Talk:1 Corinthians 15

Paul's conversion
This seems to me to be in need of some work: "As an aside, it's worth pointing out that if the account of Paul's conversion found in Galatians 1 is accurate, then his conversion story as reveled in Acts 9 must be inaccurate as the two tales are profoundly contradictory.  Ultimately, were it true that 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 was actually an early official Christian Creed being taught by the founders of the faith, then it should seem odd that it is referenced nowhere other than 1 Corinthians 15:3-7." It looks like WP:OR, an argument for a point of view, rather than reporting on what reliable sources have to say, when one writes "it's worth pointing out", "must be inaccurate", "profoundly contradictory", "were it true", "it should seem odd". I haven't deleted this, for it might just be a representation of what the previously cited sources have said, and only needs a couple of footnotes, or maybe just a little different wording. TomS TDotO (talk) 12:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The changes seem to me to be an improvement, but I still have reservations about this sentence: "Ultimately, were it true that 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 was actually an early official Christian Creed being taught by the founders of the faith, then it should seem odd that it is referenced nowhere other than 1 Corinthians 15:3-7." Perhaps something like this would be more neutral in tone: "There is no reference elsewhere in early Christian literature for the statement in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 having status as an official creed." But even that, I think, would require a reliable reference. TomS TDotO (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

2012
Something must had gone wrong the world will not end on 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.87.105.58 (talk) 03:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Excessive quotes?
Per tag. Don't strike me as excessive, especially since this is PD material. I also don't see a problem in quoting directly from the Bible -- although more 2ry sources are also a good idea. as they are found. -Pete Tillman (talk) 18:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Primary
could you explain why you think that this article This article uncritically uses texts from within a religion or faith system without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze them? I see plenty of secondary sources. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  05:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The section on verses 1-11 does seem well rounded, but the coverage of the rest of the chapter isn't. -- Beland (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Apparently there is also some controversy over an apparent contradiction involving 1 Corinthians 15:50. -- Beland (talk) 14:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I see; thanks. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  19:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Short description
Hi Editor2020, I noticed that you added a short description: “Fifteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians”. It has been my view that SDs of that style are not very helpful to people searching for the page, as it contains little information that isn’t already in the title, and doesn’t help searchers who don’t know what “Corinthians” is. If you want to make a case for that phrasing though, we can look at changing the SD template, so that all the New Testament chapters are consistent in that format. — HTGS (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I haven't seen that usage before. I've reverted. BTW, where is that template? Editor2020 (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries! The template is at New Testament chapter short description. You’ll see it at the very top of the page. It doesn’t do anything too fancy—just inserts the SD text—but having it on every article for a NT chapter ensures that they can all be changed at once, rather than going through one by one to make amendments. I can add more complex code to it, if we want to have each page reflect a slightly different SD, but at this point I figured the simple SD was the best. (See Oscars short description for a slightly more complicated version of the essentially same thing.) — HTGS (talk) 01:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Unwarranted merge
I object to your merger of this page to First Epistle to the Corinthians; you removed a lot of relevant material. Joshua Jonathan -  Let's talk!  07:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, there's a large amount of material with different reasons why any given passage was or wasn't merged. We can take it section by section, I guess? "Verses 1–2", "Verses 8–11" and "Verse 17" are just a copies of the NRSV text of those verses, with no context. That seems to be more appropriate for Wikisource. Is there any particular reason you object to removing those sections? -- Beland (talk) 08:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * thank you for your response. My interest is mainly in verses 1-15, because of the details on the belief in resurrection. It's neat to have a page to fo to, when looking for some background to these verses. Regards, Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  09:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, but the three sections I mentioned above don't actually have any of the background information you are looking for. For 1-14, only the "Verses 3–7" section does anything more than repeat the text of 1 Corinthians, which is widely available from Wikisource and many websites in lots of different translations. -- Beland (talk) 09:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's right, but they form a unit of course. One's not going to look up a second source when consulting this page. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  05:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sure which things it is that you are asserting form a "unit". I do expect readers to look up the full text of the book if they want to read the full text of the book, and not to expect that to be in an encyclopedia article. The fact that e.g. verses 1-2 are quoted in full but not discussed at all beyond that, is not helpful to understanding the section on verses 3-7. I could believe that quoting verses 3-7 is helpful, but I would like to remove the useless quotation of verses 1-2. -- Beland (talk) 05:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

People don't read an encyclopedia to read the full text, but to read the explanation. And yes, I do think it's helpfull to also have the intro to verses 3-7, to have a better understanding of what's at stake for Paul: salvation, and Paul's decisive role in this (as an aside: it's nice to see how the personality, and his self-perceived role, shines through; while the overt message is that people are being saved by believing in Jesus' resurrection, as some kind of objective truth, the covert message is: you are saved by the message that's proclaimed by me). I'll see what Mack and Dunn have to say about this. Joshua Jonathan -  Let's talk!  06:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The idea that anyone was saved by Jesus' death is highly disputed; most people on the planet think that idea is incorrect. To simply repeat that assertion in a quote without explaining the dispute or any context whatsoever promotes one, mainstream Christian, point of view, and that doesn't follow Wikipedia's policy on neutrality. It's redundant in terms of bringing in the idea of salvation; verse 3 is already quoted saying "Christ died for our sins". Paul's time in Corinth is already covered by Paul the Apostle. -- Beland (talk) 08:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Eh? "Highly disputed"? We're treating here Paul's beliefs, not the opinions of "most people on the planet." That has nothing to do with "neutrality." And there is a difference between Paul's conviction that he was chosen to bring the gospel to the heathens, and the early kerygma that 'Jesus died for our sins', an idea which he interpreted in his own peculiar way. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  14:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Paul's views do need to be explained and are the center of attention in this article, but for neutrality's sake, the POV of Paul and Pauline Christians can't be the only one in the article. As Template:Religious text primary/doc points out, secondary sources that critically analyze religious texts are required. The sections on verses 1-2, 8-11, and 17 have no secondary sources establishing the importance of those verses; indeed they have no discussion of those verses at all. The same is true for, say, verse 58, which is not quoted. If Wikipedia editors are deciding on their own, without reference to secondary or tertiary sources, that verse 1 is important and verse 58 is not, that's original research, which is not allowed. In contrast, the section on verses 3–7 establishes, with reference to external sources, that those verses were important to the development of the core doctrine of Pauline Christianity, and also presents other perspectives, such as those questioning whether or not all of those verses were in the original document. -- Beland (talk) 19:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)