Talk:Paul the Apostle/Archive 3

Skeptics Deleted Inappropriately

OK, where the heck did the references to quotes by Nietzsche, Jefferson, etc. go? It looks like there's been significant revisionism here, the primary focus of which was to delete any reference to controversy. Will someone who was present during that particular set of edits please explain the justification for removal, or better yet do some reverts to bring the skeptical material back? Note, these aren't a bunch of unknown cranks we're talking about quoting here (Thomas Jefferson? Nietzsche?). And someone please smack the religiously-motivated deletionists around with a couple of thick history books. Mike Ely 20:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Greetings! I confess to being the major culprit. I do not know if you are a theologian or not or are an expert in this field. I am a parish priest in England and so am subject to bias. However, about Thomas Jefferson and Nietsche I know that neither was a biblical scholar; they wrote no books on Pauline theology; they wrote nothing which would qualify for inclusion in an academic debate. Like Bertrand Russell, they were famous in their fields and I would quote Jefferson on the US Constitution and Nietsche on the genealogy of morals. Both had their views on the Christian religion to which they were perfectly entitled. However, the great and famous are very able to make unsupportable statements on matters on which they are not particularly qualified, but this doe snot mean that they should be taken seriously. Einstein's views on Shakespeare, George Bush's views on baseball, President Chirac's views on the Trinity; even Henry Ford's views on history are not for inclusion in a scholarly work. There has been no attempt to eliminate controversy as a careful reading of both the text and the discussion would indicate. The contradictions between Acts and the Pauline letters run through the whole work. My attempts to excise the harmonisation in the quotation from the 1910 Catholic Encyclopaeda have been frustrated both other editors; you are welcome to try to change that. There has been debate on homosexuality, though St. Paul's views are clear. The debate as to whether his views are binding on Christians or persuasive on others is to be found on other articles (to which reference is made).

If you think I am wrong that the people you name have some qualification for expressing a serious opinion on St. Paul, please tell us why. But you will note that the article is described as a former good article. I thought it a mish mash full of marginal scholarship - not all of it from American Presidents - and confusion. I felt it needed a complete clean -up. As someone who has read a good deal of the literature I felt I could begin that process. Hitting people with history books is one thing; reading books is another. Roger Arguile 16:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

PS Having reread the Jefferson and Nietsche points, the former tells us about Jefferson but only repeats a point made by others more qualified and which appears in the text. Nietsche's latin quote is epigrammatic but scarcely an argument. What does he mean? Roger Arguile 17:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Roger, with all due respect, you are a priest, and therefore, as you admit, not a reliable unbiased source of information. I seriously doubt that you would deny that either Thomas Jefferson or Nietzsche are not among the list of people whose writings consist of important contributions to current thought. The fact that they did not devote their lives to the study of a single book is irrelevant to this. Please do me the favor of replacing the sections you deleted so I don't have to tag this issue for vandalism.Mike Ely 23:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I support the edits of Roger, and I have been an editor of this article for a while. There are various problems with the material. First, it was in the lead, and the lead is merely an introduction (summary of material therein contained). However, Jefferson and Neitzsche were not mentioned in the article. That is because they are not scholars of St. Paul, and for that reason their opinions seem not very relevant. I am sure a great many thinkers in history had opinions on Paul, but they are all necessary here. I would ask you to cite any other encyclopedia that references their opinion in an article on Paul. Also, Jefferson is problematic because his tought is very complex, generally expressing conflicting views between his public expressions and private writings. We cannot properly treat Jefferson in the breif intro. Lostcaesar 00:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that the comments referenced don't really belong in the intro. Removing them from the article completely simply because they were not scholars of Paul is excessively limiting - few people would study Paul extensively whose POV does not agree with his, which leads to an inherent bias in available research matter. I'm not sure what you're getting at in regards to Jefferson, as it seems you're basically saying that a person was complex and had opinions that shifted over time, they're unreliable, regardless of the fact that what I just described fits most people. I am merely asking that some dissenting thought on the issue of Paul's inclusion in the biblical canon be included in this article. The fact that Thomas Jefferson excluded Paul's contributions from his bible entirely, and Nietzsche's quote are highly relevant and worthy of contribution. Mike Ely 01:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

PS, please assume good faith on the part of other editors. Lostcaesar 00:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Point taken Mike Ely 01:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Having read the above, I am a little taken aback to be accused of vandalism. I am also concerned that being an enthusiast makes me not only biased but unreliable. I have never met a neutral observer and I am somewhat dismayed that someone who is unprepared to describe his own background can make assumptions about my character. I ask Mike Ely to assume good faith. Were he to read the talk page more fully he would see that I have invited comment at all points, have been in discussion and gentle conflict with other editors. Mike Ely may not know that there are serious criticisms of St. Paul which could be added and from scholarly sources. Not only should Harnack, on reflection, be reinserted, (as he has) but there are people like F.C. Bauer who could be quoted. Quoting people who have not studied the literature adds nothing. Perhaps he might indicate how he knows what he asserts.

The remark about the inclusion of St. Paul in the canon of Scripture raises an entirely different point which is far too complex to be raised here. It was the result of a historical consensus. People argued about whether St. John's gospel should be included, but not St. Paul. Other material such as the letters of Clement were not included. The disputes about the authenticity of some of the letters are, as the article makes clear, modern - long after the canon was solidified. Jefferson's bowlderisation of the NT was never going to get off the ground - it has been tried in the far off days of Marcion. and the chances of its receiving any serious support from within the church was zero. If the article needs a little rebalancing from the works of knowledgeable scholars, that will be fine. But threats never really help.Roger Arguile 13:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

PS Your view that few people would study St. Paul who were not in sympathy with his views, is, I fear, evidence that you do not know the literature. It is simply nonsense. Roger Arguile 13:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Pauline Conspiracy: Another Crank?

This article keeps being sent my way, but I don't have time to read it. Supposedly it accuses Paul of hijacking the Jesus Movement, changing Jesus' words, opposed the apostles, and other things. Can anyone vouch for the veracity of the article's specific claims or is this just another crank?

Apparently it's about 100 pages long, and published on numerous places on the 'net, but I thought I'd post it here (apologies if people are familiar with it), in case it has any scholarly merit. Thank you.

The Pauline Conspiracy by Victor Garaffa (no I've never met the guy) [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.217.192.193 (talk) 20:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

Unmarried Paul

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

This point could be emphasized more strongly. The above translation of the Greek, while not unjustified, takes interpretive liberties. A literal translation would be "Now I say to the unmarried and the widows: It is good for them to remain as I." Most scholars believe it likely that Paul was married at some point, particularly if we take his claim to be a Pharisee literally (marriage was mandatory for Pharisees). No less a New Testament scholar than Brendan Byrne has argued (eg. in his book Paul and the Christian Woman) that Paul was married even at the time of writing 1 Corinthians 7.8, and that he here refers to his sexual continence and not to an unmarried state. Most, however, hold that Paul was a widower, and that he is describing the state of being unmarried. Demmeis 07:13, 15 December 2006 (UT)

There is a lot of speculation here which, while interesting to specialists, cannot be dogmatised with any certainty. I hope that the matter will not be allowed to distort this article.Roger Arguile 11:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Archives

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

Merge New Perspective on Paul here?

The content of New Perspective on Paul does not seem to me to merit an article apart, and is already dealt with here, even if not with quite as much detail. Lima 08:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The New Perspective on Paul is a major movement in New Testament scholarship. The article gives far more information than is included here, and has plenty of scope for improvement and expansion. Paul of Tarsus is a long enough article as it is without merging more information into it. David L Rattigan 09:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

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

I strongly disagree with the suggestion to merge these two articles. Paul of NC 18:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

An excellent article on the New Perspective on Paul (NPP), Federal Vision (FV) theology, and the Reformational understanding of the Christian doctrine of justification can be found at [2]

Since not even one editor has agreed with the idea of merging the two articles, I am removing the "merge" tags I put there. I very much appreciate the input that there has been. Lima 12:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Another View of Paul

This section is heavily POV and also smells of original research. While it is a viewpoint held to by some, it needs to be rewritten in NPOV. 152.23.75.21 21:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed; it looks like someone just put their divinity school paper up on Wikipedia. It should be heavily edited or removed altogether. I haven't read the article closely enough, but perhaps it already says what other sections say. -Patstuart 22:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Paul of Tarsus

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

Proposed link

I have been instructed to post my website: http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/appp.html for review. Please, if any reader think it is worth to be posted, do so. Bernard Muller

Saul's Letters of Credit

Can somebody fix the main article to explain how, exactly, Jerusalem had sufficient power to extradite Christians from Damascus? Was Damascus a vassal state at the time, held in subjugation by Jerusalem, somehow? Weren't both Jerusalem and Damascus equally compelled to render tribute to Rome? How would either one of them have had enough money left over to pay for the kind of arrests and prosecutions that we are now led to believe were so much more common in Rome a hundred years later, when the likely audiences of Acts were more likely to accept is a reliable, historical account?

