Talk:Paul the Apostle/Archive 8

Removed Paragraph
I removed the following, as Paul did NOT write Ephesians.

is evident from the frequency of Paul's counsel on marriage and family that he placed great importance on the subject. Paul exhorts the women in the Ephesian branch of the church to submit themselves to their own husbands (literally, become subject or obedient to), as they would to the Lord, comparing the husband and the family to Christ and the Church. (See Eph. 5.) But he also charges the husbands to love their wives (see Eph. 5:25) as their Savior loved the church, so that they might sanctify and perfect their families through love. Paraphrasing one of the great commandments—to love one's neighbor as oneself—Paul says, "So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself." (Verse 28.) A husband is not to rule as a tyrant over his wife but is to preside in love. (See verse 33."

There has been so much good scholarship done on Paul that it is disappointing to see such examples found all over the New Testament pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.233.138 (talk) 03:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Plenty of scholars still accept Pauline authorship of Ephesians; its very much up in the air. I am reinserting this paragraph. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Quoting "The Harper Collins Study Bible" (1993) "Marked differences in style, phrasing, and viewpoint between this Letter and the seven unquestionably authentic Pauline Letters have cast significant doubt on Pauline authorship of Ephesians. It is more likely that a disciple of Paul wrote the Letter in Paul's name, probably after the apostle's death."  I will, again, remove the paragraph.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.233.138 (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry- the quotation of one source does not resolve the problem. The fact of the matter is that many scholars are indeed divided on the issue, and therefore we should mind this fact in the article in the interest of neutrality. Historical perspective is also an issue- the relatively recent theories of scholars on the authorship of Paul's epistles should not usurp prior theories/beliefs on the subject (we should avoid a bias towards recent scholarship per policy). If the epistle is attributed to Paul, then we should mind the attribution while providing information on the fuckin disputed status of authorship. It's not even that I disagree with your changes, but your cited justifications are poor. The sections already have problems, but I do not believe this is one of them.--C.Logan (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed More
What I removed here hardly even makes sense, nor does it even sound like an encyclopedia at all. Paul may never have married in the first place, and it seems like a fairly obvious conclusion one can make from the unquestionably Pauline epistles. The following is completely unnecessary, is based on no scholarship, and instead on the most questionable and preposterous speculation.

"What sense would these statements make if they came from an unmarried man? In view of all that Paul has said on marriage in 1 Corinthians, it is quite unlikely that the Corinthians would accept his epistle and his arguments if he had been divorced or separated from a wife. The message of 2 Corinthians 7, however, is that the first epistle was accepted and many Saints repented. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.233.138 (talk) 03:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed Stil More
Paul did not write either Timothy or Titus. Accordingly, I removed the following in its entirety.

"Finally, in Paul's last epistles, which were written to Timothy and Titus, he places further emphasis on the desirability of marriage. In listing the qualities necessary for a bishop, Paul includes being married (see 1 Tim. 3:2) and being a good leader over his house: "For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?" (1 Tim. 3:5; cp. Titus 1:5–9). Even those called "deacons" in that day (the Greek literally means "one who serves" or a "helper") were to be married and have orderly households. (See 1 Tim, 3:10–13.)

The evidence of Paul's writings leads to the conclusion that he not only tolerated marriage among the saints, but encouraged and exhorted them to marry and bear children. He indicated that marriage is an essential part of the gospel framework, and asserted that one of the signs of apostasy in the last days would be teachings against marriage. (See 1 Tim. 4:1–3.) Certainly Jesus was foremost in importance to Paul, just as he should be in the hearts of men today, and on occasion Paul had to remind men called to the ministry to be fully dedicated to the Lord's ence of the Lord, the man will not be without the woman, neither the woman without the man."

Paul and marriage is a worthy subject, but it should not be too long. Paul did not tell women to subject themselves to their husbands as the authors of Timothy and Titus did. Paul saw no distinction between man or woman, a distinction which the pseudonymous authors of Timothy and Titus later do not make. Compare, for instance, Colossians 3:11 (which Paul wrote), and Corinthians 12:13 (which he did not write).

Someone should dig up that quote because I forget where it is, about Peter being married but Paul saying he wished others could be like him and not marry. I can't remember where it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.233.138 (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "I removed the following, as Paul did NOT write Ephesians."


 * "Paul did not write either Timothy or Titus."


 * As this appears to be the justification for the removal of this text, I find myself severely questioning your contributions. Make no mistake- there is a problem with these paragraphs, but it is one of possible original research. Your own cited reasons have no place here, because they concede to only one point of view, and not even one which is of any great majority or unanimity. I think that the editors who watch this page should look over the text because the phrasing is questionable and the sources provided are insufficient for interpretive analysis of the verses is question (a secondary source supporting the view should be cited); the reason you cite is invalid and is completely unacceptable.--C.Logan (talk) 07:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Quoting the Harper Collins Study Bible (1993), from its introduction to the Letter to Timothy, "Though some try to reconcile these problematical features with a vestige of Pauline authorship by assuming that secretary wrote the Letters form sketchy notes or that a later author crafted them around fragments of authentic letters, it seems best to acknowledge their pseudonymity. An unkonwn author used Paul's name to give authority to his attempt to address problems in some post-Pauline chruches." I will again remove the paragraph. The introductions to 2 Timothy and Titus refer the reader to this paragraph for discussion of the authorship of those two letters. (2 Timothy and Titus.) "An unknown author used Paul's name" could not be more clear. Look at the Wikipedia articles for those letters people and they will tell you the truth. Wikipedia should not be made a fool of by ignorant people whose religiousity does not allow them objectivity. 99.140.233.138 (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I repeat my response again:
 * "I'm sorry- the quotation of one source does not resolve the problem. The fact of the matter is that many scholars are indeed divided on the issue, and therefore we should mind this fact in the article in the interest of neutrality. Historical perspective is also an issue- the relatively recent theories of scholars on the authorship of Paul's epistles should not usurp prior theories/beliefs on the subject (we should avoid a bias towards recent scholarship per policy). If the epistle is attributed to Paul, then we should mind the attribution while providing information on the disputed status of authorship. It's not even that I disagree with your changes, but your cited justifications are poor. The sections already have problems, but I do not believe this is one of them."
 * First of all, the articles acknowledge the fact that the issue is disputed- you seem to believe this means that it is settled in your favor. This, unfortunately, is not the case. The issue is indeed unresolved, and- on top of that- justifying changes based upon other Wikipedia articles is not an advisable practice.
 * Second of all, there are obviously a myriad of bibles which could be quoted in opposition to the quote which you have provided- what does that prove? We need to maintain an objective mindset concerning this issue, and your own personal comments near the end aren't helping.--C.Logan (talk) 01:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it's more than one source. It's 50+ Ph.D.s that edited the Bible and wrote the introduction. This whole section is plagiarized anyway! Look at this website!

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=transcripts&id=78

It is word for word plagiarism! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.233.138 (talk) 03:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've repeatedly explained that the text itself is problematic, but your own reasons for removing it is hardly defensible. Must it be explained again that there is no scholarly consensus on the issue? The Harper Collins bible is not representative of the whole of scholarship, so do not try to present it as such.
 * If plagiarism is evident, the text should be revamped. The source/site itself is acceptable, but copying the text word-for-word is not acceptable. Additionally, we may not want to rely on one source alone- some of the particular points present should be included in addition to alternate, sourced interpretations.--C.Logan (talk) 09:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Not A Member of The Sandhedrin
Paul was a Pharisee, and so not a member of the Sanhedrin. Phillipians 3:4-6, "If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: 5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; 6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. "

From the Wiki page on the Sanhedrin, "Some claim that the New Testament portrays the Sanhedrin as a corrupt group of Pharisees, although it was predominantly made up of Sadducees at the time. This does not agree with the New Testament in which the Sanhedrin's leadership - Annas and Caiaphas were Sadducees. The Gospels also consistently make a distinction between the Pharisees and "the elders," "the teachers of the law," and "the rulers of the people." 99.140.233.138 (talk) 23:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as I am aware, many do not see the classifications as mutually exclusive. All the same, there is nothing explicit in the text itself which supports the possibility that Paul may have been part of the Sanhedrin. Some do believe this to be the case.--C.Logan (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

On Marriage Is Word for Word Plagiarism
This section is not only wrong, it's plagiarized anyway. Here is the website, see for yourself.

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=transcripts&id=78

I'm going to go ahead and edit heavily.

To compare what I have removed, I will include the previous text:

In the first place, Paul himself was likely to have been married because of his Judaic background.[76] In his defense before the Jewish crowd outside the Roman barracks of the Antonian tower, Paul states that he was taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers and was zealous in living that law. (See Acts 22:3.) Again, in his defense before the Pharisees and Sadducees, Paul claims that he is a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. (See Acts 23:6.) To the Galatians, Paul had written that he was more zealous in fulfilling the requirements of his religion than others of his time. (See Gal. 1:14.) The emphasis that the Jews put on marriage as part of their law and tradition would certainly have been used against Paul in view of such statements if he had not been married.

Further evidence that Paul may have been married is found in the possibility that Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin.[citation needed] One of the qualifications for becoming a member of that body was that a man must be married and the father of children[citation needed], which was thought to make him more merciful in dispensing justice in the courts. Paul (Saul) was one of the official witnesses of the stoning of Stephen (see Acts 7:59), an action ordered by the Sanhedrin. He also gave his vote with the Sanhedrin against the Christians prior to his conversion. (See Acts 26:10.)3 Further evidence of Paul's position is found in Acts 9:1–2 where Paul went before the high priest and requested letters authorizing his "official" persecution in bringing Christians to trial and imprisonment. In view of these evidences, most non-Mormon scholars do not argue that Paul had never been married, but that he was either divorced or was a widower by the time he wrote to the Corinthian church.

ETC ETC. Jsmaine22 (talk) 01:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, citing Acts as a reliable source is not scholarship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsmaine22 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I would have to say that acts definitely can't count as a reliable source, since it is viewed by the majority of scholars as contradicting Paul's own letters (the Epistles). Clinkophonist (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * More to the point it (like the entire Bible) is a primary source, not a secondary source. See WP:PSTS: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation". Peter Ballard (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Added the Sickness sub headline and information
and I also put scriptural and commentary references.

Is it a possibliity that I am gay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.161.78 (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC) Hope it meets the standards.

