• Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3

Christianity High‑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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

Saints Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saints, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Saints and other individuals commemorated in Christian liturgical calendars 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.SaintsWikipedia:WikiProject SaintsTemplate:WikiProject SaintsSaints Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

"Corporal" and not "corporate", please, for having to do with the body. Cf. OED. while "corporal" can also mean a low-level noncommissioned officer, its use to mean "having to do with the body, as opposed to the soul" is recognized, whereas "corporate" NEVER, in literate speech and texts, means "having to do with the body". Given the bloodlessness of the corporation, it is an insult to the body to call it corporate!

A truly NPOV in the sense of tolerant and small-c catholic in the sense of "as multicultural as possible" would indeed call Paul a Saint to acknowledge that BY CATHOLICS he is so regarded. It is a Puritan POV and iconoclasm at its worse to remove Saint, because it engages in a fallacious inference: because there are no Saints and we must worship G-d alone, we may not as part of our piety refer to a famous Christian as a Saint.

This, is nonsense, and intolerant, since IF there are no Saints as understood in Catholic theology, then G-d won't mind, being great (in Protestantism and Islam) if you refer to Saint Paul by his historical appelation by a major faith. It simply is to re-present what people thought about him with NPOV.

As Abraham Lincoln said, "if I call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?" When William Seward, his Secretary of State walked right into old Abe's canny Mr. Bones as the Interlocutor, and said, "five", Mr. Bones chuckled and said, "nope, Bill, calling it a leg don't make it a leg".

Calling old Saint Paul a Saint don't make him a Saint unless you believe in the Roman faith, pard, and is not to violate your Protestant sentiments; if they are four-square they will not be threatened by a little tolerance. A nasty and bogus notion of NPOV in wikipedia is narrowing its POV to that of middle-class Protestant and American white males, and this will make wikipedia useless for its intended purpose. True neutrality has quite a lot to do with tolerance and multiculturalism. Unfortunately, and increasingly, these are becoming foreign to the God-walloping convenience store clerks and maddened monks who seem, now, to be taking over, and turning wikipedia into the Thirty Years' War.

That is my POV, anyway.

(Spinoza)

Okay, I have a major grievance here. This article has been utterly hijacked and taken over by Roger Arguile (and perhaps a few others), an admitted Roman Catholic priest with limited, if any, NPOV. Roger, your tending to this article and overt bias is all over the place. Give it a rest, please. We know where your POV is coming from. You are not the sole arbiter of perception or perspective here. Yes, there is a so-called majority viewpoint that is well known about Paul; but there are many others who have valid issues to provide about Paul without your personal grooming of the article against anything you simply disagree with. Just because you feel an issue about Paul is somehow "settled" (ie. Maccoby and Jefferson) does not mean that it is with others who have a much wider point of perspective than you allow yourself to have. Big deal if you're British and don't care about Jefferson. There are a lot of folks who would like to know what Jefferson thought and did with the canon. Are you the thought police also?? This article does not have to be "orthodox", it needs to be balanced and historical. Please restrain yourself from constantly grooming these articles with your own personal mission of bias even if you may disagree. --Solascriptura 21:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above as far as the bias that has been displayed. Catholics and Orthodox use "Saints" to refer to people but it's not a Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, or any other world religion POV, so it's certainly not "neutral". That's why I took those phrases out and replaced them with the more neutral "Paul" or "Paul of Tarsus" as is in the title. And this page really isn't the place to do an exposition of one's own version of Paul's beliefs and whether or not those are true or correct. To my understanding, that would better fit under "Pauline Christianity." Please, folks, let's try to keep this neutral, shall we? And for the person who stated that "St Paul" Minnesota is named after Paul and so it must be a NPOV, guess again. I live on a street named after "Saint Francis" but that doesn't mean I agree that he's a "saint". It just means someone thought so and I happen to live here after the fact. Standing for Truth 02:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine I had better respond to the complaint(s).

My first reaction is to draw attention to the fact that I am not a Roman Catholic priest . My second is that several editors in the past have guessed, quite wrongly, what my personal views are and that it is unwise to make assumptions. My third is to say that whilst I am open about my allegiance - and therefore my possible prejudices - it is always helpful if those who choose, quite reasonably, to conceal their identity and allegiance, would deal with the substance of any objections rather than making personal references. I should say that in England the expression 'grooming' is highly offensive and indicates grossly improper conduct. I assume that this is not the case in the United States. I shall, as we are enjoined, 'assume good faith'.

My mission, I confess it, is that the article should be of the highest encyclopaedic quality, a mission from which I do not propose to rest. If there are specific objections to anything that I have written, I should be very pleased to read them. As it is I would contest the contentions made vigorously. Clearly, both of the above editors think that they can see bias, in which case they are entitled to specify where they think it occurs. "Solascriptura" has, however, found that other editors than I disagree with him/her.

Fourthly, I think I detect an element of confusion. No one takes for granted the opinions of someone who uses the prefix 'Saint'. However, the use of the term 'Saint Francis' is widespread and comes from the founder of the order who came from Assisi. The capital of Minnesota is named after the Apostle Paul, whatever anyone thinks, and he is customarily titled St. Paul. To remove such a designation would be to cause confusion.

Fifthly, I have a high opinion of Jefferson - though his slave owning does not make him the best defender of Christian values - but, while his opinion on the US Constitution are very important, his views on the New Testament are not. I am sure that those who are qualitied to write on him may feel that his views on the New Testament should be included in the Jefferson article. Those people who wish to know of his views can than be satisfied.

Sixthly, English Protestants routinely call the Apostle 'St. Paul' pace the above.

Finally, whilst 'hijacked' may seem the appropriate term for my work on this article in the view of some of us, what I have attempted to do is to make the article coherant and to reflect a range of views. I happen to think that to include tangental opinions from however august a source indicated of POV.

But please ladies/gentlemen: it would be helpful to ascertain your precise objections. But do assume good faith. Roger Arguile 12:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roger, first you say your are a priest, now you say you're not. So which is it? What is everyone supposed to believe about you? You said, "I am a parish priest in England and so am subject to bias. ... Roger Arguile 16:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)" Also, please refrain from leveling personal attacks and raising "strawman" issues (ie. "grooming"). I am reverting the article to remove the references of "St. Paul". Please remember not to violate the rules of this site including no more than 3 reverts. You do not own this or any other article. If you persist in violating the terms of Wikipedia, I will invite a moderator to settle the dispute and request that you access to the article be removed. --Solascriptura 18:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To say someone has "hijacked" an article is a strong accusation, and is perhaps not the most generous read on the recent edits of this page. That said, how about a compromise? Yes, "Saint Paul" is used by most Christians -- Roman Catholics & Orthodox (there's 60% of the world's Christians), but also most Lutherans, Anglicans/Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Methodists. The aversion to calling him Saint Paul - at least within the Christian community - does represent the small minority -- mostly American non-denominational evangelicals. One option - which recognizes the use of the title saint while preserving a more nuetral tone - is to use Saint in the lead (Saint Paul the Apostle ...) and then simply refer to him as Paul throughout the rest of the article (See Maximus the Confessor for an example of how this looks in the article). -- Pastordavid 18:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further, as style comments, in general usage "St X" refers to a building, town, etc; "Saint X" refers a person. Further, self-referential section headers are to be avoided per the wikipedia manual of style (avoiding the issue there altogether; Life of Paul or Life of Saint Paul ought to be simply "Life"). Pastordavid 18:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, how about this ... Paul of Tarsus (Saint Paul) ...? Keep in mind that the original article name is just that "Paul of Tarsus". Also, there are approximately 1.8 billion Christian worldwide, of which about 670 million are Protestants. The vast majority of these folks do not use the title "Saint" for anyone, not Paul, not Peter, and especially not anyone from latter Roman Catholic history. When was the last time you heard the RCC mention Saint Moses or Saint David or Saint Isaiah? Well .... ? --Solascriptura 18:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I would say that the consensus for the article title, from the discussion below, is Paul the Apostle. And, actually, the Roman martyrologies do in fact speak of Saint Moses, Isaiah, & David. Further, not all all 670 million Protestants agree with your position - as I noted above, in fact the majority use the term Saint. That is why I suggested the compromise above, "Saint Paul the Apostle" for the first mention in the article lead, simply "Paul" throughout the rest of the article. -- Pastordavid 19:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will agree with a title construction which I have attempted to add and the removal of Saint throughout the article. The other issue here is that this article is literally FILLED with a bunch of Catholic doctrine of what Paul presumably taught, which is subject to wide interpretation. This needs to be removed and place within its own article, such as maybe, "The Doctrines of Paul" with various perspectives. As it is now, Wikipedia is complaining about the length of this article. --Solascriptura 19:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think the cuts you made were fair and appropriate. I followed behind with a slight change, as the consensus in the discussion below is for "Paul the Apostle" not "Paul of Tarsus", and a move is impending (Although, NB: I only use "the Apostle" in the first reference - along with "Saint" - and then all qualifiers or titles are left off throughout the rest of the article). -- Pastordavid 19:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I should respond. I am not a Catholic priest but an Anglican one. 'Sola Scriptura' does not justify what is merely a descriptive material which allows a reader to know what is the major focus of St. Paul's belief. Such sweeping cuts need to be justified or characterised as a breach of WP codes. To suggest that the cuts are minor is an abuse. I think we do need a moderator. Roger Arguile 21:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hey wiki editors - the grievances are justly posted. the simple fact is that this article does present a very specific view point that could be called FAR from objective. it would be only honest to put a warning bar at the head of the article that says "this article may represent a one-sided view point" or something to that effect. i think that everyone who does not agree with the author's forcefully stated opinion would appreciate it. thanks! --91.124.17.194 16:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate, if you will, on what exactly you see to be a problem. If you believe changes should be made, suggest them here, or be bold and add them yourself. If your change is removed, join the discussion and argue over the merit in including your changes. As it is, I see no problems with the article, so explain to me what you feel is an issue. --C.Logan 20:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I archived the old conversations. --Ephilei 16:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul is never called "Paul of Tarsus" in the New Testament, other non-cannonical documents, or the contemporary Christian Church and only rarely in academic circles. This causes confusion to the many readers ignorant of the minor location, Tarsus. I propose moving to either