Are there any records of Roman provincial governors managing the persecution of Christians in 60 AD? Are there any payroll ledgers that mention either Saul or Paul working for the governor there? (Every now and then some archaeological digs yield up payroll and requisitions ledgers.)

In Acts, Saul is said to have made a name for himself in Jerusalem as a notorious persecutor of Christians, and - based on that reputation - somehow obtained certain "letters of credit" with which to effect the extradition of Christians from Damascus to Jerusalem. This looks like an unsubstantiated claim deserving a citation outside of Acts. Did Saul have any notoriety at all, either as an upstanding Jew, a Roman man of means, or an intrepid persecutor of the Jews? Can somebody cite a source (outside of Acts) where Paul was said to have been a successful baiter and persecutor of Christians? Is the account in Acts the sole source for connecting Paul with Saul?

At least one work, "Saint Saul" by Donald Harman Akenson (Oxford University Press, 2000) argues that the final version of Acts was not circulated until long after an earlier letter to the Galatians was already received. More importantly, the letter was apparently recovered from where it had been sent, and if it was only fragmentary at that point, reassembled or recompiled by an unnamed devout Christian of the 1st or 2nd century, and copied and passed along, before Acts was even drafted for the first time. If there are intermediate hands at work, those hands might well have belonged to an heir to Luke's line, if not Luke himself rewriting what he had already written 10 or 15 years earlier. Akenson sees a conflict between Acts and the Letter to the Galatians, and argues that the Letter to the Galatians had, at least at the start, a measure of chronological priority.

Jews were generally not roman citizens and thus had no appeal to Roman juridical procedures, instead they were governed by Jewish authorities. Financially speaking, persecutions are cheap, sometimes even profitable if the persecuted has wealth. The persecutions in the 60s AD were undertaken by Nero in the city of Rome, and many sources, including Roman historians, attest. As far as "pay-roll legers", I think you overestimate just what archaeology is capable of. In ancient history, sources are virtually nil, and our written texts which we have almost always survive in medieval vellum manuscripts in their oldest form. Sometimes the sands of Egypt yield some papyrus, but we never could expect to find the kind of sources you request. Our information on Augustus Caesar's imperium is built off some thin sources. We know almost nothing about his heirs to the throne. If it were not for Tacitus, we would know almost nothing about the conquest of Britain, &c.

The sources for Paul are his own letters and Acts, soemthing we are lukcky to have as nothing exists similar in the case of 99% of people in the Roman world. There are some apocryphal texts on Paul, but they have no real biographical value. The difference between his comments in Galatians and Luke's description in Acts, which is concerning his conversion, has been known since antiquity and subject to understanding ever since.Lostcaesar 07:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC) Sorry to mess this about - my mistake Roger Arguile 20:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that Damascus and Jerusalem (more or less equal in the eyes of the Romans) reciprocated in the arrests of one another's citizens? How is this possible? How could an arrest warrant based on the authority of the elders of Jerusalem be recognized by the elders of Damascus unless the ends to be arrived at, such that they were, were convenient? I can understand the elders of Damascus nodding affirmatively at a wagon full of exportees, if the exportees were destitute, poor, or villainous in reputation, but I don't see the same thing applying to the wealthier citizens of that city, who had recourse to hirelings and friendly neighbors to prevent that sort of thing from ever happening. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.177.27.23 (talk) 04:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Revision needed

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

From 'Scholarly Views' onwards a complete rewrite is needed. Those scholars cited represent but a small and not necessarily representative sample of US scholarship. As long as WP is not the preserve of the USA it is very important to remember the existence of German and British, not to mention Italian etc. scholars. That the editor has read a few books is not enough for the kind of good scholarship towards which WP aims. I am sorry to be cruel. I feel it would be better to delete the whole of the article from SV onwards and start again. Roger Arguile 21:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

'Alternative Views' Some brief reference might be made to Maccoby and others but we have too many oddball views in extenso here. Having taken the bull by the horns and removed the very extensive coverage of Michael White, a scholarly conspectus is needed. Frankly Professor White's views are not hugely original; Ed Sanders, by contrast, gets very small short shrift and Dunn even less. A decent bibliography for those wanting scholarly views would not go amiss. What happened to Kasemann, Ck. Barrett, Raymond Brown (who gets a brief mention), and what about Karl Barth? (I think he wrote a slightly(!) influential commentary on Romans). Roger Arguile 21:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the note 'very long' because, as I have indicated, a revision is being worked on which may supercede the request to hive off material into other articles. I think that the suggestion insufficiently notices the particular problems of dispersing informatin which needs to be all of a piece. Roger Arguile 22:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I have now revised the Life, taking into account, but not concealing the inconsistencies between Acts and Paul's own wriritng. I have reduced the number of links as being far too many. I am very keen to have discussions about wwhat I have done but the above produced no response so I went ahead. I am working on the Writings at present because I believe that some mainstream scholarship needs to be presented for the benefit of readers. PLEASE COMMENT Roger Arguile 18:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I have now attmpted to respond to some of the comments. May I suggest that it is not possible to provide simply alternative views of the chronology and leave the reader to decide; there are to omany imponderables and uncertainties. There are at least five views each of which depends on making asusmptions but none of which reconciles all the statements. There may be textual errors, St. Paul's memory (about fourteen years) may have been faulty; Acts' informants may not have known the whole story and so on. What I have presented is a very short resume of a considerable debate. (I have identified fifteen major works on the subject). To opt for any of them could be regarded as POV. Could anyone wishing to make a change contact me here first? I know that is asking for a lot. Roger Arguile 14:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Further Revision

I have done some work following the biographical stuff. I am putting it here for people to comment on for two reasons a) I have not finished it b) it is a radical rewrite of the article. My view is that there is far to much extraneous and eccentric material. We are, after all, giving basic information to those who may not know much about St. Paul but who have access to a bible and may want look up scholarly works. What follows is what I have done so far. I hope this may help. If it is thought not too bad or partisan I will put into the text.

"Authorship

Of the fourteen letters attributed to St. Paul, one, Hebrews, was disputed from an early date and is generally not thought to have been written by him. As for the rest, there is no dispute about the authorship of Romans, First Corinthians]], Second Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, First Thessalonians and Philemon. The authenticity of Colossians has been questioned on the grounds that it contains an otherwise unparalleled description (amongst his writings) of Jesus as ‘the image of the invisible God’, a Christology found elsewhere only in St. John’s gospel. Nowhere is there a richer and more exalted estimate of the position of Christ than here. On the other hand, the personal notes in the letter connect it the Philemon, unquestionably the work of Paul. More problematic is Ephesians a very similar letter to Colossians, but which reads more like a manifesto than a letter. It is almost entirely lacking in personal reminiscences. Its style is unique; it lacks the emphasis on the cross to be found in other Pauline writings; as; reference to the Second Coming is missing; and Christian marriage is exalted in a way which contrasts with the grudging reference in 1 Corinthians. Finally it exalts the Church in a way suggestive of a second generation of Christians, ‘built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets’ now past. The defenders of its Pauline authorship argue that it was intended to be read by a number of different churches and that it marks the The Pastoral Epistles, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus have likewise been put in question as Pauline works only in modern times. Three main reasons are advanced; first, their difference in vocabulary, style and theology from St. Paul’s acknowledged writings; secondly the difficulty in fitting them into St Paul’s biography as we have it. They, like Colossians and Ephesians, were written from prison but suppose St. Paul’s release and travel thereafter. Finally, the concerns expressed are very much the practical ones as to how a church should function. They are more about maintenance than about mission. Views are advanced on the basis of the balance of opinion of scholars, but there is no certainty and some may think that questions of authorship do not affect the authority of the letters. Two further epistles attributed by some to Paul (since some of the prior epistles mention them) have been lost: Epistle to the Alexandrians (lost), of which nothing is known letter apart from a brief mention in the Muratorian fragment that claims it was a forgery; the Epistle to the Macedonians which is lost.

Paul on Jesus

Little can be deduced about the earthly life of Jesus from St. Paul’s letters. He mentions specifically only the Last Supper (1 Cor. 11:23ff) his death by crucifixion (1 Cor :2:2; Phil. 2:8) and his resurrection (Phil. 2:9) . Instead he concentrates on the nature of the Christian’s relationship with Christ and, in particular, in his saving work. In St. Mark’s gospel, Jesus is recorded as saying that he was to ‘give up his life as a ransom for many’. St. Paul’s account of his idea of a saving act is more fully articulated, albeit in various places inhis letters, but most notably in his letter to the Romans.

What Christ has achieved for those who believe in him is variously described: as sinners under the law, they are ‘‘justified by his grace as a gift’’; they are ‘‘redeemed’’ by Jesus who was put forward by God as ‘expiation’; they are ‘’reconciled’’ by his death. The gift (grace) is to be received in faith. (Rom 3:24f; Rom 5: 9). These three images have different resonances.

Justification derives from the law courts. Those who are justified are acquitted of an offence. Since the sinner is guilty, he or she can only be acquitted by someone else, Jesus, standing in for them, which has led many Christians to believe in the teaching known as the substitutionary doctrine of the atonement. The sinner is, in St. Paul’s words ‘justified by faith’ (Rom. 5:1). ]], that is, by adhering to Christ, the sinner becomes ‘at one’ with Christ in his death and resurrection (hence the word ‘atonement’). Acquittal, however, is achieved not on the grounds that Christ was innocent (though he was) and that we share his innocence but on the grounds of his sacrifice i.e. his crucifixion), i.e. his innocent undergoing of punishment on behalf of sinners who should have suffered divine retribution for their sins. They deserved to be punished and he took their punishment. They are justified by his death, and now ‘so much more we are saved by him from divine retribution’ (Rom. 5: 9) For an understanding of the meaning of faith as that which justified, St. Paul turns to Abraham, who trusted God’s promise that he would be father of many nations. Abraham receded the giving of the law on Mount Sinai. Thus law cannot save us; faith does. Abraham could not, of course, have faith in the living Christ but, in Paul’s view, ‘the gospel was preached to him beforehand’ (Gal. 3:8), which may be interpreted as part of Paul’s belief in the pre-existent Christ.

Redemption has a different origin, that of the freeing of slaves; it is similar in character as a transaction to the paying of a ransom, (mentioned in St. Mark) though the circumstances are different. Money was paid in order to set free a slave, one who was in the ownership of another. Here the price was the costly act of Christ’s death. On the other hand, no price was paid to anyone – St. Paul does not suggest, for instance, that the price be paid to the devil – though this has been suggested by learned writers, ancient and modern, such as Origen and St. Augustine, as a reversal of the Fall by which the devil gained power over humankind.

A third expression, reconciliation, is about the making of friends which is, of course, a costly exercise where one has failed or harmed another . The making of peace (Col. 1:20) (Rom 5:9) is another variant of the same theme. Elsewhere (Eph. 2:14) he writes of Christ breaking down the dividing wall between Jew and Gentile, which the law constituted. As to how a person appropriates this gift, St. Paul writes of a mystical union with Christ through baptism: ‘we who have been baptised into Christ Jesus were baptised into his death (Rom. 6:4). He writes also of our being ‘in Christ Jesus’ and alternately, of ‘Christ in you, the hope of glory’. Thus, the objection that one person cannot be punished on behalf of another is met with the idea of the identification of the Christian with Christ through baptism.

These expressions, some of which are to be found in the course of the same exposition, have been interpreted by some as metaphors for the effects of Christ’s death upon those who followed him. Rather than writing a systematic theology, Paul, on this view, is trying to express something inexpressible. According to Ian Markham, on the other hand, the letter to the Romans, is ‘muddled’.

But others, ancient and modern, Protestant and Catholic, have sought to elaborate from his writing objective theories of the atonement on which they have, however, disagreed. The doctrine of justification by faith alone was the major source of the division of western Christianity known as the Protestant Reformation which took place in the sixteenth century. Justification by faith was set against salvation by works of the law in this case, the payment of indulgences to the Church and even such good works as the corporal works of mercy. The result of the dispute, which undermined the system of endowed prayers and the doctrine of purgatory, was the creation of Protestant churches in Western Europe, set against the Roman Catholic Church. Solifidianism (sola fides), the name often given to these views, is associated with the works of Martin Luther (1483-1546) and his followers. With went the notion of Christ’s substitutionary atonement for human sin. The doctrine has thus been the focus of some of the ecumenical discussions between the Roman Catholic Church and both Lutheran churches and the Anglican Communion.

In one letter, that to the Colossians, he describes Jesus as ‘the image of the invisible God’, Col.1:15) as rich and exalted picture of Jesus as can be found anywhere in the New Testament, which is one reason why some doubt its authenticity. On the other hand, in the undisputed Pauline letter to the Philippians, he describes Jesus as ‘in the form of God’ who ‘did not count equality with God as thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men he humbled himself and became obedient to death, even death on a cross…’

The Holy Spirit

The new life is the life of the Spirit, as against the life of the flesh, which Spirit is the Spirit of Christ, so that one becomes a son of God. God is our Father and we are fellow heirs of Christ. This Spirit brings together the different members of the church, the Body of Christ, into union as different limbs and organs (1 Corinthians 12) each with its different functions. The Spirit distributes different charismatic gifts of the people of God. Its fruits are the virtues of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control. (more to come)

Relationship with Judaism

Paul was himself a Jew, but his attitude towards his co-religionists is not entirely easy to fathom. He was very hostile to the practices of circumcision (whose practitioners he called ‘dogs’) and to obedience to the Mosaic Law, and though he may have opposed observance by non-Jews he also opposed Peter for his partial observance. He writes that there is neither Jew nor Greek, but Christ in all and in all.. On the other hand in Acts, as we have seen, he is described as submitting to taking a Nazirite vow, and earlier to having had Timothy circumcised to placate the Jews.

The background to the various arguments is the ongoing dispute over the observance of the law, which, as we have noticed, was with Jews but also with so-called Judaizing Gentile Christians. In Galatians and Philippians, St. Paul is emphatic that the law is of null effect; it only makes men and women aware of their sinfulness. His own sense of relief at discovering that what the law was incapable of doing, the risen Christ had done permeates his letters. The question of whether Christianity was a Jewish sect or a world-wide faith open to everyone is answered pretty emphatically as the latter.

However, considerable disagreement at the time and subsequently has been raised as to the significance of ‘works of the law’. In the same letter in which Paul writes of justification by faith , he says of the Gentiles ‘It is not by hearing the law, but by doing it that men will be justified (same word) by God.’ (Rom. 2:12) Those who think Paul capable of inconsistency have judged him not to be a Solifidianism himself; the more frequently taken line has been that he is merely demonstrating that both Jews and Gentiles are in the same condition of sin. (more to come: Ed Sanders etc.)

The Resurrection

The resurrection not only of Christ but of his followers is for St. Paul, the touchstone of faith. ‘If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most miserable’ (1 Cor. 15:19) However, the resurrection body is a spiritual body, not the old body of decay.

The World to come (parousia etc.)

Christian behaviour

Paul’s writing is full of pastoral advice. Every letter includes a section on Christian behaviour. His expectation of women is that they should be modest, obedience and silent in church, but he expects the love of husbands to be patterned on Christ’s love for the Church. Otherwise, he suggests that the single life is more appropriate. He extols the virtues of compassion, kindness, patience, forgiveness, love, peace, and gratitude (Col 3:1–17) His description of the nature of love is a lyrical classic (1 Cor. 13) . On the other hand he condemns a whole raft of vices: as impurity, lust, greed, anger, slander, filthy language, lying, and racial. He pays particular attention to sexual immorality, saying, "Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body" This attitude is applied also to homosexuality of which he writes in terms of ‘dishonourable passions… unnatural relations…being consumed with lust’ (Rom.1:26,27) Some have suggested that this does not refer to stable faithful relationships but that is widely disputed. His attitude towards slavery is influenced by his view of the shortness of time until he believes Jesus will return.. Slaves are to serve their masters faithfully. On the other hand, in writing to Philemon about a runaway slave whom he is returning, that as a slave he is useless to Philemon, whereas he should be received as a brother. (Phil 16)" Roger Arguile 09:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research 75.15.204.210 20:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Paul of Tarsus - the BBC TV series broadcast in the 1960s

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

Timeline

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

Unsupported Argument

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

Note to Roger Arguile

If you don't like the appearance of hypertext in your web browser, blinking, underlined, whatever, change the settings of your browser, don't just casually delete links from the article. Wikipedia is by definition a hypertexted encyclopedia, not a collection of stand alone articles. Thank you. 75.0.1.12 01:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC) Also, it appears you object to Template: bibleverse because it has too many translation options. This is actually a feature as opposed to earlier versions with one or limited options, in support of wikipedia NPOV policy. 75.0.1.12 01:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Note to 75.0.1.12

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

Arbitration

I think we may have a serious dispute here. As I said above, this is a former good article. It may well be that it is unimprovable since various attempts are being made to pull it in different directions. This is a particular problem with religious articles where the faith (or otherwise) of the contributor affects matters hugely. Doctrinal views that the Bible must be internally consistent are not good scholarship; modern scholarship has to be presented. (The present piece on new perspectives is, frankly, unacceptable as it stands. I was hoping to add something in the Paul article. But we need good well sourced facts. At present we are not heading much in that direction. If it helps, I can withdraw from the scene; but I would rather see the article improved so that scholars (of different pesuasions) at least regard it as a serious contribution. At present that is not the case. Roger Arguile 09:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see you add to this article. So far you have been largely deleting. For example, though you may personally object to the Catholic Encyclopedia, it is a Wikipedia:Reliable sources, i.e. well sourced fact, not Original Research. Feel free to add other referenced opinions, that would be in the spirit of NPOV, however, deleting a small paragraph from the Catholic Encyclopedia is not. Also, keep in mind, this is an encyclopedia, not a research blog, not a way to publish original research, it should document existing reliable opinions, not make any serious contribution, that would be Original Research. Please carefully review Wikipedia:List of policies. Thank you. 75.14.219.240 09:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, you should be aware of the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule which you are on the verge of violating. 75.14.219.240 10:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

For reference purposes, this is the apparently disputed section:

Various attempts have been made to reconcile Paul's views as expressed in his different letters and in Acts, notably the 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia article on Judaizers states:

"Paul, on the other hand, not only did not object to the observance of the Mosaic Law, as long as it did not interfere with the liberty of the Gentiles, but he conformed to its prescriptions when occasion required (1 Cor 9:20). Thus he shortly after [the Council of Jerusalem] circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:1–3), and he was in the very act of observing the Mosaic ritual when he was arrested at Jerusalem (21:26 sqq.)"

75.14.219.240 10:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have only a few thoughts to mention, and I seem to be a sort of side player in this, since I have really made a few minor changes only. I think that the claim that Acts and Paul's letters are difficult or impossible to reconcile needs to be sourced. It seems controversial to me, and I think the supposed conflicts are a bit forced — I as a reader would at least like to know who makes such arguments when I read the passage. For example, after reading the section on the Council of Jerusalem I still do no understand what the great difficulty is. Why would anyone think that Galatians 2 necessarily refers to the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts? Why cannot it just be another meeting not otherwise mentioned? As a reader I am at a real loss here.

Second point, I find the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia to be a really great source; it is much better than the 1960s one, not least of which because it is 33% larger, and so much material was not rendered obsolete. Sure, the text is old — so are lots of good sources. It still seems to present a relevant point of view in this instance. Lostcaesar 10:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

So long as we conduct this discussion on the basis of WP rules and familiarity with 'great sources' rather than on the actual texts, including Galatians and Philippians, and on recent commentaries, including the works of Raymond Brown, Ed. Sanders, N.T. Wright, J. Dunn and others we shall make no progress. Frankly, that 'Paul did not object to the observance of the Mosaic Law' is not a fair reflection of conflicting texts. If WP is to have the status of an encyclopaedia, it requires a much higher standard than we at present have. I fear that Lostcaesar's difficulty with the council of Jerusalem indicates that he has not read the literature. It was precisely to present a NPOV that caused me to raise the issues. As for the three revert rule, which of us is liable to be in breach? I confess that I am more interested in the quality of the material. Roger Arguile 12:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I hoped that I was clear, but I will try and be moreso here: I am indeed ignorant to a good deal of the literature. That is partially why, as a reader, I am at a bit of a loss with this section's handling of the material, and would greatly benefit from some references. Of course, I am not totally ignorant to the material, but I in no way am an expert. My point about the CE was simply as follows: that it is old is no reason to toss it. The work of the Mommsen family, for example, is old, but still invaluable. Also, personally, I have found the older CE to be superior to the newer one, and I gave a reason why (more content). I will also say, lastly, that the view that Paul did not object to the observance is a significant and relevant view, and I see no problem in mentioning it along side others. Like I said, I am no expert, but I have not been given any reason to think that one must absolutely accept the contrary - indeed, I have been given nothing close to it; and that's simply what I have to make my decisions on, after all. If the article has info to give, give it, and source it — I won't object to that. Lostcaesar 12:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

to 75.0.15.92

I shall try again. The CE 1907 is an out of date work. It was also written during the papacy the Pius X whose decrees against 'modernistic' biblical exegesis were part of his campaign against Catholic Modernism. Scholarship during this period was very much regulated by the Magisterium. Raymond Brown, as well-established catholic writer will have none of the thesis contained in the quoted article. As he wrote about a related matter, 'when that thesis is challenged by twentieth century scholarship, it is an academic, not a religious question'. There has been a huge amount of work done on Luke/Acts since then, notably by Cadbury and Conzelmann. I should be happy to hear of any modern scholar who takes the CE as a creditable source on this matter. As for my using so-called original research I am merely using modern scholarhip. As for the insertion of the citation needed mark against my latest attempt to compromise, this shows that the editor has not read the insertion from CE which is the source of the reference to 1 Cor 9:20! I was attempting to compromise by quoting not the speculation of CE as to what Paul's mind was on the matter but his actual words. It is the departure from the words of Scripture and the attempt to assert that there is not a problem which makes CE so objectionable. The fact that it is available on line is not a reason for not reading the modern literature. This is a hopeless procedure in an encyclopaedia and poor scholarship. Finally, one has a right to expect that non registered editors might make some attempt to make themselves available for discussion. It is a courtesy to argue the case as to why CE is to be taken as having authority over more modern works. Roger Arguile 22:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The Catholic Encyclopedia does not have authority over more modern works. However, that doesn't mean it should be deleted. If Raymond E. Brown disagrees, as you claim, cite a reference and add it to the article, without deleting the few lines quoted from the Catholic Encyclopedia. The same goes for other references. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and an encyclopedia reports on notable published research, it does not select only the research that matches a particular pov, this is what is meant by NPOV policy, not that one pov is selected, but that the major and significant POV's are reported without bias toward one or the other. 75.0.13.26 04:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's an example of how to get started:

Various attempts have been made to reconcile Paul's views as expressed in his different letters and in Acts, notably the 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia article on Judaizers states:

"Paul, on the other hand, not only did not object to the observance of the Mosaic Law, as long as it did not interfere with the liberty of the Gentiles, but he conformed to its prescriptions when occasion required (1 Cor 9:20). Thus he shortly after [the Council of Jerusalem] circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:1–3), and he was in the very act of observing the Mosaic ritual when he was arrested at Jerusalem (21:26 sqq.)"

