Talk:The Gnostic Paul

Tags
Since the tags on the aricle were not accompanied by complainte on the talk page, they can be removed. Additionally, the article does cite a source quite clearly: Pagel's book. So explanation is needed. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 17:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Chart
This section of the Talk page is discussing someone's copy/paste of the 2-column table I wrote around 2002 and posted to my website (http://www.egodeath.com/pagelsgnosticpaul.htm) and as an Amazon.com book review (http://www.amazon.com/review/R2D7ZEG0WAOQZN/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm). In violation of my rights and copyright law, someone copy/pasted my table to Wikipedia, and not only didn't attribute it to me, the person described it as though they wrote it ("I wanted to capture a lot of detail fast", they wrote).

I discovered that my original research had been copied to Wikipedia when I discovered yet another copy of my table at a discussion forum, copied from Wikipedia and pointing to my writing at this Wikipedia page -- robbing me of credit for my writing and analysis. I did not grant permission to copy my writing to Wikipedia, where it then gets copied to countless other websites, robbing me of credit.

I am a leading expert on the theory of religious experiencing, having done original research. The two-column table constitutes Original Research; not just anyone could extract a maximally useful analysis from Pagels' book. I brought decades of research and idea development to that analysis.

People who value my writing and ideas need to mention my name and website; when people recognize the leading-edge value of my writing, which realigns and clearly connects fields, they need to credit me. The table is my intellectual property and is Copyright (C) 2002 Michael S. Hoffman, Egodeath.com. All Rights Reserved. MichaelSHoffman (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I noticed this article by following other people's contribution lists. I don't think a chart is a good format for explaining what The Gnostic Paul says. Whatever happened to writing a clear exposition in continuous prose? --Akhilleus (talk) 05:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Feel free to write one. I wanted to capture a lot of detail fast.  I don't think prose is a particularly good medium for detailed communication.   jbolden1517Talk  05:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The chart is a terrible format for a book description. You really love your tables. --Ari (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The article isn't necessarily original research, but it is certainly confusing and desperately needs explanation. For example:
 * Pneumatic, esoteric christianity: "Greeks"
 * Psychic, exoteric christianity: "Jews"
 * Huh? &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Hi. Goethean. Those are corresponding pairs. Esoteric -- understood by or meant for only the select few who have special knowledge or interest exoteric -- suitable for or communicated to the general public.


 * Faith corresponds to the intellectual/emotional aspect of religion while gnosis corresponds to the spiritual/experiential aspect. Valentinians linked the distinction between pistis and gnosis to the distinction they made between psyche and pneuma. The psyche (soul) was identified by them with cognitive/emotional aspect of the personality (the ego consciousness). The pneuma (spirit) was identified by them with the intuitive/unconscious level. The pyche was seen as consubstantial with the Demiurge while the pneuma was consubstantial with Sophia (and hence with God). Both the psyche and pneuma were capable of salvation. Psyche was saved through pistis while pneuma was saved through gnosis. Hence they distinguished two levels of salvation: psychic and pneumatic.

The key to reading Paul in a gnostic manner is to think in these Valentinian dichotomies. To assume that Paul is addressing two groups of Christians and interpret what he is saying in terms of these two groups. What Pagels does is break and give examples of these pairs while working through the epistles. jbolden1517Talk 17:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC) ]
 * Without the prose explanation that jbolden apparently dislikes, this table is useless; it lacks any context. Furthermore, the purpose of this article should not be to summarize the book's points or teach its wisdom but to describe the book itself: background, publication history, influence. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)