• Paul the Apostle or The Apostle Paul Google count 400,000 + 1,200,000= 1,600,000
• Saint Paul (and move the current saint disambiguation to Saint Paul (disambiguation)) Google count 3,200,000

"Paul of Tarsus" has only 100,000 Google hits. These titles follow Christian tradition, contemporary Christianity, academia, and many Christians. Only the over simple term "Paul" is more common. Both "saint" and "apostle" are NPOV titles that do not mean inherent ordination by God, unlike "prophet" or "messiah". They signal the approval of Christianity. There is a long precedent of using this on Wikipedia. Compare the 12 apostles of the Gospels:

• John the Apostle
• Philip the Apostle
• Bartholomew the Apostle
• Thomas the Apostle
• Saint Andrew
• Saint Peter (also called Simon)
• Simon the Zealot
• James, son of Alphaeus
• James, son of Zebedee
• Matthew the Evangelist (also called Judas)
• Judas Iscariot

The only exceptions are all people who share names with other apostles (James, Judas, Simon). All them are called by these names in the New Testament (except Matthew). Paul neither shares a name nor is named anything other than Paul (except "Saul", the Hebrew to Greek transliteration of "Paul"). Note that he is already called "Apostle Paul" on the Christianity tag on this article. Do you prefer Paul of Tarsus, Saint Paul, Apostle Paul, Paul the Apostle or Saint Paul the Apostle? --Ephilei 15:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Paul the Apostle or Saint Paul Just to get it started. Saint is more popular historically, but using Apostle is more consistent and doesn't need disambiguation. Comes out even. --Ephilei 15:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are several St. Paul's - St. Paul of Contantinople, St. Paul of the Cross etc. but otherwisde schoolls and cities are named after the apostle. I would go for 'St. Paul the Apostle'. Roger Arguile 16:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I like Saint Paul the Apostle most of all! --Ephilei 20:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would go remain as is, Paul of Tarsus. Obviously, some qualifier is needed, other than just "Paul." Paul of Tarsus is, as I see it, the most neutral term and is also specific enough to clearly identify the person in question. (unrelated to my own opinion, I am cross-posting notice of this proposed change on the talk pages of some interested wikiprojects). -- Pastordavid 01:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Paul the Apostle. I really don't think titles like "Saint" should appear in article titles, generally speaking. There might be a redirect under that name, but the article title itself should be neutral. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Paul the Apostle would be an improvement over the current title. I tend to use the term "Saint Paul" but agree with TCC. Perhaps Saint Paul can redirect to Paul the Apostle. Majoreditor 02:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Paul the Apostle. What User:Majoreditor said. -- Cat Whisperer 03:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Paul the Apostle seems to be the most consistent. Paul of Tarsus should redirect to it. Itsmejudith 06:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Paul of Tarsus - because to the best of my knowledge it is at best dubiously indicated that Paul ever technically was an apostle. I can understand going for the most frequently used name, but accuracy should also be a consideration. John Carter 15:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The first sentence of the article calls him an apostle, and I could find no indication in the article text that Paul wasn't (technically or otherwise) an apostle. -- Cat Whisperer 16:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He most certainly was an apostle. See Chapter 1 of a randomly selected Pauline epistle. In the Orthodox Church, "The Apostle" unqualified almost always means St. Paul. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I suspect that John may be confusing "apostle" with "disciple". Paul was not one of the 12 disciples, but he undoubtedly was an apostle, and specifically referred to himself as such - see Twelve Apostles#Paul of Tarsus. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 21:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. Paul is what he is known as by Christians. St. Paul, the city in Minnesota, is named after him. If one is not neutral, neither is the other. Those who disbelieve in the Christian faith may not believe in sainthood either, which is fine, but to call someone by a name that few of his co-religionists would recognise and to deny him the atribute of Apsotle, when there are other saints called Paul in the calender is to carry NPOVity to absurd lengths. After, all the most important reason for doing anything in WP is that readers should be able to find a reference. Describing St. Paul by an attribute which means nothing to Christians - the people who, by and large, tend to talk and write about him most - seems to me to suggest that non-belief is the real position of neutrality.Roger Arguile 14:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to come into this late. I don't like "Paul of Tarsus". He was called "Saul of Tarsus", but never "Paul of Tarsus" to my knowledge. "The Apostle Paul"/"Paul the Apostle" I prefer slightly to "St. Paul", but I prefer both to "Paul of Tarsus". I agree with the person who said that "Apostle" or "Saint" are used widely on Wikipedia and do not imply a POV judgement. They are simply the most common designation for many people. Rocksong 03:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto, late here. Why not Paul (apostle)? I've never heard of many of the apostles named as "X the Apostle" (altho' I have heard "The Apostle X"), but then again "I've never heard of ---" cuts about as much ice as WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. But since the naming conventions, as I understand them, generally eschew the "Saint" title, why not just use the common name and with the disambig? And if that has already been discussed, my apologies... --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 13:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC) PS My own personal POV druthers would have the apostles all at "X" (as in Paul) with the disambigs and names moved to "X (disambiguation)" and "X (name)". --Sig[reply]

• It looks like the overwhelming majority is for Paul the Apostle. Someone want to ga ahead and boldly move it? Don't forget about the redirects when you do. -- Pastordavid 14:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also change the name of the section in Twelve Apostles referring to "Paul the Apostle". --Tim4christ17 ^talk 21:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the name at the beginning of the article to Paul the Apostle. The word "Saint" is chiefly used in King James translations of the Bible. Catholics also use it as a title. As scriptural Christians you are saints but not "Saint's" as if it is some title to separate between the clergy and the laity or even the Apostles. There is no scriptural authority anywhere in the Bible to do this so therefore is not accurate and does not conform to a neutral POV. Refering to Paul, or any other apostles as "Saint's" cannot be backed up by scripture. It needs to be left out.Craig1974 01:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and High Protestants use the title. That means that nearly 1.7 billion individuals use the title 'Saint' when referring to Paul, whereas around 400 million do not (and even amongst these, there is no universal opposition to it).--C.Logan 01:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want non-denominational scriptural accuracy or "facts" as determined by popular opinion? It needs to be Paul the Apostle. List for me anywhere in the Bible where Paul is referred to as a "Saint". That is what I thought, you cannot. The same thing goes for Peter and any other who is deemed by popular opinion "Saint" as a title in the Bible. Craig1974 00:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who says the Bible is the only determining factor? I'm a Protestant and I happen to agree, but we also need to be aware that this is a dictionary for all people, and Catholics and Orthodox tend to prefer "Saint Paul". I slightly prefer "Paul the Apostle" because it is a more "universal" term, but I do not like the way that you seem to be unilaterally changing it without seeking consensus. Peter Ballard 00:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul the Apostle. Paul was designated a "saint" by the RC church. The NT refers to all regenerate true believers in and followers of Jesus Christ "saint."

I wonder why there cannot be a little more tolerance. Throughout most of the article the Apostle is called 'Paul'. He is only called St. Paul at the beginning (and in the ref to the painting by El Greco (who would have known him as St. Paul). He is thus distinguished from Paul of Samosata, Paul the Deacon. St. Paul of thebes, Paul of the Cross and St. Paul of Constantinople. The article is headed 'Paul the Apostle'. If this degree of flexibility and tolerance cannot prevail amongst Christians, let alone editors, it is a shame. Religious people, of whom I am one, are not made to seem more credible by being intolerant of different views. I would hope that those who take the Bible as the Church's rule book rather than its necessary handbook, might accept the other point of view. It's a pity we can't meet face to face. A grin would empty out our firmness of purpose and determination to have our opinion take precedence. Isn't it OK to have BOTH usages in the article? Roger Arguile 08:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone,

Reading through the article, I came across two paragraphs that seemed out of place in St. Paul's early history. They regarded the reliability of Acts vs. St. Paul's letters; the first paragraph argued against the reliability of Acts, and the second paragraph argued for the historical reliability of Acts. They fell in the middle of his biography and were very disconnected from the article.

Though the historical reliability of Acts is an extremely important subject, I'm not sure an article devoted to St. Paul's life can do it justice. Consequentially, I tried to unite and cut down the two paragraphs, pointing people instead to a link on the Acts wiki page for a full discussion. I moved the new paragraph to a spot at the beginning on his life, in a new section, and I tried to include both viewpoints equally.

I understand why someone added these paragraphs in the first place. Since we're trying to give the details of Paul's life, and some people are arguing that one of our two sources is in dispute while the other is not, it makes sense to mention this in passing. It also frames the article nicely, since most of St. Paul's biography that follows cites either Acts or his letters, and we note any (possible) difficulty uniting them. However, it's important that we don't get sidetracked from the main point of the article.

I tried to make this changes in the most NPOV way possible, and I welcome any feedback.