However, the modern scholar Raymond E. Brown disputes this claim of the Catholic Encyclopedia, for example in his <<<ADD REFERENCE AND CLAIM HERE, WITHOUT DELETING THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA>>>

It doesn't work like that. Outdated articles which include dogmatic assertions which are not supported by the widely available text - the bible - are not appropriate in a modern encyclopaedia. It is not apparent to me that any of my fellow editors are knowledgeable in this matter. Some knowledge of the available scholarlship is necessary if one is to write a balanced article. In science this would not be a difficulty. Out of date articles would not be cited. In theological articles it seems that unsubstantiated assertions can be retained if they come from an authoritative source of a hundred years ago. I am not sure whether I am dealing with one person who keeps on changing his or her computer or whether I am dealing with many, but either way it would be better to consider the merits rather than the WP guidelines. My disposition is to leave you to it, sadly. Roger Arguile 10:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why the 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia should be thought to be obsolete just because it is a century old, nor do I think the fact that some scholars after it (as well as before it) disagreed necessarily in and of itself makes the text poor. For example, Edward Gibbon's work on the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, though much older than the Catholic Encyclopedia, and in many ways rendered obsolete by modern scholarship, is still in some respects seen as a worthy source and manages to appear in a history textbook written a couple years ago (and that I have sitting next to me) as an authority, not yet surpassed, on the reasons for the spread of Christianity in antiquity.

Besides this, I think the Catholic position itself deserves to be mentioned somewhere in an article about St. Paul's teachings, and I would expect Roger to be wholly in support of that. The position is simply that the teachings of St. Paul and those of the Apostles do not conflict, and this seems both reasonable and, more importantly, quite relevant. To say that the assertions of the Church are outdated and not supported by the Bible is a relevant point of view but obviously not the only one and, more obviously, not the Catholic one.

So I think we have two issues. One, can we use the Catholic Encyclopedia as a scholarly source, and I think the answer is yes, though we should be cautious. And the second one, which is independent of the first, is, does it present a relevant point of view? As it presents the Catholic view I think the answer here is clearly yes. Even if we don't uphold its scholarship it is certainly relevant in this respect somewhere in the article.

Lastly, and Roger I can guarantee you this, if the Catholic Church teaches that Paul and the Apostles' teachings are not a variance, then there are scholars today who think this is true and that they can show it via scholarship. So it will always remain a relevant and scholarly point of view. Scholars like Raymond E. Brown are no less controversial than the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Lostcaesar 10:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

'If the Catholic church teaches that Paul and the Apostle's teaching are not at variance...' If this is a matter of authority which some accept and others do not, that is one argument. In an article about the Catholic church it is fine to include this.

'...there are scholars today who think this is true and that they can show it via scholarship': that is a different kind of argument which depends not on authority but on the cogency of argument. If there are scholars who say this, tell us who they are.

Supposing the Catholic church were to teach something that could be shown to be untrue, it would be fine to put it in WP as a teaching of the Catholic church, because it would be a fact that the Catholic church teaches that; but it would not be right to include it in an article on something over which the Catholic church does not have authority eg. the Bible. I think that the assertions in CE about St. Paul's attitudes lack scholarly argument. There lies behind them an assumption about Biblical internal consistency which would have to be demonstrated.

But I give up. I may return to it on another occasion, but I repeat that it is frustrating to argue with people who are a) anonymous and b) simply repeat themselves without demonstrating having compared the texts or or having cited any scholars. Roger Arguile 14:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Paul's Writings

I have responded to a comment earlier that the article was too long by rewriting the above section. I have done so on the basis that the article should be about Paul and what he wrote and only secondarily about what other people have made of him, what disputes there have been and what the Jewish background is. I have also noted that particular doctrines are expounded in relation to particular churches. This does not relativise the doctrines but it is helpful in my view to note that Paul is writing as part of a dialogue not delivering a thesis. I expect what I have done will not satisfy many people who may feel that what I have done is vandalism. My response is that much of the excellent material that appeared before properly belongs in related articles. If I have not offered enough references to justify what I have written I can add to them but the authority for much of what I have done is simply the text of the letters! Roger Arguile 17:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the 1 Cor. 15:29 verse - your addition to the article seems to imply that other people were being baptised for those already dead? Please correct me if I am wrong on this. SparrowsWing 22:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, as I have written on your user page, this is what the text seems to mean and John Rueff, who wrote the Penguin commentary on 1 Corinthians thinks so, which is why I included it. (Incidentally, though this may not encourage you, this is why Mormons baptise on behalf of the dead relatives of Mormons) Clearly it was a practice which died out but it is referred to also in Hans Lietzmann's work on the early church. Roger Arguile 22:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Christianity and Judaism

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

to 75.0.3.230

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

From Wikipedia:Reliable_sources:

Wikipedia articles may use primary sources, so long as they have been published by a reliable source, but only to make descriptive points about the topic. Any interpretive claims require secondary sources.

In general, Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable secondary sources.

Articles signed by experts in Encyclopaedia Britannica and similar encyclopedias can be regarded as reliable secondary sources. (Unsigned articles, and those signed "X." are not written by experts and are less reliable.)

All editors should first carefully read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. 68.123.73.93 19:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

68.123.73.93

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

Are you saying it is your intention to only selectively follow Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines? 75.15.206.212 21:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I am saying that it is much more worthwhile to discuss the gospel rather than the law!!Roger Arguile 22:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Gladly, over a pint. I am in St. Neots by the church. I could come to you depending on where you live. Roger Arguile 11:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, 75.15.206.212! One encounters a 'person'which is what he did. But I suspect you are more determined than I. Likewise 'defense' clearly matters to you more than it does to me.Roger Arguile 15:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Social views

I have rewritten the article in an initial attempt further to save space but also because the section on the attitude to the State goes way beyond the texts and fails the mention the key text which undermines the thesis formerly stated. As before I have attempted to avoid conclusions that go much beyond the actual words. I have thought it worthwhile once again to tie Paul's views to particular letters because it is generally agreed that his social views are not loosely added to his doctrinal teaching but arise out of it. The context is very important. I have also dealt in particular, with three issues, slavery, women and homosexuality which are of considerable contemporary importance. I have not written discursively on the modern context partly on the grounds of space but also because the modern context is sometimes different and raises wider questions. There are articles which deal with these issues and links will, I am sure, be inserted by those who know about these things.

Finally I have tried not to be too clever, on the grounds that not every reader wants to become familiar with, eg. antinomianism, and references to the detail of contemporary Jewish teaching etc. go beyond the remit of an encyclopaedia article of restricted length. I have not doubt that when I come to look at it again, it will have been 'improved' perhaps beyond all recognition. I have as always been guided by the awful warning at the top that this is a 'former good article'. I trust that the new beginning may enable it to head gently in the direction of its former status.Roger Arguile 21:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Passive tense

I made some grammatical changes throughout the opening historical section, which hopefully have not changed the original intent of the sentances. My central focus was to change passive tenses, like "Paul was brought before the counsel" to active, like "the counsel summoned Paul". Passive tense is much easier to remain NPOV, but active is much easier to read. Following the wiki principle of "be bold", I made the changes. I tried to be as NPOV as possible and to keep to the original meaning of the sentances. However, I'm not a historian, so if I misunderstood anything in your original sentances, please feel free to rewrite (in NPOV and active tense, if possible).

I also made some changes which hopefully are more NPOV. For example, I changed a reference to "heretics" to "unorthodox groups (called by orthodox Christians 'heretics')", and "idols" to "statues (which Paul called idols)". Hopefully the senteces still convey the views of orthodox Christianty, but from more of a NPOV. Thanks everyone! JKB 12/02/06 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.108.238.243 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Paul's burial place

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

sources

An editor suggests that the article needs more sources. Without littering it with footnotes, which is not every encyclopaedic - see Britannica, mostn of the references are to the Biblical text. There are references to several authors. Generalised comments do not help other editors. Roger Arguile 10:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

From WP:Sources

All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source.

The need for citations is especially important when writing about opinions held on a particular issue. Avoid weasel words such as, "Some people say ..." Instead, make your writing verifiable: find a specific person or group who holds that opinion and give a citation to a reputable publication in which they express that opinion.

