD, a lead should be not a definition but a summary of the topic. It should be so complete that it is capable of standing alone as a concise summary. Ideally, the lead should summarize the article itself, but when the article itself is lacking, it's more important that the lead summarize the topic well than match the article. This topic is big enough that it deserves 4 paragraphs. I'd ask you to develop the article, expanding on information in the lead, but please don't reduce the amount of information in the lead. Leadwind (talk) 02:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
My first course of action with this article would be to scour out the unreferenced interpretation. The lead doesn't have much for references, but it's mostly the basics without interpretation. The body, however, has lots of material on interpretation of the apostle concept without the necessary citation. Once, this amateur material is cleared, it would be easier to improve the article, especially expanding on information in the lead. Leadwind (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
The new material in the lead is also unreferenced, which leads to a number of problems: some of it is contentious (major missionaries might be apostles by some Christians, but not by all), and on at least one count it's wrong (Paul never refers to "the eleven".) I'm all for fixing the article, but doing it via the lead is the wrong way to go, especially when it's unreferenced. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I tried to improve the lead but there is still a way to go! - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Andronicus and Junia bias[edit]

The section of Andronicus and Junia seems very biased. "Of note among the apostles" could mean "noteworthy to the apostles" or "Noteworthy apostle". And if I'm not mistaken, the greek word ιουνιαν is masculine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.124.235 (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Reference to twelve disciples in John 20:24[edit]

I am unfamiliar with wikipedia editing, but there are actually two places in John's gospel where he mentions 12 disciples. In addition to 6:67-71, there is 20:24. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.3.168 (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus, pages not moved  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)



ApostleApostle (disambiguation) — Should we treat Christian Apostle as the primary meaning of Apostle? PatGallacher (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Apostle (Christian)Apostle
  • Support It was not me who raised this issue initially, I was trying to sort out another person's confused move request. Initially I was cautious because of the risks of systemic bias in favour of mainstream Christianity. However looking at the Apostle article, this does look like the primary meaning, the others are rather obscure. PatGallacher (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Apostle is missing the move banner. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I remain unconvinced that moving the dab page is the wisest move. There is even more then one Christian use (Apostle (Latter Day Saints)). Vegaswikian (talk) 20:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Surely the Latter Day Saints are a relatively small fringe group compared to mainstream Christianity. PatGallacher (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Given the wide range of meanings, I think Apostle is probably best left as the disambiguation page. I think it's a fairly close call, but I'm not really convinced (but then again there a strong case hasn't really been presented here for the move). Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Apostle (Christian) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 12:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Would references to mnemonics for the 12 be relevant?[edit]

Because my mother, as a Catholic schoolgirl was taught the mnemonic: "BAPTISM" to remember them. B-- Bartholomew, A-- Andrew P-- Peter and Philip T-- Thomas and Thaddeus I-- (Because "I" was once used in place of "J") James, John, James and Judas S-- Simon (NOT Simon Peter) M-- Matthew, and later Matthias Lilly (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Didache.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Didache.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 20 October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Impenetrable Christianity entries[edit]

From a STRICTLY ENCYCLOPEDIC viewpoint, almost every Wikipedia article on Christianity is difficult to understand. I'm not saying that whoever is writing them doesn't have 1 or 2 college degrees, I'm just having a hard time learning anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.102.92.235 (talk) 04:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Disciples?[edit]

What's going on here? Since when are the Disciples the same as the Apostles? Is that the Protestant view? ♆ CUSH ♆ 21:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