K8cpa (talk) 09:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Date of Birth
Is around 3-5 AD. some one add this please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dran0258 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No original research. 75.14.210.20 (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Arrest and death
"According to Acts 21:17–26, upon his arrival in Mexico, the Apostle Paul provided a detailed account to James" - "[...]in order to disprove the accusations of the Mexicans[...]" Is there also a biblical Mexico? The provided source only mentions an arrival to Jerusalem... I don't know about this subject enough to correct this paragraph. Any volunteers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.23.32.141 (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The vandalism to which you refer has been undone.--C.Logan (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

death
There is no Proof for time of death, Therefore it should be corrected —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dran0258 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

banner
I have reverted temporarily Woody's very sound edit, as I had linked to this page at Administrators%27_noticeboard, protesting about just this, & I can't face trying to find another article where GA tags have been upstaged. I will re-revert in due course, promise! Johnbod (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Accusations Against Paul by Thomas Jefferson
I would like to again bring up the topic of Thomas Jefferson's accusations against the Apostle Paul. I read the archived Talk for this article and see that a clergyman from England blocked its inclusion. Allow me to present the facts for a renewed discussion.

THE WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON: contains:

Letter To William Short. Monticello, April 13, 1820.

DEAR SIR, Your favor of March the 27th is received, and as you request, a copy of the syllabus is now enclosed. It was originally written to Dr. Rush. On his death, fearing that the inquisition of the public might get hold of it, I asked the return of it from the family, which they kindly complied with. At the request of another friend, I had given him a copy. He lent it to his friend to read, who copied it, and in a few months it appeared in the Theological Magazine of London. Happily that repository is scarcely known in this country, and the syllabus, therefore, is still a secret, and in your hands I am sure it will continue so.

But while this syllabus is meant to place the character of Jesus in its true and high light, as no impostor Himself, but a great Reformer of the Hebrew code of religion, it is not to be understood that I am with Him in all His doctrines. I am a Materialist; he takes the side of Spiritualism; he preaches the efficacy of repentance towards forgiveness of sin; I require counterpoise of good works to redeem it, etc., etc. It is the innocence of His character, the purity and sublimity of His moral precepts, the eloquence of His inculcations, the beauty of the apologues in which He conveys them, that I so much admire; sometimes, indeed, needing indulgence to eastern hyperbolism. My eulogies, too, may be founded on a postulate which all may not be ready to grant. Among the sayings and discourses imputed to Him by His biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same Being. I separate, therefore, the gold from the dross; restore to Him the former, and leave the latter to the stupidity of some, and '''roguery of others of His disciples. Of this band of dupes and impostors, Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and first corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus'''. These palpable interpolations and falsifications of His doctrines, led me to try to sift them apart. I found the work obvious and easy, and that His past composed the most beautiful morsel of morality which has been given to us by man. The syllabus is therefore of His doctrines, not all of mine. I read them as I do those of other ancient and modern moralists, with a mixture of approbation and dissent.. Then Thomas Jefferson went on to edit the bible (twice) (including French, Latin, and Greek translations) to remove what he considered to be falsehoods added by his disciples.

No one in the archived Talk pages for Paul the Apostle disputed the above facts. The accusation by Thomas Jefferson that Paul was the "first corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus" was not included in the WP article because a clergyman from England questioned the qualifications of Thomas Jefferson. "Thomas Jefferson was the third President of the United States, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence, and one of the most influential Founding Fathers for his promotion of the ideals of Republicanism in the United States. Jefferson supported the separation of church and state and was the author of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.  He edited the bible to remove what he considered to be deliberate falsifications made by Paul and others.

I propose the following addition to the Paul the Apostle article:

Among the critics of Paul the Apostle was Thomas Jefferson, who wrote that Paul was the "first corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus". Reference: THE WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON: BEING HIS AUTOBIOGRAPHY, CORRESPONDENCE, REPORTS, MESSAGES, ADDRESSES, AND OTHER WRITINGS, OFFICIAL AND PRIVATE. PUBLISHED BY THE ORDER OF The JOINT COMMITTEE OF CONGRESS ON THE LIBRARY, FROM THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS, DEPOSITED IN THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WITH EXPLANATORY NOTES, TABLES OF CONTENTS, AND A COPIOUS INDEX TO EACH VOLUME, AS WELL AS A GENERAL INDEX TO THE WHOLE, BY THE EDITOR H. A. WASHINGTON. VOL. VII. PUBLISHED BY TAYLOR MAURY, WASHINGTON, D. C 1854.

Comments and discussion please...

Monticello Fellow (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems about as relevant as Freud's theory about Moses: maybe in a separate, non-historical section? Grover cleveland (talk) 07:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Since Jefferson was by no means a Biblical scholar, it's a bit irrelevant here. We can't have everyone's opinion on Paul. It would be better placed on Jefferson's article, than here. Carl.bunderson (talk) 09:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The existing WP article on TJ states "Though his religious views diverted widely from the orthodox Christianity of his day, throughout his life Jefferson was intensely interested in theology, spirituality, and biblical study." He wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom and edited his own version of the Bible (which then excluded Paul's revelations).  His written accusation against the Apostle Paul is unique, noteworthy, and provocative.  The fact that the accusation came from a former U.S. President and author of the Declaration of Independence tips the balance toward inclusion rather than exclusion.  I am not aware of any other world leader who bothered to make such a strong criticism of Paul.  I don't think the comment should be suppressed.  I believe that one sentence in the existing "Alternative views" section would be an interesting addition.   Repentance  15:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The larger issue is that Paul's writings are the divinely inspired word of God to most of Christianity, but here we have a well-known historical figure who labels it ignorance, absurdity, untruth, charlatanism, and falsification, names Paul as the first corruptor, and cuts out Paul's words from the Bible and leaves them on the floor.

