This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Christianity: Saints / Catholicism / Anglicanism / Lutheranism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Saints (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Lutheranism (assessed as Top-importance). Biography: Core This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is listed on the project's core biographies page. Religion: Interfaith This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive. Template:WP1.0

Archives

Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6, Archive 7, Archive 8, Archive 9,

Please see main article Paul of Tarsus and women. Thanks. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me, or does the section on Paul's views regarding women seem to have been written by a Feminist? Obvious uses of words like "deny", "prohibiting", "reject", "prevent", "disenfranchises", a completely one sided opinion. While I recognize that there's a much larger article dealing with the issue of Paul and Women, I think this section ought to be rewritten with a more neutral POV.

I'd offer some ideas myself, but am pretty sure they'd be rejected out of hand. This should come from someone with higher access. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.167.228 (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this section needs to be rewritten with a more neutral POV. I added a NPOV tag to this section. Along with the bits already mentioned, there's the "second class citizens" one too.

More importantly, however, many Christian groups who do not sanction women's ordination do not hold women to be inferior in the slightest. Similarly, the women who belong to these groups aren't self-hating or trapped in paralytic fear. The view that men and women are equally loved by God and uniquely blessed with their own strengths and characteristics needs to be represented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.157.188 (talk) 20:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section as it exists now is limited in scope. Comments in scholarship about Paul's view of women include much more than the current dispute over the ordination of women. There should be discussion of Paul's view of marriage and the role of wives, and possible even mention of the speculations of misogyny on Paul's part.Tanktimus (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Paul of Tarsus and women. That material at one time was in this article, but it became large enough to become its own article. Thanks for noting the omission here. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)0[reply]

Thanks for the update. Should the whole section just be removed and nothing but the link to the Paul of Tarsus and women be left?Tanktimus (talk) 15:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this section ought to involve a more comprehensive discussion of complementarianism and its relation to marriage. Also, the language used in this section is both redundant and biased toward a feminist viewpoint, with no statement pointing out its adoption by both men AND women. Taishaku (talk) 9:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Taishaku, have you looked at Christian views of marriage? It contains both complementarian and Christian egalitarian discussion of marriage.

Though you didn't specifically bring it up, I'd like to mention the restrictions against women preachers, teachers, deacons, etc. For those who believe in a personal salvation in Jesus Christ, that one is lost by default and gains salvation by hearing about Jesus, repenting of their sins, and accepting him as their personal Savior, the issue of denying over half of churched Christians (the women) the ability and privilege to answer the call of God to preach, teach, lead, etc., is a very serious one. Cf. Great Commission Matthew 28:19–20 which is gender-neutral, saying (You) GO into all the world and teach all nations. Then, Romans 10:14 says "How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?" For further debate on the matter, please see 1 Timothy 2:12 ("I suffer not a woman") .

One final observation, since Jesus is Lord over his church, and he never restricted on the basis of gender except that The Twelve were all male (not unlike combat being limited to males until the last decade in the U.S. due to the conditions in combat), we must at least consider the possibility that Paul was not prescribing against females teaching and preaching for all people of all times, but as he often did, he might have been addressing specific problems in the church at Ephesus.

Please forgive me if this is too much "soapboxing" for you. I very much appreciate your interest in the subject. Respectfully, ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 19:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul is a Black Man

Here is the man in the new testament that was sent to the other israelites that was cast off his name was Paul but there is one thing interesting in ACTS 21:37-38 Lets take a look shall we? Acts 21:37-38, states that Paul, the apostle, was being led into a castle by a chief captain. Paul spoke to the chief in Greek, asking permission to speak with him. The chief captain was surprised that Paul could speak Greek and in verse 38, asks Paul, "Are not you that EGYPTIAN?" Paul responded, (Verse 39) "I am a man of Israel (Hebrew).

37 And as Paul was to be led into the castle, he said unto the chief captain, May I speak unto thee? Who said, Canst thou speak Greek?

38 Art not thou that Egyptian, which before these days madest an uproar, and leddest out into the wilderness four thousand men that were murderers?

39 But Paul said, I am a man of Israel (Hebrew) of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people.

In order for this chief captain to mistake Paul (the Hebrew) for a black-skinned Egyptian, Paul had to look like an Egyptian, as scripture tells us the whole nation of Israel did. Paul had to tell the chief captain he was an Israelite. Once again we see from scripture that it is hard to physically identify a Hebrew from an Egyptian. Well it is still hard to identify them in some cases but we know one thing Paul in the new testament was a black man!