Take care, --Glistenray 19:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to this article, so I'm not sure if this has been discussed before. But I noticed that several of the article's sections duplicate work found on other pages on wikipedia. Some overlap is inevitable; if there's a specific article on St. Paul's writing, then in his biography of course we're still going to mention that St. Paul wrote. But what about the lengthy paragraphs on the disputes over the Council of Jerusalem? We might be able to cut that down a little, especially if there is already a separate article on this topic. Same might go for the disputes over the authorship of St. Paul's work; if there are specific, separate articles on them elsewhere on wikipedia, there's no point in reinventing the wheel here.

Other lengthy biographical articles must run into this constantly, especially if they're related to other sub-articles. How did they choose the level of detail in the main article vs. the sub-articles? I guess one concern would be that controversial material (disputes over St. Paul's writings, etc) would always get hidden on subpages, which wouldn't be NPOV.

I'm happy to make the necessary changes myself, but I thought I would check with the community first.

Take care, --Glistenray 20:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My view on the 'Council of Jerusalem' is that some account can't be avoided. I wrote it so I am a bit precious about it. Becuase of the way WP is produced, one can't make all article sfit together. Try not to tread on our corns. Roger Arguile 23:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is just WAY TOO LONG. This is not a dissertation on Pauline "doctrine". It contains 3,500+ words of "doctrinal" exposition that is completely sectarian and biased toward an orthodox interpretation whereas the so-called "alternate view" contains just 1/6th this length. I suggest moving the doctrinal review to another article where doctrine can be better illustrated. Finally, there needs to be a reference to Pauline Christianity in the head of this article. Do not remove the POV dispute tag until these issues are resolved! --Standing for Truth 23:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New threads really should go on the bottom of talk pages, please.

I don't understand your problem here. The article would be incomplete without an analysis of the theology Paul taught. And surely it's more than fair to devote 1/6 of the space to a view shared by fewer than 1/6 of those calling themselves "Christian". If anything, it's undue weight.

I agree the reference should be in the article, but there's no reason to put it in a hatnote. It should go in the "See also" section along with all other related articles. Hatnotes are for disambiguation and so forth. This is not an article someone is likely to stumble on when searching for an article on the viewpoints described in "Pauline Christianity". Actually, if you want to treat your group's POV at length, that seems the place to do it. If so, then it's worth a {{main}} at the head of the summary given here. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this were the ONLY page on Paul, then I could perhaps see putting more doctrinal review in it. But "Pauline Christianity" is ALL ABOUT HIS DOCTRINE! An entire web page. And surely, you really didn't mean what you said about "it's more than fair to devote 1/6 of the space to a view shared by fewer than 1/6 of those calling themselves "Christian". If anything, it's undue weight." ????? In other words, one POV (those feeling a certain way about something) is OK if the majority feels that way, and alternative viewpoints are pretty much shunned or limited because the majority don't like what those alternative viewpoints are? How NEUTRAL is that, really?

I believe it's really important to keep in mind that this is not an "evangelism" page but an "information" page. In other words, the good, the bad, and the ugly should all be weighted equally. If the "alternative" viewpoint being shunned had historically always been the rule, the earth would still be considered flat, there wouldn't be such a thing as a "Protestant" or a "Protestant Reformation" and Jesus Christ's message wouldn't have impacted the world like it has. "Because the majority believes it" is not always where the truth lies. And to my understanding, wikipedia is not meant to cater only to the majority, or popular, opinion. Standing for Truth 03:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your understanding is off. I think you need to read up on WP:NPOV. Ideas that are relatively in the fringe do not need -- in fact, should not receive -- equal coverage with mainstream ideas. That's why we don't treat, for example Bigfoot as if its existence were as credible as the raccoon, and do not include it in taxonomies. We do not give the ideas of a small minority equal weight because this is not an evangelism page which small groups use in order to get more exposure for their beliefs.

You use a very apt example when you mention the Lord. It's true that Christ's teachings were something new in the Roman Empire and that his Church has subsequently become very large. But if you were writing an article on the major religions of 1st century Rome, you would be giving Christianity undue weight if it was given as much attention as Roman paganism and various mystery religions. It was simply not a very important or influential religion at the time, and you wouldn't be justified in presenting it as if it was. Similarly, you are not justified here in presenting a minority theory as if it carried as much influence as the mainstream view. It simply doesn't, no matter how sincerely it's believed in by its adherents.

Pauline Christianity should certainly be, if it is not now, about this minority view. Nearly all Christians do not believe their faith was primarily shaped by Paul or that he distorted or misrepresented Jesus' teachings; they therefore do not use the term. It's really rather insulting. It should therefore be about the ideas of those who do use it, in the same way that you'd create a separate article on the 1st century Christian Church in Rome if you wanted to go into it in detail. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who worte the section on St. Paul's thought I would like to repeat my plea for objectors to be specific. There is nothing, in my view which is sectarian. Perhaps it may help if I explain the procedure.: 1) If readers are to understand the arguments they need to have some exposition of Paul's thought on, for instance, the atonement, a subject which is central to the Reformation among others. the article early notes the controversies in which his work has been central. It would have been possible to have peppered that exposition with terms like 'he claimed that..', 'he assserted that..' but it would have not added much. If SfT thinks that the exposition indicates a sympathy for Paul's thought, then I have to say that this is only partly true. 2) There follows a brief history of dispute featuring those who hold to the substitionary doctrine of the atonement and those who abhor it - both views are mentioned. Major players, like Luther and Calvin, are included, not at length admittedly, but this enables readers who have a fairly full exposition of Paul's thought to look up articles on the featured figures in order to see in more detail what they made of Paul. To call this 'sectarian' is not to use the word in a sense recognisable by me. It includes the opinions of Catholics, Evangelicals, Calvinists and Reformed Christians who constitute the majority of the world's followers of Jesus. Csernica makes the same point above. 3) Finally, I have repeated the request for specific objections as against the broad brush allegatiions but in vain. I am sure that specific sentences can be improved and there will be omissions, but I do not see that the exposition on St. Paul's ideas on 'justification' etc. are anything more than an attempt to show readers what he was trying to say. Abelard and his followers took a very different line and proposed that Christ's work was exemplary; his work has been called 'muddled' (I think the case for that is strong but I had to fight to keep it in). I beg SfT to read the article carefully and to raise objections that enable the editing of these important sections, not their excision. Roger Arguile 08:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Pauline Christianity' is not about Paul's dotrine: it is, as it says, an article about that expression, used sometimes perjoratively to contrast that body of ideas with the teachings of Jesus from which it is held to differ. Catholic and Protestants would, broadly, want to say that Paul's views are simply part of the ground work of christian doctrine and that there is no such thing as 'Pauline Christianity'. Roger Arguile 08:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS There IS a link to 'Pauline Christianity' -at the end. It has been there for some time! Roger Arguile 09:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If in indeed "Pauline Christianity" is where "alternative views" "should" be espoused, by those who believe that Paul taught completely different doctrine than Messiah did, then Mr Arguile, why is your hand all over it? You appear to have completely taken control of it. It rather feels like both of these pages do not have a chance of taking a NPOV because alternative viewpoints are simply not allowed to stand by you (take for example, the section on the Ebionites which you deemed "not relevant" and those other things you kindly deemed "hopeless POV".) I guess in wikipedia, it's those who have the most time who get to control the viewpoint of the article. I'm getting pretty disillusioned about Wikipedia. Standing for Truth 11:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat: I am very happy to discuss with anyone what I have put if they are specific. I am very bad at dealing with generalised remarks. I confess that I do take an interest in a very few articles about which I know a certain amount. I do so because the Paul of Tarsus article was wrecked (before my time) by those with bees in their bonnets. It is still tagged as a former good article. I did not write it and had nothing to do with it; I was not a party to the adjudged wrecking. I simply tried, with collaboration with others to rewrite it subsequently. I have a certain amount of time which others may lack. On the other hand it does not seem to me that the fact that one person has made most of the contributions makes the article lack balance. The Ebionite question which keeps on coming up is vitiated by sheer lack of contemporaneous evidence. James Tabor, who takes an interest in this and is an academic is, on his own admission, more interested in speculation that many of his peers are. His book 'the Jesus Dynasty' is fascinating but, recognising that his ideas are possibilities rather than defensible in court, he is much less dogmatic than some of his readers.

I am sorry that SfT dislikes my approach. I am not alone. There are other articles which have defenders who try to prevent the well meaning but less informed from editing. By that I am not saying that SfT is either, but I keep on asking for specific instances of bias or distortion; I keep on trying to explain why some insertions are either repetitive or irrelevant; I believe that our service is primarily to readers not to the holders of opinions. I have quoted or preserved the quotations of quite a number of people; I possess most of the books I cite and have read them. I do not agree with all or even most; but Csernica has made some of my points above. If SfT is disillusioned about WP he must know have read that any contribution may be mercilessly reedited. By this strange means knowledge may be improved.. or not, as the case may be.