Still, the words are Jefferson's, not ours. We have the "Alternative views" area already, which contains the views of Elaine Pagels Robert Cramer Father Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, O.P Hyam Maccoby F.C.Baur Adolf Deissmann Richard Reitzenstein Albert Schweitzer

I do not object to including a brief mention of Thomas Jefferson's view, as long as it is not given undue weight. Myth America (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I don't think one or two sentences in the Alt view section would be terrible. I expected to lose this one anyway, after Book of Revelation. I still don't see why Jefferson should be included along with a Dominican, Elaine Pagels, and the like. The are biblical scholars, Jefferson was an opinionated deist who happened to be someone important. Just because someone is a president, or celebrity, doesn't mean their opinions on everything matter. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Added the sentence to the Alt view section. Monticello Fellow (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Jefferson is completely insignificant in inlfuence when compared to Paul; he was an American president who will be forgotten in a few hundred years, while Paul has been remembered for almost 2000. Lets try to see the scope here.Thomas Jefferson is completely unqualified to make any judgments about Paul. The article is difficult because it uses mainly biblical sources, which are the most complete available pertaining to Paul. If we include Thomas Jefferson's views here it opens a pecedent for a e said/ she said sectional argument where we have to hear what every major and minor historical figure has to say about Paul. 68.60.53.141 (talk) 08:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Page rename
A user renamed this page from Paul the Apostle to Saint Paul (apostle) without discussion. I have renamed it back. I have no strong opinions on what name is preferable, but any potential rename must first be discussed on this talk page, because I know it has created a lot of discussion in the past. Peter Ballard (talk) 06:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

p.s. old discussion is at Talk:Paul the Apostle/Archive 4, just to illustrate that any rename requires consensus. Peter Ballard (talk) 06:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. If it is moved again with out discussion and clear consensus, it will be moved back. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I hadn't seen the first discussion. There seemed to be an agreement on this title but it wasn't a formally organized vote or move request. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Lets vote Andycjp (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the key issue is whether the page title should include the word 'Saint'. Last time there seemed to be a consensus against. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Personally, I would call it 'St Paul' or 'Saint Paul'. But including 'saint' in the title of an article is against the trend of WP policy, isn't it? Carl.bunderson (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed Social views section
I removed this whole section as it is pure editor interpretation of the primary sources and has remained unsourced for almost a year, with no attempt to improve the sources. Please re-include any info with sources.

Every letter of Paul includes pastoral advice which most often arises from the doctrines he has been propounding. They are not afterthoughts. Thus in his letter to the Romans, he reminds his readers that, like branches grafted onto the olive, they themselves, like the natural branches, the Jews, may be broken off if they fail to persist in faith. For that reason he appeals to them to offer themselves to God, and not to be conformed to the world. They must use their gifts as part of the body which they are. He invites them to be loving, patient, humble and peaceable, never seeking vengeance. Their standards are to be heavenly not earthy standards: he condemns impurity, lust, greed, anger, slander, filthy language, lying, and racial divisions. In the same passage, Paul extols the virtues of compassion, kindness, patience, forgiveness, love, peace, and gratitude (cf. ). Even so they are to be obedient to the authorities, paying their taxes, on the grounds that the magistrate exercises power which can only come from God.

As noted above, the Corinthians were inclined to regard their freedom from law as a license to do what they liked. Thus, his attitude towards sexual immorality, set against the mores of Greek-influenced society, is particularly direct: "Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body". His attitude towards marriage, in writing to the Corinthians, is to advise his readers that it is sin to fornicate because of the "present distress," while noting marriage is better than immoral conduct: "it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion"; the alternative, adopted by Paul himself, is true love. As for those who are married, even to unbelievers, they should not seek to be parted. In Ephesians he appears to be more positive, holding up marriage as a metaphor for the relationship between Christ and the Church ). His attitude towards dietary rules manifests the same caution: Paul argued that while "all is permitted," some actions may seem to "weaker brethren" to be an implicit acceptance of the legitimacy of idol worship — such as eating food that had been used in pagan sacrifice.

He deals with many other questions on which he may have been asked for advice: their relationship with unbelievers; the duty of supporting other needy Christians, how to deal with church members who had fallen into temptation, the need for self-examination and humility, the conduct of family life, the importance of accepting the teaching authority of the leaders of the Church.

His teaching has been criticised as being extremely conservative, and even mystical. His view of the shortness of time before the end was to come is thought to have influenced his ministry ethic. An example of this may be seen in his attitude towards unbelievers, which appears to vary, and may be the result of his responding to various questions that we have no record of. Three particular issues, not all of them controversial at the time, have assumed great contemporary importance. One is his attitude towards slaves, the second towards women, and the third is his attitude towards homosexuality.

The issue of slavery arises because his letter to the slave-owning Philemon, whose slave Onesimus Paul sends with his letter. He fails to condemn the practice (as he does also in writing to the Corinthians) but his asking that Philemon should treat him "not as a slave, but instead of a slave, as a most dear brother, especially to me" may be thought of as a subtle condemnation of slavery. Many others, however, have used his writings to uphold the institution of slavery.

To determine Paul's beliefs on homosexuality, several passages are frequently cited. In, Paul lists a number of actions which are so wicked that they will deprive whoever commits them of their divine inheritance: "Neither the immoral, nor idolaters, not adulterers, nor sexual perverts. nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God." Elsewhere, he describes certain homosexual actions as unnatural, the perpetrators as being "consumed with passion for one another and as having abandoned the truth about God for a lie". A number of Biblical scholars, such as Dr. David Hilborn, argue that these passages represent a condemnation of homosexuality by Paul. Liberal scholars, such as John Boswell, Professor of History at Yale University, argue that Paul was not referring to homosexual relationships as we now understand them and contrast the relationships common in the ancient world (such as pederasty) with modern gay relationships. See The Bible and homosexuality's section on Paul..' Ashmoo (talk) 10:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that's all User:Roger Arguile's contribution, seems a shame just to bulk delete it, but I guess that's what wikipedia is all about. 68.123.64.41 (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There is some good info in there and it is a topic that does deserve attention, but unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any work being done. Paul's views on marriage and homosexuality have been written about for thousands of years, so someone should be able to come up with some notable sourced commentary to include. Ashmoo (talk) 08:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What's the point when someone can just come along and block delete all the work on any pretense? See also User:Daniel Quinlan/gaming. 75.14.220.208 (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Or another way to look at it: Sure the current section could use a lot of work, but how does block deleting encourage that? If you provided a better replacement, that would be good, but just block deleting does not encourage other editors to get involved. 75.15.206.144 (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:OR and WP:RS are foundational policies of wikipedia, not a 'pretense'. The section has had a 'cite' tag for almost a year. Editors have had plenty of time to get 'encouraged' to improve the sources. By all means find the sources and re-include the details. But a year is far to long to be violating wikpedia policy. Ashmoo (talk) 08:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I was the major contributer. I have done nothing for some time simply because I came to the conclusion that there were too few people interested in improving the copy and too many people, often highly opinionated, who were more interested in picking flies. those who know the subject will easily recognised the sources. Almost nothing stated lacks an authoritative source. If it is amuses some people to remove large amounts of information simply because they don't know where it comes from, I have no further interest. It seems to me that the strength of WP is also its weakness. I gave up editing quite a long time ago because too many people who knew rather little and lacked the patience to learn, or who held highly eccesntric were as able to trash hard work and to threaten people with wikipenalties into the bargain. Please feel free to delete the lot if it amuses you. Roger Arguile


 * Believe me, it doesn't amuse me. I'm just interested in enforcing Wikipedia WP:V and WP:RS rules. If you provide notable 3rd party sources the eccentric editors who like to pick flies and refuse to learn have no leg to stand on when they attempt to remove your works. And if you don't provide sources how are they expected to 'learn', or should they just take your word for it? Regards, Ashmoo (talk) 14:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Restored an older version of the page
here. It also removed an IP edit that added something from Galatians. A "KYLE SUCKS" crept in there somewhere, although checking the edit history, I'm not sure exactly where. Someone probably reverted and missed a previous vandal edit. We gotta be more careful.  Enigma  message 00:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Question
Who is the most prolific? Luke or Paul? I don't know the answer, so I don't want to revert the IP.  Enigma  message 02:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Luke. 75.15.193.165 (talk) 04:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not a simple question. Perhaps it would be better for Wikipedia not to give an answer at all, and certainly not in the article lead.


 * Firstly, there's the question of how much of the New Testament is genuinely Pauline in authorship. The Book of Hebrews is the most often questioned of the traditionally Pauline epistles, and it's now generally not considered to be by Paul. The authorship of the Pastoral epistles have also been more recently questioned. The Book of Romans has been questioned by others, in fact the authorship of only three Pauline epistles (I and II Corinthians, Galatians) has not been seriously questioned by reputable authors known to me, and that may just be that I haven't read widely enough.


 * Secondly, how do you measure who is most prolific? Luke wrote two longish books; His Gospel is the longest of the four Gospels. Paul wrote perhaps thirteen, some still say fourteen, some of them very short indeed.


 * Let's leave aside for the moment just how we measure the length of the books, it won't have a lot of bearing on the conclusion. But good to be aware that there's a lot that needs to be worked out before we reach any solid conclusion. Is length measured by word count? This is the most common method, but the writers who use it often don't even say which language and version or edition or manuscript they're using. It's generally an English version, an interesting choice since both writers of course wrote in Koine Greek. Or by number of chapters or verses, remembering that there are no verse numbers in the oldest manuscripts? Or by someting else? I rather like the idea of counting the lines in a structured semantic analysis of the text myself, as this particular metric is independent of language, version, local spelling and grammar variations, lots of things.


 * More important, if one modern author had written only two books, and another thirteen, would we really regard the first as more prolific than the second just because his overall word count was greater? I doubt it. I think that we'd actually see the whole question as pretty meaningless.


 * So why the interest in it anyway? Well, in the days that Paul was regarded as the author of fourteen books it was fashionable to say he wrote most of the New Testament... fourteen out of twenty-seven books. This wasn't ever a very important or helpful bit of trivia, but lots of people seemed to like saying it, I guess it made them feel smart and important to be able to show off such a great depth of knowledge. You'll find it in lots of sermons by people who really should have known better. So now that the authorship of Hebrews is questioned, it's become fashionable to say tut tut tut, we now know better, Luke wrote more than Paul. I guess saying this makes people feel even smarter and more important.


 * Cynic (look it up), ain't I? Andrewa (talk) 10:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * PS My own favourite bits of related trivia: 1. Neither Paul nor Luke met Jesus in the flesh, the only New Testament writers known not to have done so. 2. Luke is the only gentile writer in the whole of the Bible. Andrewa (talk) 10:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Uncertainty about Date of Death
The article correctly discusses the date of Paul's death and makes it quite clear that no-one really knows - offering a few possibilities. Then, after this discussion, it states unequivocally 'He died in 67 AD'. This should be removed. (At time of my writing this article is uneditable). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.83.99 (talk) 09:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Fixed. --Alecmconroy (talk) 09:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The credibility of Protestantism
I heard some years ago that due to his status as 'Apostle to the Gentiles' that many protestants reformers used Paul's philosophy as a foundation of reformist credibility. I couldn't tell you where I heard that. If anyone knows something to this effect and has some primary sources to reference it, might this prove to be a relevant section for the article ? Proberton (talk) 12:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the topic is already covered under Pauline Christianity. 75.0.0.125 (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Article Name
move to Saint Paul. There was no consensus for any suggestion, and little enthusiasm for the current title. Arguments against Paul the Apostle are worthy of note, and arguments against Paul of Tarsus are also strong. Paul of Tarsus however is clearly primary usage for "Saint Paul" by quite a margin, and there is no reason why he cannot occupy, like Saint Peter currently does, the Saint X page. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 04:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

A while back, I see article got renamed from Paul of Tarsus to Paul the Apostle. Looking through the archives of that discussion, it occurs to me there are novel two arguments in favor of the original title "Paul of Tarsus".

1. One issue is just pedagogical. We all know that "Paul the Apostle" is a frequent source of confusion. Many novices coming here to learn about Paul for the first time will interpret that phrase to mean "Paul was one of The Twelve". Yes, a thorough read of the article will clarify this point-- but realistically, a substantial portion of novice readers are going to look at the title, misunderstand it, not read the entire article, and walk away with the false impression that Paul was one of the Twelve.

"Paul of Tarsus" meanwhile, is impossible to misinterpret.

2. The second is one of NPOV. Because titles are the one place in the article where we have to pick just one, rather than balancing, it's critical that they be absolutely, crystal-clear NPOV.

There do exist many religious viewpoints that hold Paul was _not_ an Apostle. Groups with this POV do sincerely subscribe to the view that Paul was not an Apostle at all. Instead, they regard him as a "false prophet", a "corrupter", a "heretic", or what have you.

It boils down to this: the statement "Paul was an Apostle of Christ" is not verifiable. It's verifiable to say that almost all christian groups regard him as one. It's verifiable to say that all or almost all scholars regard him as one. But if someone has, as a tenet of their faith, that Paul was not an Apostle, it's not possible for me to prove them wrong.

In contrast, Paul originating from Tarsus is, to the best of my knowledge, undisputed.

Based on that, I think the "Paul of Tarsus" -> "Paul the Apostle" rename was a slight step backwards, and that it might be better to switch back to Paul of Tarsus, which I think is completely and utterly non-controversial. --Alecmconroy (talk) 09:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * heheh, just now, I went to look at the the Wikipedia Naming Conventions page to see if it had any insight that might be relevant. It did.  It explicitly listed this page as an example, point to the name "Paul of Tarsus" as the name the complies with the naming conventions.  So, that's a rarity--- looking up a style guide and finding that your exact question is listed as an example.  :) --Alecmconroy (talk) 09:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The issue is clearly not whether Paul was an apostle or not (he presents himself repeatedly and explicitly as such): that can be covered in the article. As to how to name the article itself, I strongly favor Paul of Tarsus, with Paul the Apostle as a redirect.
 * Incidentally, I appreciate the work of Alecmconroy on this particular page. --Dampinograaf (talk) 11:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The trouble is that "Paul of Tarsus" is not a common name for him - never in the Bible ("Saul of Tarsus" in Acts 9:11 of the KJV, but never "Paul of Tarsus"), nor in antiquity, and not so much in modern times. Far more common is "Paul the Apostle"/"Apostle Paul" (Biblical) or "Saint Paul" (traditional). I think these are so much more common, that this is a case in which commonality trumps correctness (like, for instance, Mother Theresa or Saint Patrick) - WP:NAME. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the more-specific guideline (Naming_conventions_(Clergy)) trumps the more generic (Naming conventions).


 * Verifiability also comes into play. The article title "Paul of Tarsus" just isn't verifiable.  Whether someone is an genuine Apostle is a matter of faith.  It's the same reason we don't use the article title "Jesus Christ" on the Jesus article.  It's a very very very common title-- but it's not verifiable.  --Alecmconroy (talk) 01:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't voted yet. If there's an issue of this article's name having been changed without appropriate consensus, then I think we should revert to Paul of Tarsus. If not, I'm leaning towards Paul the Apostle. It seems to me that there is more evidence of Paul's having been an apostle than there is of his having been from Tarsus. Mind you, I'm mostly familiar with evidence in the Christian Scriptures, so if anyone would like to point me to other sources, I'd appreciate it. --SgtSchumann (talk) 12:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

In NT only Paul calls himself an apostle. No one objects to "of Tarsus", and a redirect should do unless it's a matter of [Christian] faith, I guess? Hebrew article uses Paulus. See also Acts 9:11. --Gister (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

My vote would be for "Paul of Tarsus". My backup vote would be for "Saint Paul".

http://www.google.com/search?q="Paul+of+Tarsus" = about 98,700 hits

http://www.google.com/search?q="Paul+the+Apostle" = about 10,100,000 hits

http://www.google.com/search?q="Apostle+Paul" = about 1,610,000 hits

http://www.google.com/search?q="Saint+Paul" = about 22,400,000 hits

75.0.0.125 (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As someone coming from the Protestant tradition I would vote for Saint Paul. It is by far the most common way in which I have heard him refered to. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * According to naming conventions, we're supposed to drop honorific title "Saint" unless its inclusion is absolutely necessary. Saint Paul of Tarsus is recognizable without the word "Saint".  --Alecmconroy (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Two weeks ago I raised two major issues:
 * Summing up
 * 1) It's not verifiable that Paul was an Apostle.  While the vast majority of religions in the English-speaking world consider him an Apostle, some christian groups strongly dispute that he was an Apostle.
 * 2) The Naming Conventions page explicitly lists "Paul of Tarsus" as the correct title for this article.

In the intervening time, we've gotten the following opinions:
 * 6 for 'Paul of Tarsus': alecmconroy, Dampinograaf, Gister, 75.0.0.125, Andrewa, Benjnar
 * 1 or more for 'Saint Paul': Steve Dufour, and the second choice of 75.0.0.125 and the first or second choice of Peter Ballad
 * 1 for "Paul the Apostle"/"Apostle Paul" as the first or second choice of Peter Ballad

So, I've went ahead and posted it on Wikipedia:Requested moves to let the Naming Convention gurus sort it out. :) --Alecmconroy (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Support move back to Paul of Tarsus, and suggest protecting the resulting redirect and also similar ones to this article, indefinitely. Consensus can change but this article should not be moved without strong consensus being sought and obtained first. Protection might reduce the number of repeats of this. Andrewa (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Support move back to "Paul of Tarsus". Despite the lack of a direct Biblical quote, that is the way that I first heard him described.  It is unambiguous. I also agree with Andrewa about appropriate protection. --Bejnar (talk) 09:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - "Saint Paul" (or "Paul the Apostle") are far, far more common, illustrated by the fact that both have more than 100 times as many Google hits. Perhaps it is how Benjar first heard him described, but s/he is very much in the minority. No adequate rebuttal given (IMHO) to the argument that he is called "Saul of Tarsus" in the Bible, but never "Paul of Tarsus" (not in the Bible, and probably not in antiquity). I don't put much store in the fact that "Paul of Tarsus" is an example on the Naming Conventions page - I've seen other Wikipedia pages give examples which are later changed by consensus. Contrary to what Alecmconroy says, it IS verifiable that Paul was a Christian apostle. I think this is a case where commonality trumps strict neutrality. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. Srnec (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * New nomination How about just Paul? Steve Dufour (talk) 04:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Bad Idea - I appreciate your attempt at consensus, but for those outside Christianity (and many of the less educated within!), "Paul" is just a male name; as reflected (quite rightly) by the WP page Paul. Look, I'm not going to go to war over this. I've state my position but if consensus goes against me then so be it. (It wouldn't be the first time!) I only ask that we wait a quite few days to see if more contributions come in. In any case, it only affects the page title and the first line of the article. Peter Ballard (talk) 05:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I also don't think the title such a big thing. However I think that this Paul is just as notable as Napoleon, Caesar, or Muhammad. (Caesar goes to a disambig page, but you know who I meant.) Steve Dufour (talk) 06:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting idea, but if we had Paul, why not add "of Tarsus" onto the title for clarity. As far as I am aware, nobody disputes "of Tarsus" as valid (although some prefer "the Apostle").  --Alecmconroy (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't object to "Paul of Tarsus", however "Saint Paul" seems like the most common way to refer to him and just "Paul" would give him more gravitas, as befitting the tremendously important figure he is in the development of Western civilization. "Paul" would also be neutral in terms of religion, as would "Paul of Tarsus." Steve Dufour (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. As I've said before, I think the view that Paul is an apostle is more verifiable than the view that he is from Tarsus. I respectfully disagree with Alecmconroy: I believe that the term apostle is not unlike priest or bishop and therefore ascribes no spiritual state to him. As evidence of this, consider that there were people whom Paul strongly disagreed with, even while calling them apostles. --SgtSchumann (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * An objection could be raised to both "Saint Paul" and "Paul the Apostle" in that they make it look like Paul is only important relative to the view of him by the Christian church. He is much more important than the average saint. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * To be clear, "Paul is widely considered an Apostle" is verifiable, whereas "Paul is an Apostle" might not be. It's a subtle distinction, to be sure, but that's article titles for you.   "Saint" and "the Apostle" are roughly identical in my eyes-- unverifiable but widely held theological claims that are to be avoided in titles if possible, but sometimes are necessary.  I think this is one of those times where it's not necessary. --Alecmconroy (talk) 19:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Depending on the dictionary defintion you look at, an apostle is a missionary, a messenger, an advocate or a Christian leader. Whichever of those you take, Paul was most certainly an apostle. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose T B erg   Drop a Line ޗ pls  13:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose Paul the Apostle is more common than is Paul of Tarsus; cf GScholar hits: 3730 vs. 1060. Paul the Apostle is unambiguous. However, I think Saint Paul would be preferable to Paul the Apostle, the policy generally against including saint in article titles notwithstanding. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

More on verifiability
Calling Paul an Apostle [of Christ] is a bold statement, and one that is entirely dictated by your theological perspective. It was very, very controversial statement in ancient times, and even today, a google search for "paul heretic" will give plenty of sites that still express the minority view that Paul wasn't a real apostle. You can find quotations of published books that call Paul "the first Christian heretic".

Considering whether Paul is an Apostle or not is analogous to asking whether Jesus was a Messiah or not. Lots and lots of people say yes. In the English speaking world, most people do. It's a notable theological opinion-- it is THE most notable theological opinion, but it's still not verifiably true.

Rightly, some cases the only way an article can function is to rely on honorifics titles to create a comprehensible title-- Saint Patrick is the quintessential example here. Fortunately, we have Paul of Tarsus to use instead. Indeed, we had that title for some six years before the move to Paul the Apostle. --Alecmconroy (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I still think Paul of Tarsus has a problem in that nobody ever really calls him that. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a serious overstatement. Google is not God, but the results quoted previously seem to show just the opposite: Many people do call him Paul of Tarsus. Or is there some significance in that word really that I don't understand? Andrewa (talk) 09:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I think Paul of Tarsus would be a bad name switch. The Evangelical circles I am in know him only as Paul the Apostle. And I disagree -- calling Paul an Apostle is not a bold statement. Can you find one primary source that would disagree with him being an Apostle? Paul was an Apostle, and that's not just theological perspective, that's just common sense based on the only primary source that we have. That is called verifiable truths -- we believe the primary source based on everything else that it has said that has been proven true, and we don't disagree unless a better primary source comes along. Today, people will suggest anything... but without original sources that doesn't mean anything... T B erg  Drop a Line ޗ pls  13:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Without responding in more detail than I have time, actually things are somewhat backwards from what you suggest. Pauline Christianity was far far far more controversial among Paul's contemporaries and the early centuries of the common era.  The Pauline Epistles demonstrate quite a substantial amount of strife over Pauline Christianity, and Jewish Christianity continued as a movement for quite some time.


 * Modernly, I think there's a theological consensus among Christians as to Paul's apostleship-- but it's still better to go with the more neutral title whenever possible. That's what the Naming Conventions people have come up with-- drop the honorific whenever possible.    St. Francis's article is entitled Francis of Assisi.  St. Mary the Blessed Virgin is entitled Mary (mother of Jesus).  For that matter, Jesus Christ is simply Jesus.  You won't find any greater consensus among Christians than that Jesus is the Christ-- but Wikipedia still drops the honorific for the purposes of NPOV.  --Alecmconroy (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "actually things are somewhat backwards from what you suggest" -> Great. But where's the primary source that disagrees with Paul being an Apostle?  That's my point.  Nobody knows who "Paul of Tarsus" is.  In fact, Paul of Tarsus could also be controversial and POV for those who don't believe the Bible, and therefore cannot believe that Paul really came from Tarsus as the Bible says.  Either way, I don't want to be dogmatic about it :)... I just disagree with the name change.   T B erg   Drop a Line ޗ pls  14:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the backwards thing-- that just came out wrong.  In my haste to reiterate that I, personally, don't disagree with you, I did some foot-in-mouth dance steps.  --Alecmconroy (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * But is the term apostle analogous to Christ, a term which can only sincerely be said by someone who believes Jesus holds a particular spiritual position, or is it analogous to pope, a term that can sincerely be used by anyone, because it indicates an institutional role only? In the circle I hang out in Benedict XVI is very "controversial", but we still call him the pope. Not incidentally, there is an article entitled Pope Paul I. As I've pointed out once before Paul's own use of the word suggests that it's analogous to pope: He afforded it even to those he found controversial. On the other hand, I've seen no evidence put forward that the term is analogous to Christ. --SgtSchumann (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think "Apostle" is actually somewhere in between Christ and Pope.  I think "Apostle" is closest to "Saint".  "Saint" meaning "Good Person who is now in heaven" is a NPOV nightmare.  "Saint" meaning "person who is called a saint by most christians" is far less troublesome.   Similiarly, Apostleship meaning "True follower of the True Gospel" is a NPOV nightmare.  Apostle meaning "That dude who all every calls by the title 'Apostle'" isn't a NPOV problem at all.  So, we kinda have a "drop the honorific if possible, but use it if you hafta" rule.   --Alecmconroy (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As you have noted, Wikipedia has a verifiability criterion. Peter Ballard has consulted reliable sources and found that apostle can mean messenger, advocate, missionary, or Christian leader. I found much the same thing when I consulted dictionaries. Can you find a reputable source that lists True follower of the True Gospel as a definition? --SgtSchumann (talk) 00:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Dictionary definitions are slippery things. If an "apostle" just means "advocate" then clearly, almost every christian in history is an apostle. Instead of the the generic sense of the word in English, look at what "Apostle" means in terms of Christian theology.  For example--  I think we could agree that "apostle" and "false prophet" are mutually exclusive-- no one christian speaker would regard someone as both.  Someone is either an apostle of god or they are a false prophet.


 * Whatever you make of it, there's no doubt that many minority voices within Christianity DID and DO reject Paul's Apostleship. Google can found lots of such opinions-- here's on I found in three seconds--.


 * Apostleship is like Saintliness. It's verifiable many people concur an individual is a saint/apostle.   But a "more neutral" title is always desired whenever possible, and honorifics are dropped in our titles. --Alecmconroy (talk) 00:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)