For further proof of the color of the ancient Israelites lets look at Acts 13:1:

"Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain PROPHETS AND TEACHERS: as Barnabas, and SIMEON THAT WAS CALLED NIGER, AND LUCIUS OF CYRENE, and Manaen which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Shaul (Paul)".

The word NIGER is a Latin word that means BLACK, this is where the word NIG.GER comes from. The southern cracker did not say NIGER with a high "i" he said NIG.GER In Spanish it is NEGRO it all means black. They was calling the prophets BLACK! --Knighthonor (talk) 09:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But, outside Martin Bernal's imagination, Egyptians were no blacker (as they are not now) than the other inhabitants of North Africa - some are and were as dark as Sadat (although they were more often identified as Nubians then than now), others as light as Nasser or Mubarak; we have a long series of funeral paintings of ordinary Egyptians, from the time of Paul and the centuries thereafter. As for Niger, that no more proves subsaharan descent than Pescennius Niger (or Lodovico il Moro); Cyrene was in Libya, but it was a Greek colony - and its inhabitants were no darker than the inhabitants of the Aegean. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Egyptians are largely of Arabic decent as are most North Africans. Egypt was a Greek colony under the Ptolemies before the Romans came along. The are many paintings in Egyptian buildings showing the races, the Ancient Egyptians depicted lots Libyans and Nubians as blacks, the Greeks referred to Egyptians as Copts and black Africans as Ethiopians. Niger is a Latin word meaning black, or dark. see here [1]--Degen Earthfast (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is a "speculative" section in this entry, perhaps we should consider Bishop Spong's analysis of Paul's possible repressed homosexuality. He writes: "Paul of Tarsus was a gay man, deeply repressed, self-loathing, rigid in denial..., condemning other gay people so that he can keep his own homosexuality inside the rigid discipline of his faith." from p. 140, The Sins of Scripture: Exposing the Bible's Texts of Hate to Reveal the God of Love, (2005) ISBN 0-06-076205-5

In Romans I, Paul states that homosexuality is a punishment by G-d for failure to worship Him properly. In other places, Paul writes of a "thorn in [his] flesh," that "dwells in my members." "Nothing good dwells within me, that is my flesh... Oh wretched man that I am, who will deliver me from this body of death?" (Romans 7:24)

I didn't want to simply add this to the rather broad, catch-all speculative section, as it might be quickly reverted on a knee-jerk basis. I thought there could be some discussion as to whether it might make an interesting intellectual addition, since it was postulated by a notable theologian.