What text are you looking at/commenting on? Ckruschke (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
I'm not well-versed in the subject, but aren't the Apostles the twelve chief followers of Jesus and the disciples the many other followers? (seventy or so specific as of Luke 10:1, but also potentially many others not mentioned)
Though looking at the definition in dictionaries it does have both Apostles and Disciples being used to refer to either. Peter Deer (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
A disciple is not necessarily an apostle, but the twelve apostles were still disciples. Matthew and Mark only use the word "apostles" once. Luke uses the term widely, especially in the Acts of the Apostles.
FWIW —Telpardec  TALK  05:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Paul is no disciple, but he is an apostle. Judas is no apostle, but he is a disciple. The disciples are the 12 followers of Jesus during his alleged lifetime. Apostles (=messengers) are those who are sent out to the world (on Pentecost), the 12 most prominent of which are "The Twelve Apostles" of church tradition. I don't understand the complete mix-up in this article. ♆ CUSH ♆ 20:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
@CUSH - I agree that the article is mixed up. Please point to the particular paragraphs or sections that you are referring to. Saul of Tarsus was certainly a disciple, and it was not until he was brought to Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians. Paul the apostle was still a disciple after his name changed to Paul when he began to manifest the signs of an apostle. Disciples are learners. To what "Judas" do you refer? There were 2 apostles by that name, Judas Iscariot, who lost his apostleship when he betrayed Jesus; and the Judas that John called "not Iscariot" in John 14:22.
@ALL - All who follow and believe in Jesus are disciples. "Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:31,32) Apostles are those that are specially sent forth, including Jesus, who is called "the Apostle and High Priest of our profession" (in Hebrews 3:1). Note that Jesus was sent before the others: "Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you." (John 20:21)
An interesting side note, if you start the count of the apostles with Jesus first, and Peter second, and so on, Judas Iscariot, (whose name is spelled with 13 letters,) is the 13th apostle. Matthias, who replaced him is the 14th to be numbered with the apostles, as one of "the twelve". (Acts 6:2) And in Acts 14:14 we see "...the apostles, Barnabas and Paul..." as the 15th and 16th, respectively. There are no others expressively named apostles.
FWIW —Telpardec  TALK  02:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, yes, all Christians are disciples and the church is the congregation, not the building, and the Anglicans are both the catholic and the orthodox faith, &c. &c. &c. There are many who say or believe these things, but they're still simply not what the words mean outside evangelical contexts. The Disciples (ideally with a capital D) were the immediate students (which is all "disciple" literally means) of Jesus. — LlywelynII 02:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

List of Apostles[edit]

We could use a separate page for that, with more than just the canonical Roman Catholic list. As mentioned above, calling people like Dawkins "apostle to the atheists" is cheeky and inappropriate for the topic here (although it might be cited and mentioned on his page), but we should have something that lists those who've traditionally held the epithet in a Christian context (Patrick to the Irish, yes, but also James Gilmour to the Mongols and David Rice to Kentucky). — LlywelynII 02:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The twelve and no women[edit]

Why does this section exist? It does not seem to serve an purpose other than incite flaming by feminists or anti-feminists. It could easily be a sentence on the opening paragraph if one feels that this information needs to be included (in case any one wonders/assumes there were female apostles).

I tried removing the section and put the following as the reason:

"/* The twelve and no women */ Irrelevant to entire article since there is no mention or insinuation that any apostles were female, and it seems to be put on here to incite flaming.

I later got some message from a 17 year old from Australia informing me that they edited my changes and that I needed to write something on their Talk Page if I had any questions or wanted to edit it again. Along with the message there was "encouragement" to sign up and make a username, otherwise my IP might get banned if I didn't. I'm fairly new to editing Wikipedia and I didn't know pages/articles had "owners" or "guardians," or why I must discuss an edit on a user's page when I thought the idea of Wikipedia was that anyone could edit it, and discuss it publicly on the Article's Talk page if there is a disagreement.

I was just here trying to figure out the difference between Apostles and Ministers (Since I'm not Christian) and that section just jumps out and seems so out of place. In conclusion thanks for reading and taking into consideration my edit. For the time being I won't edit it again since I don't want some ban over a misunderstanding. 66.214.121.8 (talk) 09:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

It (the lack of women or equal-footing for female biblical/early Christian figures) is a valid point to be made, it just needs to be incorporated better. I'll be the first to say "this article needs to be intensively rewritten". I've been thinking about a large-scale revision of this article, and in thinking about it there is a role for a gender narrative and analysis--and while this isn't the best way to approach it, some mention that the convention idea of the apostles are the male followers of Christ vs. the fact that there were women prominent in the early church and among the Lord's followers outght to be examined. I see that you're editing as an anonymous IP user, and a lot of editors view many questionable unexplained actions by anonymous IPs as potential vandalism--so without a username, that is probably the reason for the other user's reaction reinserting the section, encouraging you to sign up for an account, and the fair warning. I'd encourage you also to consider signing up for an account, just to avoid such headaches and practicality: other editors tend to respect editors contributing through an accounts and disrespect IP users. Also, it's never good form to just blank sections without discussing them first on an article's talk page--an area where a mere edit summary often isn't enough.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I have to agree with the IP above. Although this section has been in the article for quite sometime (after looking at the History), I too wonder why its here. This page doesn't seem like the place to argue that Jesus was sexist - which seems to be the sole intent of the text. There were also no female kings, emperors, governers, princes, senators, etc at this time in history. Looks like "everyone" was sexist so what's the point - we just looking for a reason to bash Jesus...? Ckruschke (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke