Talk:Apostles in the New Testament/Archive 2

Twelve apostles
The Twelve should be named in the lede. ApexUnderground (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * - you say the twelve should be named in the lede without saying why they should be named - if you have a compelling argument, please provide it - the names of the twelve apostles differ in the synoptic gospels and acts, so there is no definitive list of names to use - and there may have been not twelve, but seventy apostles - the lead gives a summary of the article; the details, including the various names of the twelve, are given in the body of the article - Epinoia (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The argument for inclusion is that one of the article titles itself is "Twelve Apostles" and this name for the group of n apostles is featured prominently. So this named entity of "Twelve Apostles" should have further address, since it is something of an actual idea in theology. You say you have a refutation of the long-standing idea of twelve Apostles, or an argument which regards the Bible as having different accounts? How much should those trump the traditional account in Luke? Not all canonical Gospels delivered the full list, and this does not mean they disagree. The inclusion of Paul as a replacement for Judas honors keeping the number at twelve. -ApexUnderground (talk) 05:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * To address your arguments:
 * one of the article titles itself is "Twelve Apostles" - the article is entitled Apostles
 * it is something of an actual idea in theology - Theology is the critical study of the nature of the divine - is there a reliable source that says that the names of the apostles are theologically significant? Do the names of the apostles tell us anything about the nature of God?
 * You say you have a refutation of the long-standing idea of twelve Apostles - I did not say any such thing - the lead of the article states, "There is also an Eastern Christian tradition derived from the Gospel of Luke of there having been as many as 70 apostles during the time of Jesus' ministry." Also, see the section Other apostles mentioned in the New Testament, which names other apostles besides the twelve.
 * an argument which regards the Bible as having different accounts - see the section List of the Twelve Apostles as identified by the Bible for the different names in the various gospels.
 * How much should those trump the traditional account in Luke? - is there a reliable source that says there is consensus among biblical scholars that Luke is more reliable than the other gospels?
 * Not all canonical Gospels delivered the full list, and this does not mean they disagree - if you look at the table in the section List of the Twelve Apostles as identified by the Bible you will see that they do disagree.
 * The inclusion of Paul as a replacement for Judas honors keeping the number at twelve - Acts has Matthias as a replacement for Judas, so adding Paul makes thirteen - and Judas Iscariot was named an apostle by Jesus and, as far as we know, was still an apostle when he died, so that makes fourteen. - Epinoia (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Epinoia seems to be giving undue weight to fringe theories, rather than simply accepting the general view, which is that the article is in part about the "Twelve Apostles" (which redirects here and which is a in bold at the top) and not as much some other number of apostles. -ApexUnderground (talk) 04:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * - exactly what fringe theories have I been giving undue weight to? #1 I referred to the article title; #2 I asked for a reliable source; #3 I referred to the article; #4 I referred to the article; #5 I asked for a reliable source; #6 I referred to the article; #7 the table in the section List of the Twelve Apostles as identified by the Bible in the article has Matthias as a replacement for Judas in Acts - so I either referred to the article itself or asked for sources - where are the fringe theories? - Epinoia (talk) 04:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I want to include the list of the Twelve Apostles in the lede by including a short pullquote from the Book of Luke, which lists all twelve traditional apostles. Now this quote is dated from an exact moment in history, according to the Bible, where Jesus appointed the Twelve, before the removal of Judas Iscariot, and before his replacement with Paul of Tarsus.
 * Malformed RfC Come up with a neutral opening statement in a new section if you want to use the RfC process. signed,Rosguill talk 20:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Epinoia makes it clear that he's firmly against the inclusion of the list, and has come up with a number of reasons, most of which are a kind of argument of Biblical errancy (sic "inerrancy"), where quoting the Book of Luke is improper because the same list doesn't appear in the other Gospels, and the number "Twelve" is some kind of fabrication, either because at some point there were dozens of apostles, or because Judas and Paul were simultaneously apostles, bumping the number up to thirteen. My argument is that the Twelve be identified and listed, quoting directly from the Bible, on the topic of the "Twelve Apostles" which is one of the subtitles of the article. -ApexUnderground (talk) 01:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Against. The names of the twelve, and how they were called, are given differently in the three synoptic gospels (see names). Paul calls himself an apostle but he was converted (Acts 9) only after Matthias was chosen to fill the place of Judas (Acts 1). There are different theories to explain the names of the original twelve, so this can be left to the article itself, not decided upon in the lede. The other meanings of "apostle" are also relevant in the lede. Jzsj (talk) 11:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Against for the reasons set forth by Epinoia and Jzsj. Further ApexUnderground appears to consistently mis-state Epinoia's rationale. Please maintain NPOV.--Rpclod (talk) 18:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)