All citations require a detailed full citation

Some example from the text:

• "Even allowing for omissions in St. Paul's own account, which is found particularly in Galatians, it is difficult, even impossible in places, to reconcile his account with that in Acts" — likely to be challenged
• "Thus some scholars think that Paul in Galatians is referring to the meeting in Acts 11" — use of weasel words
• "These expressions... have been interpreted by some scholars, such as the mediaeval teacher Peter Abelard and, much more recently, Hastings Rashdall as metaphors for the effects of Christ's death upon those who followed him" — not cited in full

I could go through and add {{Fact}} tags to all relevant sentences if needs be.

Lostcaesar 10:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, how can I respond to the request to shorten it when you want it longer? You may notice that the Acts/Galatians controversy is dealt with in detail below. I will add the rest. Forgive me, but I sometimes wonder whether there is sufficient interest in the content. I also think we are all in danger of adopting a peremptory tone. I try hard not to, but maybe I fail too.Roger Arguile 11:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Your "request to shorten it" is not a valid excuse to wave Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. 75.14.221.90 04:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Too Long

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

As long as it's shorter than Jesus it shouldn't be a problem. 75.14.221.90 04:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Intro

The tone of the introduction is too skeptical. KittyHawker 23:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC) And shouldn't this article be called Paul the Apostle, or the Apostle Paul, or Paul (Apostle)? If I had my way it'd be the Blessed Apostle Paul, but that's not going to happen. KittyHawker 04:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about the intro being too skeptical? Keep in mind that wikipedia is not supposed to be assertive, just present the significant referenced facts and opinions and let the reader decide. As for the name, Paul of Tarsus is pretty standard, the "Blessed Apostle Paul" would seem to me to be pov pushing. 75.14.221.90 05:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

How about significant facts and widely-held opinions only? KittyHawker 05:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe it is wikipedia policy to exclude significant referenced minority opinions. See also WP:WWIN#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy. 75.14.221.90 05:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but in the intro? KittyHawker 06:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Just for comparison on the name: Catholic Encyclopedia: St. Paul, Jewish Encyclopedia: Saul of Tarsus, Encyclopedia Britannica: Paul. It would be nice if the wikipedia article is eventually better than the articles in these three noted religious encyclopedias, but I'm not personally holding my breath. Wikipedia suffers from a chronic reliability problem caused by failure to follow Wikipedia: Reliable Sources policy. 75.14.221.90 05:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Extraneous titles are usually frowned upon, hence the article Jesus and not the many other possible titles, but I notice Saint Peter, presumably that would justify "Saint Paul". 75.14.221.90 05:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

As someone who put in a lot of changes to the article, may I say that one of the difficulties is that one is presented with those who feel that it is too critical (above) and those who feel it to be insufficiently so. One is constantly having to respond to edits from left and right. Thus, for example the para on homosexuality was thought too POV towards the practice; yesterday someone removed the para, possibly on the grounds that it was too critical. May I say that those who approach the article from a confessional point of view still have to be aware of the technical problems. If one approaches the texts from an inerrancy point of view, no criticism of the factual assertions in the texts will be acceptable to you. I know that not only Bauer and Hans Conzelman but also Raymond Brown come under suspicion on those grounds. The fact is that a huge number of scholars regard Acts as being difficult to reconcile with St. Paul's letters. Very few take it that it was written at the time of Paul's death. We really have to take on board unpalatable opinions.

As for the section on 'Paul on Jesus' I would have thought that this is very positive. Having lectured on Paul extensively and recently, I would be interestd in any objections that people have. I agree that KittyHawker needs to be specific. Otherwise we shall simply have an edit war without either scholarship or even faith being served. Roger Arguile 12:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

PS I hver added a small rebalancing para. in the intro on St. Paul's unique contribution to the idea of what it is to be a Christian. Roger Arguile 17:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Contradictions

I have removed piece inserted yesterday because a comparison is being made between St. Paul talking about judgment and Jesus talking about the overcoming of sin. One is about our life in the world, the other about the judgment of our life. It is very hard to make definite comparisons between Jesus' teaching and that of Paul because they are often talking about different things, but also because we have four gospel writers with four different emphases. It would be more profitable to write about Jesus' continued references to the Kingdom of God and the relative paucity of its mention in the writings of Paul. But there is no simple set of terms, agreed in their meaning by all, in use in New Testament times.

Likewise in the case of the attitude to the law: even within Matthew it is quite difficult to produce a simple account of our Lord's attitude. The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath; you have heard it said of old time...but I say to you etc. What does it mean to say '..til all be fulfilled'? Do we avoid swearing falsely or at all? Do we forgive our enemies or not? Do we pluck the corn to eat on the sabbath or not? Sabbath breaking is characteristic of Mark's Jesus. His disciples eat with unwashed hands. He disagrees with Moses. All this has been the subject of considerable academic debate from which text-tasting does not free us - it depends on which text you quote. I think, with respect to the latest editor that his attempt is misdirected. Roger Arguile 17:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Another Contradiction

Speaking of contradictions: the intro says, "He was the second most prolific contributor to the New Testament, after Luke the Evangelist. Fourteen letters are attributed to him, with varying degrees of confidence." There are only 27 books in the NT. If 14 are attributed to Paul, how can he be the second most prolific contributor?

This was all I meant to contribute, and this seemed like the best place to add it. I noticed above though Roger Arguile's statement about regarding Jesus' attitude about the law in Matthew. I don't think Matthew is ambiguous at all. According to Matthew, Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, sent by the Jewish God, in fulfillment of the Jewish scriptures and was himself thoroughly Jewish - meaning he kept the Mosaic Law. Tom McCann 18:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Even if Luke had higher word count, his writings are based on Paul's teaching. Paul had many other letters that are not in the cannon, so it is wrong to think that Luke is more influential than Paul. In the KJV bible, Luke has 52,343 words in the NT. Paul's epistle has 52,549 words. Wyatt 20:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It is highly debatable that Luke's writings are based on Paul's, see the article for details, there are several contradictions between Luke's accounts and Paul's accounts. 75.14.212.118 20:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's a reference: [3] Gospel of Luke = 19433 Greek words Acts = 18413 Greek words 13 Pauline Epistles = 29915 Greek words

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

Dear Mr. Whyatt, Paul wrote 29,915 words; Luke wrote 19,433+18,413= 37,846. I think that the latter is more than the former. Secondly, I know of no scholar who thinks that Paul wrote Hebrews; if it is debateable, please tell me the names of the parties to the debate and their reasons. That Luke quotes Paul is, with respect, neither here nor there. I beg you to respect that your argument relies upon supposition and does not, in any case,meet either the numerical point nor that of actual authorship ie. who picked up his pen and wrote more letters (sorry: words!). I hope you will not be offended if I say that scholarship does rely on expertise which takes a long time to acquire. Wht you write does not indicate a close knowledge of the subject. Roger Arguile 15:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

My apologies to Mr. Whyatt. My calculator gives Paul 32328 greek words, but this is well short of Lukes' 37,846. However, I wonder if some peple think that though it is important to get the minutiae of scholarship corrrect, WP is about larger things than this. Roger Arguile 18:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

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

I think that the ability to count and add up scarcely counts as research. Is Mr. Wyatt saying that the versions of the Greek testament vary by more than a word or two here and there? We are in danger of losing the plot: the interested reader is the person whom we are trying to inform. He or she will be informed to know, as they may not, that St. Paul and St. Luke between them wrote mmost of the New Testament. At first blush they may not realise how much Luke wrote. The link to Hebrews should perhaps include a link to the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (article on Hebrews) and to reputable commentaries such as that by Moffatt (T&TClark) (though there are more modern ones). As Moffatt points out (p.xvii) even in the second century there was never any attribution to St. Paul on a manuscript. Moffatt concludes that the Jewish influences upon the writer were Alexandrian, a place to which St. Paul never went - so far as we know. WP editors may not be called upon, or allowed, to offer the fruits of their own researches, but they may decently be allowed to use their knowledge of a range of scholarship over centuries. In our world there is a huge range of opinion and the issue of balance has occupied a good deal of time, but to assume good faith is not to assume good scholarship. Roger Arguile 22:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality and Paul

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

St.Pauls First Missionary Journey also included Cyprus

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

Sorry to have appalled you. I think, however, that the detail of the visit might be omitted in what is merely an overview of his travels. Otherwise we shall have huge detail; whereas I suggest that, as you have, referring them to the bible may be enough. Roger Arguile 14:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Query

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

See the sections in the article Paul on Jesus and Relationship with Judaism as well as New Perspective on Paul.