I recognise I am sorry about the terse notes on edits. I should have set out my reasons more fully. Impatience is a vice and I sometimes suffer from it. Roger Arguile 10:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Townsend in 1985 “Missionary Journeys in Acts and European Missionary Societies” indicated: "there is no evidence, before the preface to Acts in the first edition of J. A. Bengel’s Gnomon Novi Testamenti (1742), that any previous Christian reader or commentator on the narratives of Paul’s travels in Acts ever thought to observe, in the sequence of Paul’s various encounters and diverse experiences, a series of intentional missionary journeys" (quoted from Vaage, Leif E.(Editor). Religious Rivalries in the Early Roman Empire and the Rise of Christianity. Waterloo, ON, CAN: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2006. p 16.) It seemed to indicate that the concept thereafter became quite popular and has been used since. 70.20.49.113 03:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In what language did Paul write? Which languages did he speak? I have been unable to locate that information in this article. §

He wrote in Greek. That is now added ot the articleRoger Arguile 16:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, when I moved/renamed the article, I forgot about the archives. It is now taken care of, and the archives are back where they belong. -- Pastordavid 17:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this is duplicated in Authorship of the Pauline epistles. I propose deleting the entire section, except for the first paragraph. Rocksong 23:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wold rather you didn't. I am sure that in a perfect world, WP would be edited fully so that all articles matched each other. There are other articles in much greater need of attention than this one. Roger Arguile 12:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC) PS a more germane quesiton would be whether one needs the 'main article'. Roger Arguile 12:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

had a few things to say about Paul, for the 'Alternative views' section. The epithet 'false-coiner' springs to mind. Vranak

While the Apostle Paul taught that practicing the Law played no part in the salvation of an individual, he choose to continue to observe it personally, at least in part to maintain fellowship with the Jewish community that he loved so deeply, and to be a living example of the Law fulfilled in Jesus Christ. This is also the reason for the circumcision of his disciple Timothy, who was born to a Jewish mother, and was to preach the Gospel to the Jews as well. To suggest that the Apostle Paul was a "Judaizer", is factually without merit, and is theologically and historically indefensible.

Since I'm new to this article, I don't want to jump in and potentially "step on anyone's toes" that have put much hard work and effort into it, but I would like to see more clarity brought to this issue. WikiMasterCreator 10:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see anywhere where the article calls Paul a Judaizer. Peter Ballard 12:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that clarity would help; if only we could agree as to what one would say. The knub of the disagreement comes in the relationship between Acts and the letters. Long arguments have already taken place between those who, supported by scholars such as Conzelman, think Acts to have a comparatively low historical value, emphasising the hostility towards Judaism expressed in Galatians, and those who regard Scripture as consistent de fide so that any one statement must be reconcilable with any other. Critical scholarship makes the second view difficult to hold, though it is represented in the article. the statement about St. Paul's prctice would be controverted on precisely these grounds by a number of editors and, more important, by scholars. It is always hard for editors to cope with the fact that we are not, as a matter of WP policy in a position to say that anything is 'indefensible. That is POV - a point of view. We can say that this learned person or that has argued in this way or that. Whne I last looked at the article it nowhere suggested that St. Paul was a Judaizer; quite the contary as Peter Ballard writes.

In short, I fear that one person's clarity may be someone else's POV. Because we have no credibility of ourselves, we must cite someone else, someone who has some scholarly credibility. Roger Arguile 15:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for POV, notice that rather than editing the article, I courteously and rightly posted "here" first, sharing some information, attempting to engage in a friendly dialog, and hoping to work together to find some more meaningful and helpful information to include in the article.

Realize that "Wiki editors" are generally "Wiki users", and as such, I came upon this article while doing some research of my own. I think this gives me a fresh perspective in many respects. Please take that into consideration.

Often times when a person has spent a lot of time on a project, and is intimately familiar with it, they can easily become "desensitized" to the impact of some of it's material, or lack thereof. Sometimes it's good to get some independent opinions, and even step away for awhile, and then come back to it with a fresher perspective.

I am not saying that this section of the article outright states that the Apostle Paul was a "Judaizer", it's just that it is left so "open-ended" and "ambiguous" by the introductory statement, and the text immediately following the encyclopedia quote. It leaves an impression as almost to infer it, so that a person could easily come away from it no better informed than before, or worse yet, with a new source of confusion. I think we can do better.

While I agree that the quotation from the cited encyclopedia does not portray the Apostle Paul as a Judaizer, and rather appears to state just the opposite, it's more to do with the way the WP editor wrote the introduction in front of the quote and the first few words following, and that the quoted encyclopedia's article's heading is noted as "Judaizers". These things in combination are causing an apparent disunity of information.

"Upon Paul's arrival in Jerusalem, he gave the apostles his account of bringing Gentiles to the faith. According to Acts, James the Just confronted Paul with the charge that he was teaching the Jews to ignore the law and asked him to demonstrate that he was Torah observant by taking a Nazirite vow (Acts 21:26). However, that Paul did so is difficult to reconcile with his personally expressed attitude both in Galatians and Philippians, where he utterly opposed any idea that the law was binding on Christians, declaring that even Peter did not live by the law (Galatians 2:14). Various attempts have been made to reconcile Paul's views as expressed in his different letters and in Acts, notably the 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia article on Judaizers ...

In any case..."

Honestly, "that Paul did so is" "easily" "reconcilable" if you will simply refer to a few, clear, easily understood supporting scriptures. No propeller hat required!

The base nature of man is to over complicate and bring confusion to even the simplest of matters; to wrangle on and on, endlessly in a gray haze of the unknown and the "who can know", with an ending no better, or more often than not, worse than the beginning. This is no more true than among many of the "academics" and "board certified" theologians of the world, which are the very ones we are supposed to choose from for citation. This endless wrangling keeps them in book and speaking engagement revenues though doesn't it! This being the case, we definitely have our work cut out for ourselves!

As for those who enjoy endlessly disputing what is and what is not legitimate scripture from verse to verse, they will never come to any consensus or conclusions of any worthwhile substance, leaving important matters of faith and doctrine forever "up in the air", in a gray area of worthless confusion and tail chasing. Let's not carry this discussion further into that trap.

The biblical record very clearly reveals the Apostle Paul's preaching of salvation apart from the Law to the Gentiles (which we see angered the Jews), and his teaching of the Jewish believers to continue in the Law to maintain a brotherly witness among their Jewish brethren, which in turn became a source of confusion among some of the Gentiles. So Paul was in a sense placed between a proverbial "rock and a hard place". The enemies of Paul and Christ, used this confusion to their advantage against Paul. Not so hard to reconcile, is it? But wait, there's more!

The foundational Law of Paul's ministry and theology;

"But when the Pharisees heard that He had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying, “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?” Jesus said to him, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.” Matthew 22:34-40 (NKJV)

Paul's passion for the souls of both his Jewish brethren, and the Gentiles;

"I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen." Romans 9:1-5 (NKJV)

"For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you." 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 (NKJV)

"All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify. Let no one seek his own, but each one the other’s well-being. Eat whatever is sold in the meat market, asking no questions for conscience’ sake; for “the earth is the LORD’s, and all its fullness.” If any of those who do not believe invites you to dinner, and you desire to go, eat whatever is set before you, asking no question for conscience’ sake. But if anyone says to you, “This was offered to idols,” do not eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for conscience’ sake; for “the earth is the LORD’s, and all its fullness.” “Conscience,” I say, not your own, but that of the other. For why is my liberty judged by another man’s conscience? But if I partake with thanks, why am I evil spoken of for the food over which I give thanks? Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God, just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved." 1 Corinthians 10:23-33 (NKJV)

"But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless. Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned."

Titus 3:9-11 (NKJV)

Hard to reconcile? Not at all, except in the minds of those who "choose" to be confused and to confuse others; the record is just too abundantly clear, there's no room for a hopeless gray area of endless confusion here, unless you imagine that there is! WikiMasterCreator 06:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you've made your point! But the fact is that many people see problems in reconciling elements of Acts with Paul's letters, and the article should note that. We can't just gloss over that. But I do agree there is a problem in one way: the article just asserts there are problems between Acts and Paul's letters, without providing evidence. A citation is required. (A secondary source, not a list of Bible verses). Peter Ballard 13:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With respect,there are examples of a difficulty in reconciling Acts and Paul's letter. In particular that relating to the Council of Jerusalem. While this does not raise theological questions - which may be how it got through - it does indicate problems with Acts. I agree that the matter needs untangling. However, part of the problem lies in the nature of WP. The Catholic Encyclopaedia is a legitimate source. The use of the 1911 edition has been defended as against such scholars as Raymond Brown. I have attempted to tighten up the arguments but eventually one gives up; in religious matters, the right to disagree is fiercely defended and conservative as well as speculatively radical views come like snowstorms. I don't know how knowledgeable current correpondants are. There is a deal of literature which needs inserting. With encouragement I shall return to the anvil and offer a blow or two. Roger Arguile 20:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't this article include this?:

Catholic Encyclopedia: Acts of the Apostles: OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE AUTHENTICITY: "Nevertheless this well-proved truth has been contradicted. Baur, Schwanbeck, De Wette, Davidson, Mayerhoff, Schleiermacher, Bleek, Krenkel, and others have opposed the authenticity of the Acts. An objection is drawn from the discrepancy between Acts ix, 19-28 and Gal., i, 17, 19. In the Epistle to the Galatians, i, 17, 18, St. Paul declares that, immediately after his conversion, he went away into Arabia, and again returned to Damascus. "Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas." In Acts no mention is made of St. Paul's journey into Arabia; and the journey to Jerusalem is placed immediately after the notice of Paul's preaching in the synagogues. Hilgenfeld, Wendt, Weizäcker, Weiss, and others allege here a contradiction between the writer of the Acts and St. Paul."

75.15.196.129 20:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, above, it appears Roger Arguile claims the Catholic Encyclopedia has been used to the exclusion of scholars like Raymond E. Brown. Wikipedia policy is NPOV, both Catholic Encyclopedia and Brown, and other Wikipedia:Reliable sources should be included, no significant and noteworthy opinions should be excluded. Wikipedia reports on significant viewpoints, it doesn't judge which ones are worthy of exclusion or inclusion nor does it engage in Original Research. 75.15.196.129 20:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is always helpful if editors would read the back correspondance. As to the assertion. I fear that I did not make such a 'claim'. Howevere there is archived material to which the anonyumous editor can refer if she or he desires. Roger Arguile 20:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm refering to your statement: "The use of the 1911 edition has been defended as against such scholars as Raymond Brown." 75.15.196.129 21:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is sometimes helpful to be reminded of WP policy, though one may have read it before. What WP sometimes struggles with is the weight to be given to different authorities. Some would suggest that the 1910 edition of the Catholic Encyclopaedia has been superceded by more modern scholarishop, but I realise that this is to make a contentious claim.

