User talk:Sengleani

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Sengleani! I am Marek69 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Marek.69 ^talk 00:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re: your message[edit]

Hi Sengleani, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 01:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St. Paul of Tarsus[edit]

I see your note that you edited a note to say you were keeping the notion open that Paul may or may not have been shiprecked on the shores of Malta. Do keep in mind that Saint Paul's writings himself witness that the island was Malta, his words. He also witnesses further that a venomous creature clung to his arm when he was making the fire, and the natives were amazed he did'nt die. So the evidence is very clear that it was Malta. The Roman soulders with him, would have confirmed.

I can dig-out the exact Biblical quote. The evidence is that it was Saint Paul's Bay in Malta.

Oh, by the way, Welcome to Wikipedia. (I just a year before you, & I got == no == cookies).

MacOfJesus (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a bible scholar but living in Malta , I am aware of the debate in the local press and amongst academics internationally on this issue. Does Acts refer to Malta?Possibly, even probably, but not certainly, as there are other islands with similar names which have also claimed to be the location of the shipwreck. You yourself mention one area of debate which is that of venomous creatures. This would appear to rule Malta out as it has no venomous creatures and there is no evidence that it had any in the past. Then there is the fire on the beach: this seems to point to an island which was less developed and more remote ; Roman Malta was a prosperous trading centre with a sophisticated infrastructure , a number of fine villas , a Roman garrison and an official bureaucracy , the nearest architectural representatives of all of which would have been visible from the putative "shipwreck" site. It would be rather odd to start a fire on a beach rather than make contact with (or be contacted by) local officialdom. There is also the lack of any archaeological evidence for Christianity in Malta before the 3rd/4th centuries, when a large amount appears. Amongst the Maltese there is an almost fanatical desire to believe in the truth of the shipwreck story, but even so there is a local debate about the tradition that it occurred in St Paul's Bay.I hope this explains my amendment. Sengleani (talk) 11:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you sincerely for coming back on this.

Acts: Chapter, 27 (particularly 7-8). The notes are very precise with names of each place. They read as shipping-navagation notes. Even the number of people on board; 276. The visability was poor and the bay with a beach is named.

Acts: Chapter, 28; 1 "Once we had come safely through, we discovered the island was called Malta...." "The inhabitants treated us with unusual kindness. -- 10.

The evidence is very strong. The inhabitants of the island, prarticularly, is a confirmation. In my study of Hermeneutics does show all the evidences confirm.

The Centurion Soldier would have made it his business to affirm the island.

I have no doubt that the island is correct. Also, the narrative here by Saint Luke is in a first-hand report. It reads rather like Leves Latin texts of the wars and progresses, books 1-6+.

I have been in Malta, and conversed with the clergy, etc.

I could not find your amendment, just your note of the correction.

(I have written on Saint Athanasius, Saint Augustine, Saint Paul, Saint Dismas, Saint Philomena, Saint Christopher, to mention just a few!) You can follow my writings by checking out my name: {MacofJesus}.

Your notes above also affirm the island, for if it were a foreign island there might be some doubt of the name, but not if there were a Roman presence there.

(Has Saint Paul's Bay got its own Church yet, not a little premises jammed between two buildings?)

The whole narrative of the way the ship was wind-swept onto a beach would seem to confirm Saint Paul's Bay. To get from Malta to Rome would require further assistance from local shipping. Hence, to get on their way they would have to at least know where they were.

The reason for the fire was to dry-out their clothes, etc. and to get dry.

Do note the change in narrative here in Acts. 28: 11 "At the end of three months ''we'' set sail in a ship...."

At he end: Acts 28: 23-: "So ''they'' arranged a day..."

Saint Luke the composer was not an eye-witness, but from his closeness to Saint Paul and Saint Peter had authorithy to write The Gospel and Acts. We believe he had sources in front of him: "quelle". And then his own words.

The native people then in Malta, were not Christian. Perhaps, Saint Paul was the only one of 276 + those others that were there.

MacOfJesus (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did find the area of entry on Saint Paul's article page. I placed the reference (Acts 28; 1+) after "Malta". I did not change any of your work. I think it is OK as it is, as some scholars remain unconvinced. {Mind though, these scholars would remain unconvinced even if their mothers were to appear to them and accuse them of being incredulous}.

MacOfJesus (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I must make it clear that I have no desire to shake anyone's religious convictions, nor to undermine the Maltese leitmotif, but simply to observe that the issue is not uncontentious. Most of the sceptics are Christians ; some are reputable scholars who have published their arguments and engaged in learned debate. You may be interested in Mario Buhagiar's arguments (The Catholic Historical Review January 2007). It would not have been appropriate to make the amendment if the only sceptics were crackpots. Personally, I believe that it is reasonably likely that St Paul was indeed shipwrecked in Malta. But I also believe strongly in the guidelines and ethos of wikipedia.

Best,Sengleani (talk) 06:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for coming back on this. I am of your opinion, and want what you want. However, the evidences of Acts is overwheleming. The Commentries on this all take it for granted and as read. I am afraid, these exegeses are out on a limb here, particularly so as it is so clear in Acts. I would not say that they are "crackpots", but I would observe that they are out-on-a-limb here.

As I said, I did not and would not change your entry but rather added the references from Acts. With such clear evidences the onus of proof is on the side of those trying to prove this theory.