The anti-Pauline movement dates back to Paul's day. Early Christianity was very diverse, with each group calling the other groups liars (heretics). TomMcCann 20:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV / authorship

We shouldn't be making any unqualified claims that depend on uncritical acceptance of Pauling authorship of all the epistles traditionally attributed to him. So I've changed the claim that Paul was the most prolific NT author, to the claim that this is so according to the traditional attributions. Grover cleveland 20:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to know how many letter need to be doubted in order of St. Luke to be the most prolific author. A good number of his letters are undisputed. Lostcaesar 20:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

According to the word counts at http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/NT-Statistics-Greek.htm, the total number of words in Luke and Acts is 37,933 while the count for all 14 disputed and undisputed letters in the Pauline Corpus including Hebrews (!) is 37,360. So the traditional authorship of the epistles doesn't matter: no matter how you cut it, "Luke" is more prolific than "Paul". Stephen C. Carlson 21:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but what about his letters to Seneca?! j/k =)

Lostcaesar 21:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Lost Caesar is straining at gnats. Is he claiming that Hebrews is by St. Paul? Are we to enter into discussion about non-canonical material. My concern is that that article gets improved; that is not done by arguing over what is not a significant theological or historical issue. I think we ought to leave Stephen Carlson's words as constituting the final word. Roger Arguile 11:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

j/k = joke

=) - smiley face

That help? 64.149.82.237 19:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I didn't recognise the symbols. It is sometimes hard to know whether the person concerned is serious or not. I could be specific, but courtesy forbids. Moreover, haivn gjust read the article on 'Pauline Christianity' I do seriously wonder about WP as a project. I have rarely come across such mistaken, confused, biased and misleading material. I know about alternative views but that article should have a health warning. Was it a joke? Just as one example, it manages to jump to the Council of Niceaa without looking at the intervening period in any detail at all. It is frankly worthless. The idea that the theology of Paul could be put into that article is beyond my understanding. I have no intention of offending, but I would not know where to begin with such an article in order to render it serious scholarship. Roger Arguile 20:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

to 75.15.193.4

It would be kind if you would register so that discussion could take place. It is a courtesy that helps other editors. The piece which I deleted and which you have put back was not removed for POV reasons but because the article is too long. I have tried, even by removing material which I had contributed, to shorten it. It is the easiest thing in the world to add material from Acts - there are 28 chapters of it. What WP lacks is an approach which looks at material to see whether it can be removed, not on the grounds that it is offensive or wrong, or that somebody's word count can be questioned, but that it makes the text too long. One really does need people who will patiently collaborate, rather than getting upset or irritated. That requires open participation. Roger Arguile 12:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

PS I keep on noting that this is a former good article. Since it is too long, I try to shorten it but to no efect!Roger Arguile 12:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Most of the recent size increase is due to your additions, perhaps that is where you should look to trim things down, assuming that is even necessary. For starters, much of the space is taken up by images, secondly, much of the theological material can be moved to Pauline Christianity, this article should be about the person Paul of Tarsus. 64.149.82.237 18:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

57.1 kB (9187 words) - 19:52, 18 December 2006

Wikipedia:Article size

Prose size What to do > 50 KB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)

Solution: Put most of the theological discussion in Pauline Christianity, this article should be about Paul of Tarsus the person, and only briefly discuss opinions about his particular theology as derived from his letters. Alternately, just leave it alone. Jesus is currently (91.9 kB (13843 words) - 17:59, 18 December 2006), there is no reason why this article can't be a similar size, the scope of the topic easily justifies the size. 75.15.197.172 20:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

'Editorial changes'

I think 'Lostcaesar' has attempted to make changes under the above general title, some of which need discussion. Ian Markham's view may not be typical but it is that of the reputable theologian. What the reasons there are for removing him is a matter of speculation in the absence of an explanation. The excision of the section on predestination may have been justified on the grounds of space but having attempted my own reductions and had them rejected I think some explanation is helpful. The removal of the the piece on the resurrection which provides another metaphor is unhelpful. The insertion of the technical word 'Echatology' rather than the plan ungreeked words replaced (the World to Come) may satisfy purists but maybe not those who are seeking illumination. The line between dogmatically driven editing and the search for factual accuracy may be a thin one. For that reason it is always helpful to explain why one has done something. The alteration of the line on indulgences corrects a popular usage but is more correct of course. I have tried to respond to criticisms about citations (and can add more). Reciprocal favours are always appreciated. Roger Arguile 15:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I recently made certain changes, preserving some of what you wished but making certain changes that I saw as necessary. I altered the sentence on indulgence. It is an oversimplification to say that the controversy over indulgences caused the reformation; its better to say "contributed to", since it was one of other factors. Also, I changed "payment" to "acquiring" to better represent the nature of an indulgence. Indulgences are not permitted to be sold, and doing such constitutes an abuse. About predestination, the passage confused predestination with double predestination, the former of which does not entail pre-determined reprobation / damnation. The subsequent commentary didn't exactly make sense, so I removed it; perhaps it could be included in a reworded manner. About the bit on the resurrection, I changed the text because it previously implied that, according to Paul, the general resurrection will not involve a physical body. The passage in question, if that is what it implied, clearly violated the "no original research" requirement. Lostcaesar 00:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry: I thought that I had been positive about your alteration of the remarks on indulgences. I am never very moved by reference to WP rules, which may be a fault in me, but I think it is at least as arguable that your interpretation of the texts on resurrction constitutes original research. I refer you to 1 Corinthians 15:42ff but also to John Ruef's commentary on the book. I think that it would be helpful if you could yourself offer some references to scholarly work defending your argument. I am far from offering a firm view, rather being content to let the text speak. I understand your position as a Roman Catholic but a doctrinal position cannot overrule other opinions without qualification. I was attempting to adopt a conciliatory position. As for the piece on predestination, I think you have been a little harsh. I was being general and attempting to refer people to other matter. You will appreciate that your assurance that you are both clear and right is not shared by everyone. I look forward to reading you on resurrection where, I fear, you are in difficulty.Roger Arguile 19:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC) PS There is nothing of original research in the observation that St. Paul contrasts the different character of the 'living' and the 'resurrection' body. Ruef notes that the Hebrew and the Greek minds saw things very differently and it is in the light of the 'materialism'of the Hebrew mind and the very different attitude of the Greeks that he attempts his explication. Ruef thinks that Paul is making a different point: Christ really died - contrary to what the Corinthians believe; he "overcame death"; because of this Christians share the hope of resurrection. He uses the word 'body'throughout but, as Ruef notes, there is opposed to the idea of the 'life-body' a 'spirit-body' (Reuff 173) whose origin as a concept it difficult to discover. And as C.S.C Williams notes, There is difference as well as continuity between the earthly and the heavenly body.' Please help me as to why you have removed the sectionRoger Arguile 20:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

I feared as much. I think you might break the three edit rule if you delete my restoration. I am sorry that you do not feel it necessary to justify your action. Roger Arguile 16:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC) PS. As to what is a minority opinion, of course, numerically the Roman Catholic church is the largest and thus, presumably it would be right to accord Roman Catholic teaching the primary if not only place. On the other hand, I offer you the views of Rowan Williams, currently archbishop of Canterbury, who writes ' Both the inconsistencies and th elack of clear models suggest that the events behind the narrative were odd enough and unexpected enough the generate new styles and idomes.' 'He also writes 'The early church maintained a robust b elief in the materiality of the resurrection for believers.' It might be tedious to write up the whole article - it is in the Oxford Companion to Christian Thought, but it exhibits the tentativeness that I have tried to set out. If you ask whether the corpse of Jesus may be found somewhere in Palestine, I am sure that all Christians would answer in the negative, but the talk of seeds and new growth indicate that there is both continuity and discontinuity, a pont that Williams makes. You may disregard him as a heretic. I fear that I cannot. Roger Arguile 17:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Extraordinary omission

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

Really? Roger Arguile 17:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Ps I have run them to earth. Published in 1852 I think. Much admired apparently, but largely the gathering of other men's flowers. It was not a standard text when I was in college (1968-71) Roger Arguile 14:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Paul an antichrist?