As the the glaringly obvious (to Master Builder) alas, such clarity is not given to all. The fact is that it is not given to me, or to those many who have a low regard for the historicity of Acts. Moreover, whilst we may wish to dispense with the work of scholars (some of whom operate outside the US perception of the academic world as described above), we are not allowed to engage in what others may think of as original research -though we may contend that it is not more than the 'bleedin' obvious'. We have to live with the fact that others may consider us dullards. Roger Arguile 21:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the problem. If you have a "low regard for the historicity of Acts", find Wikipedia:Reliable sources and add them. That should not be a problem, it is hardly Original Research that the historicity of Acts is highly disputed, even the Catholic Encyclopedia makes that clear. However, there is no justification for the removal of other sources, such as the Catholic Encyclopedia, on the pov grounds that it has been "superceded". What is the problem with this kind of format?:

The 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia states: "blah blah blah", however, more recent scholarship, such as Raymond E. Brown, or whoever, states: "blah blah blah".

Inclusion of Wikipedia:Reliable sources, not exclusion or pov pushing. Also, highly relevant would be published critiques of Catholic Encyclopedia views. However, to repeat myself, the fact that the Catholic Encyclopedia is not universally accepted is not grounds for its removal from wikipedia articles. 75.15.196.129 21:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to make another point: Since wikipedia is open to editing by the public, the only chance of achieving some stability is if all significant Wikipedia:Reliable sources viewpoints are reported. If editors are allowed to pick and choose and exclude viewpoints they don't agree with, you have no chance of reaching any consensus. Consensus is only reached by accurately reporting all significant Reliable source viewpoints and not by pushing any particular pov. Inclusion, not exclusion. Think Ecumenical. 75.15.196.129 22:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roger, just to clarify, I want you to know that my issue has never been with the cited quotation from the 1910 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia, although it appears to be an issue for some of our fellows. On the contrary, I found it to be wonderfully clear, insightful, concise, and on point. My issue is with the way in which the controversy issue is presented.

To those who think that the controversy issue should be markedly expanded in this section, I must say that I disagree. As it is, it verges on detracting from the subject at hand and disrupting the cognitive flow of information proposed by this section, especially due to the "disjointed" way in which the issue has been presented. If you feel that the controversy issue is that crucial to the topic at hand, I suggest referencing it to another section dedicated for that purpose (Controversies), or the WP article on the book of Acts itself. WikiMasterCreator 07:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat: the present conition of the article is unsatisfactory. It was, however, the result of long edit conflicts and I do not see that any likelihood but that this will not be repeated. The idea that we should be quoting from an out-of-date Encyclopaedia which has been superceded in the Catholic Church strikes me as remarkable, but I see that there are defenders of it. I notice that 75..129 thinks that it is a reliable source. (Michael Goulder might never have lived.) 75...129 also thinks that the rest of us have no access to WP policy documents without her/his assistance. Perhaps someone would like to offer an edit, only to be blown away by those who disagree. Roger Arguile 16:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done! WikiMasterCreator 03:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia article, not a missionary tract. It's not necessary to dumb down the topic and gloss over controversies. 75.0.3.249 05:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You consider the relocation of arguments that had been mis-placed into the middle of an article section, being moved to their appropriate, dedicated section, with a reference link provided to such, as turning the section into a missionary tract, dumbing it down, and glossing it over? Sounds like a personal issue on your part, no? WikiMasterCreator 06:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a personal issue, it's Wikipedia policy, see What_wikipedia_is_not for details. Also, keep in mind that this article is Paul the Apostle, not Paul the Apostle according to an original paraphrase of the Book of Acts. All Wikipedia:Reliable sources are eligible for inclusion, including those that dispute the accuracy of the Book of Acts, including those that disagree with each other. Remember: NPOV. 75.0.3.249 07:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Reasoning_behind_NPOV: "Wikipedia works because it is a collaborative effort; but, while collaborating, how can we solve the problem of endless "edit wars" in which one person asserts that p, whereupon the next person changes the text so that it asserts not-p? A solution is that we accept, for the purposes of working on Wikipedia, that "human knowledge" includes all different significant theories on all different topics. We are committed to the goal of representing human knowledge in that sense, surely a well-established meaning of the word "knowledge"." 75.0.3.249 07:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you enjoy finger pointing, arguing, and pulling out WP policy cards to throw at someone. Frankly, I'm not impressed. I stand by my previous statement. There is a dedicated section in this article provided, as well as other links to related articles that go further into any related disputes, which are the appropriate, designated places for such.

It appears as if you'd like nothing more than to turn this section of the article into a mishmash of argumentation and debate, however doing so adds nothing constructive to the presentation of information being sought by the researcher, and disrupts the conative flow of the information being presented, leading to confusion of, rather than a increased understanding of the topic at hand.

AGAIN; "You consider the relocation of arguments that had been mis-placed into the middle of an article section, being moved to their appropriate, dedicated section, with a reference link provided to such, as turning the section into a missionary tract, dumbing it down," "glossing it over", and now also violating NPOV? "Sounds like a personal issue on your part, no? "

Please put the policy cards away, take a deep breath, and find something constructive to do. Here's an idea! How about making a "collaborative effort" somewhere? WikiMasterCreator 08:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a House of Comons conventiion of using the third person singular in these kind of discussions. It lowers the temperature. However, on the substance, MC has I think encountered the resistance which I partly foresaw. He has compounded this by using expressions like 'some scholars'. This is no good. We have to know which scholars who said what, where. Roger Arguile 09:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MC's latest revert is quite wrong.It is full of paraphrases and misuses the notion of vandalism. This is the kind of approach which creates edit wars. Roger Arguile 10:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need concise and specific details, not a long, drawn out speech. WikiMasterCreator 10:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As to prolixity, MC may notice the length of her/his own contributions. She/he may have noticed the resistance I predicted. Expressions such as 'some say this' are not acceptable according to WP guidelines. More to followRoger Arguile 10:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being constructive; much appreciated. WikiMasterCreator 17:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Assume good faith 75.15.203.214 19:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Good faith" cannot be assumed of those who have a stated personal agenda, and attempt to impose that personal agenda on others; maliciously attacking those who have operated in "good faith". (Still at it with the Wikipedia policy cards, eh?) WikiMasterCreator 19:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for 'burying' the Catholic encyclopedia (1910) is that in the text is us unbalancing, stating only one point of view. I also wish people would quote from the 1967 edition rather than the out-of-date version. I can only believe that they do so because the former is available on line. Roger Arguile 20:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is time to stop quoting old editions of works simply because they are easily available.Roger Arguile 20:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 1907-1914 Catholic Encyclopedia is public domain, thus quotable. The 1967 New Catholic Encyclopedia is copyrighted. I'm not aware of any libraries that have disposed of their reference copies of the Catholic Encyclopedia because it is too old, it is a very useful reference work. Incidently, if you have a set that you're trying to dispose, I would be more than happy to take them off your hands. 75.14.219.155 21:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any work is quotable for the purpose of referencing. What the PD status of the CE does for us is to provide entire blocks of text that can be simply pasted in unaltered. That doesn't invalidate any of Roger's concerns about it. It's useless for any developments in the 20th century -- if you tried to use it as a reference for Catholic liturgy you'll go seriously wrong -- it very much does not reflect the latest scholarship, and it's inherently biased.

But surely there are better sources to cite than an encyclopedia anyway. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the quote in question: 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia article by F. Bechtel on Judaizers states:

"Paul, on the other hand, not only did not object to the observance of the Mosaic Law, as long as it did not interfere with the liberty of the Gentiles, but he conformed to its prescriptions when occasion required (1Corinthians 9:20). Thus he shortly after [the Council of Jerusalem] circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:1–3), and he was in the very act of observing the Mosaic ritual when he was arrested at Jerusalem (21:26 sqq.)."

Is it your contention that this is wrong or out of date or superceded by the latest scholarship or biased? 75.14.219.155 22:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the above quote originally followed the following (unreferenced) statement in the article:

Upon Paul's arrival in Jerusalem, he gave the apostles his account of bringing Gentiles to the faith. According to Acts, James the Just confronted Paul with the charge that he was teaching the Jews to ignore the law and asked him to demonstrate that he was Torah observant by taking a Nazirite vow (Acts 21:26). However, that Paul did so is difficult to reconcile with his personally expressed attitude both in Galatians and Philippians, where he utterly opposed any idea that the law was binding on Christians, declaring that even Peter did not live by the law (Galatians 2:14). Various attempts have been made to reconcile Paul's views as expressed in his different letters and in Acts, notably the 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia article on Judaizers states:

Also, as background, in case it's necessary, it should be noted that Catholics do not believe Paul opposed the Mosaic Law, whereas some Protestants do believe that, see Old Testament#Christian view of the Law and Expounding_of_the_Law#Antithesis_of_the_Law and Antinomianism#Antinomianism_in_the_New_Testament for details. 75.14.219.155 22:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find that in any of the references you've provided. Can you please help me with this? WikiMasterCreator 22:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find what? 75.14.219.155 23:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Catholic position? Catechism of the Catholic Church at the Vatican archives: "2076 By his life and by his preaching Jesus attested to the permanent validity of the Decalogue."