76.169.128.128 (talk) 06:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's certainly no less ridiculous than the theory that Paul was black, as articulated above. I suppose we would need more than Spong's fevered speculation to warrant the insertion of such material, but with enough reliable sources, this theory might be notable enough for inclusion in the article. Uncle Dick (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spong is no authority on Paul, per se. Instead, Spong has his own agenda on the topic of homosexuality. So many people have written books on Paul-- maybe we can look at this idea when and if anyone ever publishes a book on Paul and comes to the same conclutions that Spong has. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 10:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody takes liberal Episcopalians seriously. John Shelby Spong is essentially a communist activist in a dog-collar. - 90.212.77.135 (talk) 09:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that in most Wikipedia articles dealing with Paul, his name is not introduced as "Paul of Tarsus," see, e.g., New Perspective on Paul and Pauline epistles. The present article is the one notable exception. Google returns some 78,000 hits for "Paul of Tarsus" (most of which are probably related to Wikipedia), whereas the name "Saint Paul" generates more than 14,000,000 hits. It is easily verified (by means of Google Books, Google Scholar, etc.) that, in scholarly literature (books by James Dunn etc.), the term "Paul of Tarsus" is used only occasionally. The name is virtually unknown to Catholic scholars. Paul is referred to simply as "Paul" or "Saint Paul." The term "Paul of Tarsus" is most likely a modern American invention, constructed on the basis of Acts 22:3. Arguably, the term "Paul of Tarsus," often used in evangelizing context, is partisan. I believe the title of the article is misleading ("Paul of Tarsus" is, above all, the title of a movie: Paul of Tarsus: Messenger of Jesus Christ, 1990) and should be changed to "Paul (apostle)." Baroque Trumpet (talk) 01:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a disambiguation page right in the beginning of the article Saint_Paul_(disambiguation). Per that disamb page, there were several Saint Pauls in the last 2000 years although if you type "Saint Paul" it will go to this article, since he was the most famous: it's a good solution. And Paul of Tarsus is not an American invention, he is called that way by many populations and in many languages before America was even discovered. Now the hits that you bring make me reflect though, and perhaps other editors might be involved for a new consensus. Cheers. --Sulmues ^(talk) 01:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helpful feedback. Please note: I suggested that "Paul (apostle)" might be a better title than "Paul of Tarsus." I do not believe that "Saint Paul" is a viable alternative. ("Saint Paul" to me is London's famous church.) I still feel that "Paul of Tarsus" is an idiosyncratic version of the apostle's name, constructed, maybe, as an analogue to "Apollonius of Tyana." Could anyone please cite a pre-nineteenth-century source in which Paul is mentioned by the name of "Paul of Tarsus"? Are there any pre-Columbian examples in, say, Spanish literature? William Weldon Champney's sermon, The Conversion of Paul of Tarsus (1859) is the earliest English example I am aware of. In German literature, "Paulus von Tarsus" seems to be even more exceptional than in English literature. (Nevertheless, the German WP article on Paul has been harmonized with the English version.) I might, of course, be entirely wrong. Baroque Trumpet (talk) 02:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article in certain sections outright states that he performed miracles with nothing to suggest that this depends on what you believe, nor any sort of qualification of the claim. Needless to say, this implies that it is an accepted and proven historical fact as opposed to being a matter of faith.--86.43.190.170 (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC) PS-it also decribes his evangelical style with a lot of biased adjectives. It is one thing to say that he espoused virtues or that certain sources (properly referenced) DESCRIBE him as possessing those virtues. It is another thing to simply say that he possessed them. It's a very detailed article and I applaud the editor's enthusiasm and the volume of his or her contribution, but I think it's a little hero-worshippey, which doesn't belong in Wikipedia. I'm not a very experienced or prolific editor and so am hesitant to take the task upon myself, but if no-one else does, I'll fix it.--86.43.190.170 (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the previous editor, but I concur. The personality section especially is full of unsourced text that appears to be nothing but one persons opinion of what Paul may have been like, based on there idiosyncratic reading of the Bible and religious background. Please cite all assertions in this section to avoid removal. Ashmoo (talk) 12:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote most of the personality section with the exception of the first paragraph. Most of what is written is easily sourced from bible text and authorities of the history of the era. I will add references over the next few weeks. I dont think what I presented in this section has any connection to one persons religious background, my own or others. It does and should have connection to what Paul's religious views were. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.253.49.6 (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to have stepped on your toes. The personality section was untenable. If, as you say, it is neutral and many references can be added to support the views and opinions you gave, please work that out in a text file on your cokputer and then submit them.

You seem well read and erudite, however the section read in the present tense, as if we were living today with Paul. That is very interested for a book of fiction, but of course, not appropriate for the encyclopedia. I have to say that much of the stuff I read seem speculative at best.

I look forward to you resubmitting such a section, but one based on known fact and citations to support those. Atom (talk) 02:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The material I wrote could be modified to strengthen other sections. While I did not initiate or conceive of the Personality section it seemed to be the section in need of help and so was a good place for the material. The citations were in work. Regarding the speculative nature of the material, we are talking about a personality from 2000 years ago. The best we can do is to read his writing and form a plausible reconstruction from the source material and from the social and political institutions with which he interacted. These we know a fair deal about. Is it possible to talk about a "Personality" otherwise? Would all such reconstructions, even regarding the relatively recent persons of the last 500 years be best addressed as fiction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.253.49.6 (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that he died almost 2000 years ago does indeed, make it difficult to write accurately about his personality. But this means that we should limit what we state as fact about his personality, not that we should take liberties with the key wikipedia rule of WP:Verifiability. Information about historical figures comes from both there own writings (if they exist) and also things other people have said about them (as with Socrates). More importantly, all intrepreations of source documents in wikipedia need to be attributed to a notable commentator. We cannot engage in interpretation of source material ourselves. Ashmoo (talk) 13:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, that Paul did not write the book of Acts. This book of the New Testament was in actuality written by Luke the Physician, who was a follower of Jesus Christ. This is evidenced by the introduction. It is actually a letter to a fellow named, Theophilus. This is the same person Luke wrote the Book of Luke (also a letter) to.

The beginning of the Book of Acts is, "The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus both to do and teach".