I am viewing this point on purely an academic level. One way or the other, Saint Paul being shiprecked here or there, is hardly going to matter. He was being dragged to Rome by a cohort and a certurion to answer charges, along with other prisoners.

Sincerely, MacOfJesus (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have in front of me the most revered Commentry: The Jerome Biblical Commentry, showing article 45, by Richard J. Dillon & Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J. Their commentry on Acts 28: 1-10:

7, Publius, the headman of the Island: The legate of the pretor of Sicily, who ruled over Rom Malta, was called "Melitensium primus omnium" (CIL 10.7495). The Gk word Poplios is the equivalent of Lat Publius.

3-6 the viper: The Gk word echidna donates a nonpoisonous constrictor snake.

They take as read the location.

To suggest the island is not Malta; the response is: prove it. To suggest somewhere other than Saint Paul's Bay, the response: show us a Bay with the correct orientation that might suffice.

The evidence is so clear that if we question this then we might as well question if Jesus died in Jerusalem, on a cross, in approx. 30AD!

MacOfJesus (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I can see that you are as committed a supporter as most Maltese of the theory but I can also see that there are good arguments on both sides and do not feel qualified to take a definitive position either way. I am not the right person with whom to argue the theory. While I can read basic Latin I have only a very rudimentary knowledge of Ancient Greek (I wish I had paid more attention at school!)and am no kind of bible scholar - certainly not competent to compare different versions and translations of the New Testament. You really need to correspond with and convince those sceptics who have studied the issues in depth - I can suggest a few names if you wish. My only role here is to observe that it is clear that there are respectable differences of view and a continuing debate, which is verifiable. Best RegardsSengleani (talk) 14:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for coming back to me. I was aware of the arguments before. I just have the clearest evidences before me. And I have so many Scripture Exegets on my side, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S. J. perhaps the formost. The Latin evidences in Luke's Acts is very clear. I have studied Scripture at length but there are only a few Exegets.

Have you read Acts 27 & 28?

I am aware of the most unusual theories gaining acceptance. In the ancient Irish Histories it was alleged that Saint Brendan had discovered America before Columbus. This was always dismissed as it was considered impossible, as the claim was in a leather boat (Currach). Tim Severin a student of this history set out to prove this true or false by setting out on the same trip from Kerry (1978). He achieved it and now the history books read differently.

The ancient historians of Irish History, had only the counter theory that this was impossible. The size of the boat (five man size), you could not blame them. But the glaceries were not a problem as the leather boat "glided" over them.

MacOfJesus (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again - As this is the first time I have discussed anything on Wikipedia, it is a useful education. In answer to your question , yes I have read the New Testament, but only in Latin (some decades ago) and English translations; as I said, I wouldn't pretend to understand the Hellenic texts and so I cannot contribute any original insights. I know, though ,that every single phrase is a source of vigorous discussion! Anyway, thank you for your courteous comments and input. I hope to have a further exchange on other topics in the future. Best,Sengleani (talk) 18:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your inability to see that your edits are not only sloppy (poor grammar, meager syntax, incorrect punctuation) but actually pushing POV. Jekk mintix Kattoliku, ahjar ghalik - Wikipedia is not a place to vent spleen. If you wish to amend the text (and include phrases like "some scholars" etc) please be capable of backing it up with CITATIONS and REFERENCES. I hope this is clear, thank you. 193.188.47.23 (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Unidentified, thank you for your comments. I agree , of course, that one should strive for accuracy and good English usage. I am a little puzzled about your "spleen-venting " reference, but I refuse to take offence; I apologise for having offended you. You will understand from my exchange with the learned Mr. Mc Nally (above) that I am not arguing about whether St Paul was or was not shipwrecked on Malta but merely whether this is a universally accepted interpretation of the passages in Acts. That it is not is easily verifiable ; there is a debate with good arguments on both sides and I am in the process of finding out how to add references to this effect. Sengleani (talk) 13:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with you, Sengleani. We were told by Wikipedia policy not to bite new people coming to wikipedia. If you, unnamed entrant cannot be civil, then why come in to Wikipedia at all? I am not ashamed of my name. I am MacofJesus, Bernard Mc Nally, and I say Welcome to Wikipedia, Sengeani.

You may be interested, Sengeani, there is a deep discussion / war situation developed on the talk page of List of names for the Biblical nameless and have proposed a new article page: List of Biblical nameless (Catholic Bible).

I suggest, Sengleani, that you report this incident to Adm. "OIEnglish", on his talk page.

Again don't be put off.

You, Sengleani, have given a clear reference and source for your stand, and the reviews cited. "You may be interested in Mario Buhagiar's arguments (The Catholic Historical Review January 2007)."

You might look at the user's talk page: "User talk:193.188.47.23|talk"

MacOfJesus (talk) 10:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MacOfJesus? Mur hudu ja bazwa. However Sengleani - apologies for being rash. I've changed 'conflate' to 'identify' because that's a lot more accurate.... 'Melite' and 'Malta' were not meshed together, the former is simply identified with the latter. This has been the custom for hundreds of years, but of course, what's an aeon or two on Wikipedia :) Enjoy your time in the playground. And don't fall victim to self-loathing, even if you are local. We can both ask the pope what he thinks about this whole mess in a couple of weeks :D lol 193.188.47.23 (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]