A Protestant position against the Law? Cyrus Scofield in his 1896 Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth, ch. 6 LAW AND GRACE states: "The most obvious and striking division of the Word of truth is that between law and grace. Indeed, these contrasting principles characterize the two most important dispensations: the Jewish and Christian. "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (John 1:17). ... Law kills; grace makes alive. ... Law says, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth"; grace says, "Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." Law says, "Hate thine enemy"; grace says, "Love your enemies, bless them that despitefully use you." Law says, do and live; grace says, believe and live. ... Law stones an adulteress; grace says, "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." ... Everywhere the Scriptures present law and grace in sharply contrasted spheres. The mingling of them in much of the current teaching of the day spoils both, for law is robbed of its terror, and grace of its freeness."

Another Protestant position against the Law? I believe Roger Arguile, who claims to be an Anglican parish priest, wrote this: "However, that Paul did so is difficult to reconcile with his personally expressed attitude both in Galatians and Philippians, where he utterly opposed any idea that the law was binding on Christians, declaring that even Peter did not live by the law (Galatians 2:14)."

75.14.219.155 23:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

75.14.219.155, this: "Catholics do not believe Paul opposed the Mosaic Law, whereas some Protestants do believe that" WikiMasterCreator 00:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiMasterCreator claims the Acts of the Apostles are a valid source for the life of Paul. Roger Arguile claims it is not. What is the solution to this edit conflict? 75.14.219.155 20:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fear not. If only life were as simple as that. The intervention of more anonymous editors complicates matters. The matter may be stated thus. We may presume that the letters under consideration are Paul's words. As such they have a higher credibility than what is written about him by others. Whether therefore, the Acts, can 'easily' be reconciled with what Paul writes about himself is a matter of scholarship, bearing in mind that Paul's memory could be faulty about some things, that descriptions of events may be partial, that Paul may, indeed almost certainly did, respond to different situations with different perspectives (add your own quotations): this and allied questions are what concern us. But the idea that a 1910 edition of a book which has been revised several times since can be wheeled in simply because it is online, while the 1967 edition, which is not, is not quoted, seems to me to show a serious lapse of judgement.Roger Arguile 21:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question has the quote from the 1910 edition been revised, or has it been removed from the 1967 edition?--Riferimento 01:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked out the New Catholic Encyclopedia myself, it's found in most libraries. The entire article on Judaizers is not present. In general, the NCE is an abridgement of the original Catholic Encyclopedia, with more pictures than text and less technical discussion and more general overview type discussion, in keeping with the times. 75.14.212.224 05:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acts 21–28 is the only source for the final trip by Paul to Jerusalem, his arrest there, and trip to Rome. The Pauline Epistles don't even mention it. 75.14.219.155 21:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For your review and consideration, I submit this entry taken from the 1995 edition of the Harper Collins Encyclopedia of Catholicism.

St. Paul: Theology

"Although Paul was controversial both during his lifetime and subsequently many of his basic convictions were traditional, rooted in Judaism and early Christianity. Two of his basic convictions were belief in Jewish monotheism and belief in the revelation of God in the Jewish Scriptures. Hence Paul always thought of himself as a Jew, both ethnically and religiously. From Christian tradition and his own experience on the road to Damascus came his conviction about the centrality of Christ, especially of his death and resurrection. Also characteristic of Paul is his conviction, rooted in his experience of the risen Jesus, about the relationship between Jews and Gentiles and the status of Mosaic law. For Paul there was "in Christ" no longer any distinction between Jews and Gentiles (Gal 3:28; Rom 3:22); all are saved through faith in Christ rather than through the observance of Mosaic law (Rom 3:21-30). Through faith in Christ is no longer any need for either Jewish or gentile Christians to observe Mosaic law as such. Although there is some dispute, Paul seems to have included in this both the ritual and the ethical sections of the law. Christian conduct was now to be guided by the presence of the Spirit by faith working through love, and by Christians becoming servants of one another (Gal 5-6). Paul also had a belief, based on but expanded from early Christian eschatology, that in the consummation of the world all things would be subjected to Christ and to God. For Paul this included the Jewish people (Rom 9-11). Although the precise manor of this inclusion remains uncertain, it is clear that Paul could not imagine a consummation of the world in which the Jewish people were not included. Paul's reputation in the second and third centuries remained controversial, especially for Jewish Christians. Interpretations of Paul's Letters were central to the thought of Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin."

Perhaps portions may be deemed acceptable for inclusion. WikiMasterCreator 02:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does it have the Imprimatur? 75.0.2.134 03:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another reference to consider: Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification: Section 4.5 Law and Gospel: "31.We confess together that persons are justified by faith in the gospel "apart from works prescribed by the law" (Rom 3:28). Christ has fulfilled the law and by his death and resurrection has overcome it as a way to salvation. We also confess that God's commandments retain their validity for the justified and that Christ has by his teaching and example expressed God's will which is a standard for the conduct of the justified also. 32.Lutherans state that the distinction and right ordering of law and gospel is essential for the understanding of justification. In its theological use, the law is demand and accusation. Throughout their lives, all persons, Christians also, in that they are sinners, stand under this accusation which uncovers their sin so that, in faith in the gospel, they will turn unreservedly to the mercy of God in Christ, which alone justifies them. 33.Because the law as a way to salvation has been fulfilled and overcome through the gospel, Catholics can say that Christ is not a lawgiver in the manner of Moses. When Catholics emphasize that the righteous are bound to observe God's commandments, they do not thereby deny that through Jesus Christ God has mercifully promised to his children the grace of eternal life. [Footnotes for Section 4.5:] According to Pauline teaching this topic concerns the Jewish law as means of salvation. This law was fulfilled and overcome in Christ. This statement and the consequences from it have to be understood on this basis. With reference to Canons 19f of the Council of Trent, the VELKD (89,28-36) says as follows: "The ten commandments of course apply to Christians as stated in many places of the confessions.. If Canon 20 stresses that a person ..is bound to keep the commandments of God, this canon does not strike to us; if however Canon 20 affirms that faith has salvific power only on condition of keeping the commandments this applies to us. Concerning the reference of the Canon regarding the commandments of the church, there is no difference between us if these commandments are only expressions of the commandments of God; otherwise it would apply to us." The last paragraph is related factually to 4.3, but emphasizes the 'convicting function' of the law which is important to Lutheran thinking. "

Catholic Catechism: "2068 The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them; The Second Vatican Council confirms: "The bishops, successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord . . . the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments." "

75.0.2.134 03:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested in the latest Pauline scholarship, it's called the New Perspective on Paul. 75.14.211.73 06:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a sample of N. T. Wright, the Anglican Bishop of Durham, [1]: "The third point is remarkably controversial, seeing how well founded it is at several points in Paul. Indeed, listening to yesterday�s papers, it seems that there has been a massive conspiracy of silence on something which was quite clear for Paul (as indeed for Jesus). Paul, in company with mainstream second-Temple Judaism, affirms that God�s final judgment will be in accordance with the entirety of a life led � in accordance, in other words, with works. He says this clearly and unambiguously in Romans 14.10�12 and 2 Corinthians 5.10. He affirms it in that terrifying passage about church-builders in 1 Corinthians 3. But the main passage in question is of course Romans 2.1�16." 75.14.211.73 08:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"75.0.2.134" RE: HC Encyclopedia of Catholicism
I don't see an Imprimatur in the book, does that make it unusable? WikiMasterCreator 07:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has a troubling dependence on primary sources (namely the New Testament). However, Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources (see Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources). A lot of commentary in this article appears to be based directly on the New Testament, leading to possible original research problems. If anyone can support more of the article with published secondary sources, that would be great. Cheers. Grover cleveland 06:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the Bible a secondary source? 75.14.212.224 05:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible is a primary source, according to Wikipedia:Attribution#Primary_and_secondary_sources. There is a good example there of the problems that using the Bible as the main source for an article can cause:

The Bible cannot be used as a source for the claim that Jesus advocated eye removal (Matthew 18:9, Mark 9:47) for his followers, because theologians differ as to how these passages should be interpreted. Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge.

I would suggest that all material that goes beyond direct quotations from the Bible to anything that could be regarded as commentary should cite the published work of theologians and historians. Of course even with direct quotations there can still be controversies over translation, textual variants and context, so secondary sources are important there too. Grover cleveland 15:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fear not. GC is correct that the article contains too much primary material, interpreted by editors. While therefore it may be true that of Paul's arrest and death there is no other source but Acts, it is the case that the account offers a view of Paul very different from his remarks in Galatians 5.

I wonder if I might offer an observation. Having been here for some time, I remember when a flock of non-Christian editors descended and wanted to challenge every thing written; then some Christian editors appeared wishing to defend every biblical statement. Doubtless there is no finality, but I do agree with those who suggest that anonymous editors would do us a favour by registering. Otherwise it is hard to know with whom one is having a conversation.

Lastly, I hope that we can say goodbye to the old 1910 CE and take its successor as a source. I have no access to a copy. Roger Arguile 16:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, on the whole this is a very good article, and seems to me that the present regular editors are both knowledgeable and reasonable. Second, it is an unfortunate necessity that Wikipedia articles of religious nature must use a primary source (the Bible) to protect the article from opinionated religiously conservative editors who do not respect the work of noted theologians. I agree with Mr. Grover that the article needs more published secondary sources, but I do not believe that the tag ^{[original research?]} is helpful.--Riferimento 22:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Riferimento. I don't quite understand the source of your worry here. If the edits from religious conservatives impose their own interpretation of the Bible without citations, then they can be removed as original research. If they cite religious conservative scholars, then that is fine as long as the views they express are attributed to those scholars per WP:NPOV. If other scholars are in disagreement, then their views should be added and attributed to them. Here's an example of how a paragraph might be structured:

Scholar X claims that the Bible is literally true, that Acts and the epistles are in harmony (citation). Other scholars, however, assert that there are contradictions between the accounts, for the following reasons: ... (citations). Scholar X replies as follows (citation).