In The Book of Luke (The Gospel According to St. Luke)he writes:

"Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; it seemed to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed." (verses 1-4)

In the Acts of the Apostles, Luke puts down just that, "the acts of the Apostles". He was with Paul on most of his trips, as indicated in this Book. Also, Paul, himself, makes mention of Luke still being with him while he was a prisoner in Rome.

This would be the reason there would not be and "preaching from Paul", on his acts, and those of other apostles.

Margoguin (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the majority evidence tends to disconfirm that Luke, or any close companion of Paul, wrote Acts. Leadwind (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recently a huge section regarding homosexuality was added. It was marginally related to Paul, but that was all. I think a section that presents notable things that Paul has written would be okay. I don't think that using an article on Paul as an anti-homosexual platform is balanced or neutral POV. Atom (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I thought this might get a reaction of this sort. I'm amused that you felt I was trying to use the article as an "anti-homosexual platform", as my views are the opposite of someone who might do that. My reasons for adding this content are that the writings of Paul on homosexuality, as I understand it, are the principal reasons why many Christians consider homosexuality to be sinful, givem that (a) Jesus didn't comment on the subject and (b) the sections in the Old Testament which address the submit come under the remit of "Mosaic law" which Jesus abolished. The content is taken from the article I wikilinked to using the { { main } } template, and only contains the material from that article which relates to Paul's writings. You're correct to say that an increase in the article size of 10% in just one edit is unusual, and I think that some of the material could be dropped, but I don't feel I ahve the expertise to decide which is the least relevant - I'd hoped that other editors might be able to do this. As the article currently stands, there isn't any mention of this aspect of Paul's influence on Christian thought, which given the impact it's had, is a pretty big omission, in my opinion. Could you give me some advice on which paragraphs in the material I added are best left out, so that we can arrive at a balanced and concise summary of the subject for inclusion? Or if you feel it's not of relevance at all, explain why? Many thanks. SP-KP (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus did not abolish Mosaic Law. According to to Mathew 5-18 you must follow ALL Mosaic law. So if you eat shrimp you're going to hell. Sorry, Colincbn (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously know "zero" about what Jesus came to do or else you wouldn't make that statement. No person who has Jesus as his Lord is bound by the mosaic law. He very clearly says that the mosaic law was to show the Jews that w/o a savior they could never be perfect enough and (paraphrasing here as he spoke to his followers) "if the Jews could never follow it, why should I make you?" This is why Peter and the church leaders in Jerusalem were admonished for thinking that new Christians would have to be circumsized and follow all Jewish customs. Off topic, but I couldn't let it go. Ckruschke (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

I agree that Paul's words have had influence on Christians regarding their opinions on Homosexuality. Unfortunately, they take his writings as scripture, rather than his views and opinions to congregations of that time (mostly to the Corinthians.) At any rate, indicating that he discussed the topic in three places seems like it is quite appropriate. (I think it has relevance) The level of detail in the previous edit was too overwhelming (for me) and gave me the immediate feeling that it was diverging from the topic of Paul, and more onto the topic of anti-homosexuality. So, my advice would be to discuss that he, in three places, gave his opinion about the topic. I don;t think we need to go into detail, or tell the reader what one person (or any others) interpretation of those versus was then, or is seen as by many today. Readers can form their own conclusions. Atom (talk) 01:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the spirit of compromise this was written in. The trouble, as I see it, with this is that if we write about the alleged three mentions at all, we're going to have to say a lot about them. It won't do to just say that Paul mentions same-sex relationships on three occasions, because (1) it would seem that we are taking the position that Paul was writing about what in modern times would be called gayness and lesbianism (a number of scholars have cast doubt on this) and (2) it would seem that we are taking the position that Paul wrote 1 Timothy, a view that a majority of scholars would disagree with. And if we say a lot on this matter, what would the pay-off be? We would be devoting a lot of space to a matter that Paul neither spent much time writing about (even if we assume he wrote 1 Timothy) nor included in the heart of his writings. I think that if this can of worms should be opened anywhere on Wikipedia, it should be in another article. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Conversion and Mission' section is very poorly sourced and contains large amounts of interpretation. Remember, when writing about religion, it is not permitted to directly source the sacred texts to support a point. Rather you should provide a source to a reliable or notable commentator who has made the interpretation. If the point you are trying to make is widely accepted, it should not be difficult to find such a source. And all value juidgements about what Paul was really like, or his mission, need to be attributed to the Christian (or otherwise) sect that holds that view, as different versions of Christianity differ in how they view things. Ashmoo (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]