Many individuals and groups believe Paul distorted Jesus' message away from virtues such as simple living and nonviolence. I see no reference to this under Paul_of_Tarsus#Alternative_views. 86.143.36.218 09:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"Many individuals and groups" are Weasel words. Can you cite Wikipedia: Reliable sources? 69.104.122.102 00:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Doubtless they were. However, WP only grows in credibility by citing people who know what they are talking aboutOtherwise we fall aprey to the authority of Dead Famous White Men. I am a detractor of Nietsche but not being dead or famous I don't qualify. Roger Arguile 15:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Manipulations

"...raising the question, still disputed, as to how consistent his account of the faith is with that of the four canonical Gospels, Acts, and the Epistle of James...."

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

The issue of the canon is more complicated than Wetman suggests, but this is not the place for it.There is another article. I am not sure how Wetman knows that the Didache did not become non-canonical until the fourth century. Nor am I clear that anything he says detracts from the point that some people regard Paul's version of Christianity as very different from that in the gospels. (Has he read the Didache to know what light it sheds on the issue?) What does he complain of: that Pauline Christianity is inadequately described? That the issues which it raises are not mentioned? That what it depends on to be justified is not covered? I need some help. Roger Arguile 15:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Content from Saint Paul page

I am no way qualified to assess the importance, relevance or accuracy of this information, but it certainly didn't belong on the Saint Paul dab page, so I leave it here, in case there's something worth extracting:

Paul of Tarsus, or The Apostle Paul, originally called Saul of Tarsus (Tarsus is in modern day Turkey). — one of the early leaders of the Christian Church. Paul was a young Jew when he was taught that Christians were enemies. In the 7th Chapter of ACTS in the bible, it tells us that Paul was present at the stoning of St. Stephen and was the person who made it happen. On his way to Damascus, Paul was struck off his horse, for God had appeard to him. Paul was temporarorly blinded and had a vision of him helping not hurting Christians. This changed Paul's life.' He is also considered to be a saint by the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, among others. His name has been lent to various buildings, institutions and locations throughout the world.

On December 7th, 2006, a Catholic news agency reported that Giorgio Filippi, an archaeologist and inscriptions expert at the Vatican Museums and working for the Vatican, had unearthed a marble sarcophagus dating from "at least 390AD". The sarcophagus has Paolo Apostolo Martyr (Paul Apostle Martyr) written on its top is very likely contains the remains of Saint Paul who was executed by the Emperor Nero in 65AD.

In 2002 and 2003, Filippi examined the sarcophagus after having removed pavement stones to access chambers below the basilica. Three vertical holes leading down to the lid were found, one of which is closed but thought to have lead directly into the sarcophagus. This was likely used to allow objects to come into contact with the remains of St. Paul in order to create secondary relics. These were popular in the late fourth century after Emperor Theodosius banned the trade of corporal relics. The New Testament states in Acts 19:11-12 "God did extraordinary miracles through Paul, so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them." Planetneutral 00:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Opening paragraph POV?

The paragraph currently (4th Feb 2007) reads -

Paul of Tarsus (b. c. 10, d. c. 67), the Apostle to the Gentiles (Romans 11:13, Galatians 2:8) was, together with Simon Peter, the most notable of Early Christian missionaries. Unlike the Twelve Apostles, Paul did not know Jesus in life; he came to faith through a vision of the resurrected Jesus (1 Cor 15:8-9). As he wrote, he "received it [the Gospel] by revelation from Jesus Christ" (Gal 1:11-12); according to Acts, his conversion was on the Road to Damascus.

Wouldn't the below be more neutral -

Paul of Tarsus (b. c. 10, d. c. 67), the Apostle to the Gentiles (Romans 11:13, Galatians 2:8) was, together with Simon Peter, the most notable of Early Christian missionaries. Unlike the Twelve Apostles Paul never knew Jesus; he claimed to have had a vision of Jesus after the latter's death (1 Cor 15:8-9) and to have under gone a religious conversion. As he wrote, he "received it [the Gospel] by revelation from Jesus Christ" (Gal 1:11-12); according to Acts, his conversion was on the Road to Damascus.

My other suggestion would be to make it clear that the paragraph refers to Christian beliefs rather than objective facts.

I haven't changed the paragraph because I suspect it would last all of 3 seconds :-). The point I'm trying to make is that the current paragraph only appears unbiased if you are a Christian. --Boreas 19:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that the apparent simplicity of 'objective facts' betrays an empiricist turn of mind which is not compelling to all. It says he had a vision; he could, of course, have been deluded, but what he saw was clearly in a different category from his sight of the camel ahead of him on the road to Damascus. Where Luke 'claimed' that he had a vision it says, 'according to Acts' which is true - you can read Acts for yourself. Scepticism may attempt to claim the high ground but empiriciam is only one view which has been unanswerably shown to be defective in some fields - as in its approach to ethics. Here we are in debateble territory but Boreas's amendment would make the problem worse. Roger Arguile 14:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Losing Divine Inheritance

"To determine St. Paul's beliefs on homosexuality, several passages are frequently cited. In 1 Cor. 6:9-10, Paul lists a number of actions which are so wicked that they will deprive whoever commits them of their divine inheritance: "Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners shall inherit the Kingdom of God." "

In many Protestant beliefs this scripture doesn't mean that the acts will "deprive whoever commits them of their divine inheritance". Within the doctrine of persistent salvation, Paul is understood to be referring to people who are persistent in pursuing the life of sin and denial of Christ reflected by the characteristics he describes. His words in this passage indicate that idolaters, sexually immoral, and other sinners who follow that pattern of life and don't accept the grace of Christ will not inherit the Kingdom of God, not because they commit those acts, but because their pattern of committing them reveals that they are not in fact followers of Christ, which is the only condition of salvation (John 3:16). So for Christ followers who commit the acts of immorality described in the verses, there is not the consequence of a revoked eternal life, because Christ's salvation is persistent and covers all future sins. Rather, the mark of the true faith is that the pattern of the believer's life is not that there is no sin, but that it is marked by an acknowledgement of those sins when they are committed, a repentance in turning away from them go in the opposite direction, and a consistent and growing relationship of obedience to the teachings of Christ.

Could someone could find a way to word that into an appropriate sidenote in that not all interpretations of this scripture are that people lose their salvation by committing sins, please? I think it's unfair to include one interpretation of such an important verse without including another, especially one that is espoused by a large number of protestant churches in the world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.82.118.232 (talk) 00:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

Homosexuality of Paul himself

As I understand it, a number of historians suspect that Paul himself was homosexual, or perhaps a repressed homosexual, and that this has some bearing on his view of women. This should be briefly referenced in the section on his views of homosexuality. JeffBurdges 15:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be most useful to know who these historians are and what their evidence is. Roger Arguile 17:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

They are probably repressed devil-worshipers. This has some bearing on their view of Paul. KittyHawker 21:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

A small query from a beginner student of Paul: Should the reference to 2 Cor 13:14 in the section "Paul and Jesus" be 2 Cor 13:13? It's in the paragraph beginning: "The various doctrines of the atonement ...". Adrianmjones44 08:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Maintaining NPOV Even If You Disagree

The point of NPOV is to understand that other people have differing understandings--yours is not the only correct viewpoint even though you might think it is. To offer that Thomas Jefferson or some other human being was not specifically a "theologian" or "Biblical scholar" and therefore is not an acceptable reference is to say that Jefferson didn't have a brain in his head to think with outside of common politics. Jefferson's intellect was, to say the least, impeccable; although one could argue with his morality. The point is facts don't have to be related by "scholars" to be facts--they just have to be true and verifiable. The fact is the Jefferson Bible was a scholarly work (of sorts) and it is quite historical and indeed a valid representation of someone who disagreed with Pauline Christianity.