This is how I think Wikipedia works best with these kinds of disputes. Grover cleveland 16:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having grown up in evangelical church I know that it is a common misconception that Saul changed his named to Paul after his experience on the Road to Damascus. The 1910 Catholic encyclopedia states that use to the name Paul in the Greek speaking world may have been because Saul in Greek has a ludicrous meaning. A Blog I read on the subject stated that the word Saul in Greek means “the loose wobbly walk of a prostitute”. I would like to add a comment about the use of the names Saul/Paul, but I would prefer to use a stronger reference. Does anyone have a stronger reference?--Riferimento 22:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That strikes me as a very good reason for not reading blogs. I understand that King David of Old Testament fame was also called Saul but did not have occasion to smite anyone for calling him by it - and the Septuagint is happy with the name too[User:Roger Arguile|Roger Arguile]] 20:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

In Hebrew, the name Saul means; "asked for", "called one", "desired one".

In Greek, the name Paul means; "small one", "least one" "little one".

When you consider Paul's transformation, specifically his change of heart, this name change makes perfect sense.

Source? Any number of well accepted, scholarly, Old Testament Hebrew and New Testament Greek Lexicons.

If you're interested in a deeper study of God's word; you may want to consider investing in a basic personal Bible study library.

"As for God, His way is perfect;
The word of the LORD is proven;
He is a shield to all who trust in Him."
Psalm 18:30 (NKJV)

WikiMasterCreator 00:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Catholic Encyclopedia is not a blog, and it states that “It was natural that in inaugurating his apostolate among the Gentiles Paul should have adopted his Roman name, especially as the name Saul had a ludicrous meaning in Greek.” http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm. I also want to clarify my question, I was trying to find a reference and definition for what the Catholic Encyclopedia calls the “ludicrous meaning in Greek”. What Saul means in Hebrew and what Paul means in Greek any fool can look-up, and I am a bit insulted that one editor considers me both Biblically illiterate and incapable of opening up a dictionary.
It is a fact that the writer or writers of Acts used both the name Saul and Paul and after his experience on the Road to Damascus,and never stated any reason for the name change. Also, as I understand it Paul, never referred to himself in his epistles using his Hebrew name. Since all the epistles were written in Greek it would make sense to use a name which read by a Greek reader did not have a ludicrous meaning. It is also a fact that there is no evidence that Paul stopped using his Hebrew name i.e. Saul did not change his name to Paul, but in fact used both names depending on what company he was keeping or addressing.--Riferimento 03:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offence intended, I was honestly just trying to help. I see you have some person issues; if you'd like, I will not respond to your posts anymore. WikiMasterCreator 04:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The use of direct quotations in the now frequently reverted section but without quotation marks not only results in archaic English but emphasises the point made to G Cleveland that we really do need to raise our game and provice interpretation. If WC is right then all that needs to be done is to set out Acts in extenso. It may be necessary to repeat the fact that merely because an event has but a single ancient source does not mean that one has to ploddingly say so; nor does it mean that it can be quoted (which suggested the superiority of one translation) without reference to the difficulties which it raises by comparison with other soruces relating to the dramatis personae. I really fear that there are armed tracked vehicles on the greensward, unecessarily. Roger Arguile 16:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revised WikiMasterCreator 21:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Arguile, it appears as though you are engaged in a kind of one man Guerrilla war against fellow contributors to this project, as a kind of self appointed sentinel.

Please refrain form, "unexplained", incremental changes over time, and ("undo") reverting more widely accepted, and Wikipedia compliant contributions by other participants. You have repeatedly reverted the Arrest and Death section without prior discussion, explanation, or justification, only to be reverted back by other contributors, including myself. This activity is becoming disruptive to the progress of this project. Please review the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule.

I have responded positively to your previous complaint regarding "greatly rejoiced", and will continue to fairly and honestly consider such complaints and concerns in the future. Please remember that this is a "community" project operating under the assumption of good faith, and is open to "all" contributors in good standing. WikiMasterCreator 01:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone summarize what the editing issue is here? I see the frequency of edits going on back and forth on this article, but I haven't spent enough time following things to know what exactly the dispute is about. Can someone enlighten me?--C.Logan 01:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In summary, it's not really just an editing issue, or even a new issue, as much as it is a fairly long, ongoing, and drawn out struggle of an individual to enforce a dictatorial type of editorial control over the content and POV of this article. WikiMasterCreator 02:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roger's edits (the few I've had time to read) seem reasonable. He is not in violation of 3RR. The only people to revert his edits are WikiMasterCreator and some anonymous editors. I think WikiMasterCreator's accusations are unfounded. Peter Ballard 05:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing. Apart from WikiMasterCreator, the "other contributors" who have reverted Roger's edits are:

• 23:07, 10 July 2007 75.14.213.77
• 17:12, 8 July 2007 75.0.13.48
• 19:17, 6 July 2007 75.0.5.6
• 21:03, 4 July 2007 75.14.219.155

These are all from similar IPs, and I think are fairly obviously the same person. My question to WikiMasterCreator is this: are those edits by you? Peter Ballard 06:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needless to say, that summary didn't explain much. Surely there must be a content issue which fuels the dispute? It would seem easy to paint a certain picture, but as I'm familiar with Roger from my previous involvement here, I'm aware that he's made positive contribution and is not really anything like how you've described him here. That's not to say that he isn't in the wrong now; that is, I don't know, because I see a vague discussion which jumps back and forth without a clear picture as to what's going on.--C.Logan 07:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Ballard; how dare you attack my personal integrity, or that of other editors on Wikipedia. You have accused me of outright fraud and deception! This is completely unacceptable! Wikipedia:No personal attacks - Wikipedia:Civility

To disagree is one thing, but to turn this situation into the equivalent of a bar room brawl, where every drunk in sight joins to get a jab or two in, is pathetic, and unethical.

I wasn't addressing you to begin with, and Roger is quite capable of speaking for himself. No need to get into a mob mentality over this. Your POV is not law here, nor does your POV trump Wikipedia policy!

I stand by observations and my statement, and I strongly suggest you refrain from any further personal attacks. Wikipedia:Etiquette WikiMasterCreator 08:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So that's a "no"? It is not a crime to forget to log in. Given the choice between wondering and insinuating, or asking a direct question, I'll usually go for the latter. I'm a blunt person. Sorry if that offended you. Feel free to ask blunt questions of me.

Now on the subject of personal attacks: you started it, by accusing Roger Arguile of guerrilla warfare. And a week ago you accused an anonymous editor of vandalism, when all they had done was revert your edits. A POV disagreement is not vandalism. It seems to me that you need to learn Wikipedia culture a bit better. I do not think that Roger has violated 3RR. If he has, report him. If not, what is the problem?

You say "Roger is quite capable of speaking for himself". That is not the point. Editors are entitled (in fact should) express their opinions in disputes. I stand by my opinion that Roger's edits are reasonable and your accusations are unfounded. Peter Ballard 09:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to pile on but I agree with Peter, it does not seem to me civil to accuse Roger of vandalism, he is entitled to his opinions and I see no evidence of community consensus. In addition, I think it is a mistake to assume community consensus based solely on the edits of anonymous editors. I personally have a few problems with this article, the main problem being the article’s length, but have decided to wait until the article is stable and the present edit war between Roger and WikiMasterCreator is over. --Riferimento 20:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(After a night's sleep). WikiMasterCreator, I apologise for suggesting you were using an anonymous account. I think we should all stop attacks, and concentrate on debating the article itself. Peter Ballard 23:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Ballard, your apology is humbly accepted. WikiMasterCreator 02:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you ask me, the problem is that User:Roger Arguile rejects the historical accuracy of Acts of the Apostles, and as a result he repeatedly deletes content from them cited in the article, such as Paul's final trip to Jerusalem and arrest and trip to Rome, which is only found in Acts. Now, there is nothing wrong with disputing the historical accuracy of Acts, many scholars do in fact do just that, however it is unbalanced to just throw out Acts. It seems to me that the NPOV approach would be to describe what Acts says about Paul's final trip and to include that not all scholars accept that as historically accurate and to cite alternatative views from Wikipedia:Reliable sources, but it is not NPOV to just delete any mention of the accounts in Acts on the grounds that they are disputed, as Roger has consistently done. For example, here is a view from a highly credible source that Roger has consistently removed from the article:

The 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia article by F. Bechtel on Judaizers states:

"Paul, on the other hand, not only did not object to the observance of the Mosaic Law, as long as it did not interfere with the liberty of the Gentiles, but he conformed to its prescriptions when occasion required (1Corinthians 9:20). Thus he shortly after [the Council of Jerusalem] circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:1–3), and he was in the very act of observing the Mosaic ritual when he was arrested at Jerusalem (21:26 sqq.)."

Roger has claimed that this quote should be replaced with a quote from the more recent New Catholic Encyclopedia, however this is a red herring as the NCE is an abridged version and does not have an article on Judaizers. Roger's primary motivation is that he rejects the accuracy of Acts and he rejects that Paul in any sense observed the Mosaic Law, which is what Acts 21–28 portrays. It is pov pushing to just delete any mention of this from the article, Roger's pov should be included in the article, with references of course, but it should not exclude the other equally relevant povs, such as the Catholic Encyclopedia, which argues for the historical accuracy of Acts. Of course this is a sensitive topic, because Catholic/Orthodox and Protestants have different views of Paul, but there is no reason that this article should only represent one particular view, such as the Protestant view that Roger is pushing. If you're interested in the background of this dispute, see Old_Testament#Christian_view_of_the_Law, which I think does a good job of representing the different views. 75.0.15.227 00:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Riferimento comes in swinging! A left, a right, and then a few more jabs, but look! The champ shows no signs of weakening, the attacks appear to have had no effect on him! This is amazing folks, stay tuned, we'll be right back after a short word from our sponsors. WikiMasterCreator 02:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiMasterCreator,Wikipedia is not a nice place, and I am not a new editor, but experience has shown me that when editors continually resort to personal attacks it is not long until they are banned. Please note that I have never reverted any of your edits, focus on the article insulting me is a waste of your time.--Riferimento 03:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I hate to pile on but..." Riferimento.

In my experience, editors who resort to "piling on" will receive an appropriate response, although my response in this case was obviously "tongue in check", and was meant to be humorous, it was accurate and made a valid point. WikiMasterCreator 04:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have deliberately been as quiet and graceful as possible in dealing with Roger Arguile in all of this, but enough was enough, so I posted the section, "Guerrilla warfare", in the hope that Roger would step up and do the right thing, but unfortunately, for whatever reason, that has not happened.

Some have poked and prodded me for more details, and up until now I have been reluctant, and held back as much as possible, in the hopes to allow Roger an opportunity to do the right thing without any further exposure.

Roger has either not been around for the past few days, or he is choosing not to engage in this discussion, and if the later is the case, his silence is deafening.

In the meantime, members of this community are confused over what all is really involved in this, and angry exchanges are taking place, which is causing "strife and division" within the community itself; all as a result of one person's quest for dictatorial control over an article.

Roger has repeatedly violated Wikipedia policy, and his actions have brought harm, not just to me, but to the community as a whole. Therefore I really have no choice but to publicly expose what I had hoped I would not have had to.

In spite of what he's been doing, I have compassion for Roger, and I take no pleasure in having to confront him, and thus bring his deeds to light for all to see. If I knew of a way to discus this with him privately, I surely would have, not only for his sake, but for everyone else's sake as well.

Roger has been battling to disallow other editor's "good faith" contributions that he feels do not fit his own personal POV, not only in this article, but other articles as well. He apparently considers this activity to be some form of article "policing", and has appointed himself as the chief of police.

Having been outnumbered and overpowered by others in this quest, it appears that he has resorted to "sneaky", deceptive, Guerrilla warfare type tactics, stealthily reverting edits away, and replacing them with his own POV preferred version repeatedly. This activity may have flown under some peoples radar, but not mine. He has a history of this type of activity on other Wikipedia projects as well, and has been reprimanded for such. This behavior is totally unacceptable, and it's high time that it ends.

His craft on display:

Revert 1: Asserting and enforcing his own personal POV.
10:09, 4 July 2007 Roger Arguile (Talk | contribs) m (62,630 bytes) (revert: POV I fear.)

Revert 2: Under the deceptive guise of "collateral damage".
20:57, 4 July 2007 Roger Arguile (Talk | contribs) (61,425 bytes) (If you really want to cause that kind of collateral damage,)

Revert 3: Another deceptive revert.
16:38, 6 July 2007 Roger Arguile (Talk | contribs) (61,425 bytes) (So we can agree not to place to much reliance on the 1910 CE; and to restore to refs. under Alternative views, I trust.)

Revert 4: Reusing the guise of "collateral damage" as in "Revert 2". Adding insult to injury we also have his comment, "I shall attempt to retain new edits!!".
20:10, 7 July 2007 Roger Arguile (Talk | contribs) (61,425 bytes) (Blanket reversions cause collateral damage- I shall attempt to retain new edits!!)

Revert 5 (two stages): Using "shortening" as a "smoke screen".
16:42, 8 July 2007 Roger Arguile (Talk | contribs) (62,042 bytes) (?Arrest and death - shorter., but in need of scholarly comment)

16:47, 8 July 2007 Roger Arguile (Talk | contribs) (60,748 bytes) (?Arrest and death - further shortening)

Revert 6: Ambiguous history entry.
16:22, 10 July 2007 Roger Arguile (Talk | contribs) (60,619 bytes) (This is no better.)

Dear Roger, you have violated numerous Wikipedia policies, caused injury to others, including myself, and with this you have brought "strife and division" to this community. Please do the right thing here, be honest, own up to what you've been doing, and apologise to the community. I'm encouraged that if you do the right thing, all will be forgiven, and we can all be healed and move ahead with this project.

Wikipedia:Assume good faith

Wikipedia:Etiquette

Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers

Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

Will you do the right thing? WikiMasterCreator 08:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be more specific. Tell us what he deleted, what he inserted, and why it is POV. Peter Ballard 11:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC) In other words: I do not care about the dispute between you and Roger. But if you want to post - in full - the different versions (i.e. what you put in and what he reverts, or vice versa), then explain why you think your version is more appropriate than his, then perhaps I and others can offer a wording that is suitable. Peter Ballard 11:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, as far as this issue is directly related to me personally, I have been very specific, and provided a detailed list of the most pertinent information and history for you, please review the logs and compare the versions to see them for yourself.

While a review of the history logs and comparing versions should make this clear, I suppose the only other thing I can add is that it is the "Arrest and Death" section where these tactics have been used against me. Feel free to dig deeper and wider yourself for additional information as you deem necessary. WikiMasterCreator 11:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if I do not comment on the above. My efforts have been to elevate parts of this very long article from the level of paraphrase and make it more scholarly. I have written all that I want to about the 1910 CE. I am surprised that it is still supported. My view of Acts is less simple than that which is attributed to me. There are problems with it. If it were plain from Galatians that St. Paul was happy that Gentiles should not be circumcised but that Jewish Christians should be, no doubt the article could easily say that. That St. Paul's view seems to be different is the problem. In any case, paraphrase is not what an encyclopedia does. As for doing the right thing, that is, I fear, what I have been attempting to do.Roger Arguile 13:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgiveness requires honesty, and recognition and admittance of wrongdoing. Your choice to "duck" the issue, and obfuscate rather than answer for your actions is unacceptable.

As for your supposed effort to "elevate parts of this very long article from the level of paraphrase and make it more scholarly", it has resulted in the gutting out of essential information, caused the section to lose it's readability, and has essentially done nothing else other than bend this section back into your own POV, and is in reality nothing more than OR.

I see that you continue on in your violations as self appointed "editor-in-chief ", and your assumption of dictatorial control over this article.

You are obviously in violation of NPOV by your own statements, let alone your actions. You have yet again reverted, in flagrant violation of the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule, which now makes at least seven reverts.

Revert 7: Another deceptive revert.
13:15, 12 July 2007 Roger Arguile (Talk | contribs) (60,697 bytes) (?Arrest and death - precis)

Revert 8: New tactic.
20:34, 12 July 2007 Roger Arguile (Talk | contribs) (60,697 bytes) (I know of no reason for preferring a pious long paraphrase to a short objective account by an anonymous editor.)

Your continued violations, and apparent inability to acknowledge your wrongdoing and engage in a cogent dialog, makes resolving these issues impossible to achieve in this arena. WikiMasterCreator 20:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiMasterCreator, you are wrong. Roger is not in violation of the WP:3RR. You obviously do not understand the WP:3RR. Read it please. Peter Ballard 23:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this to my attention, I hadn't compared the dates and times closely enough. I have removed that policy violation from the list. WikiMasterCreator 19:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please can someone tell me why a lengthy pious paraphrase is deemed more satisfactory than a more objective brief account. This is why some like Grover Cleveland have commented on the lack of secondary sources. I also wonder why those who are anonymous do not declare themselves. The lack of serious reasoning prevents decent debate. Roger Arguile 20:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC) This appears to be the first contribution by the unnamed editor which is, of course, welcome though it has been known for people to use different machines and thus conceal their identity.[reply]

What's the excuse for deleting this sentence?:

Acts 21–28 is the only source for Paul's final visit to Jerusalem, where he was arrested and sent to Rome.

75.15.205.207 21:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any reason for its deletion. WikiMasterCreator 21:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WikiMasterCreator. According to Verifiability any statement that is made in the article and not backed by citations to reliable sources is liable to be deleted, although in many cases it is better to ask an editor to provide a citation first, perhaps by using the ^{[citation needed]} tag. A statement such as the one that was deleted here would need to be backed up by a citation to a secondary source. Grover cleveland 23:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to state that I to have serious concerns about the length of the Acts paraphrase and some direct quotes, which when not read in historical context could and should be interpreted as anti-Semitic.--Riferimento 21:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please detail your concerns, be more specific. Antisemitism is a very serious issue. WikiMasterCreator 21:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jew is a word that describes an ethnic group, but in the paraphrase it is periodically used as the word for the opposition. When considering the historical context of when Acts was written it is understandable (not defendable) why the writer of Acts choose to use this ethnic word for opposition to Paul and Christianity without an additional descriptor. Since we are living in the 21st century, and we are paraphrasing, I believe we can choose better words for the opposition (in all cases a simple modifier to Jew would be all that is necessary.) I do not believe that this would be controversial since edits would all be minor, but I am hesitant to make the edits now when it is probable that the edits may be in advertently reverted over other issues.--Riferimento 22:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Riferimento, you are mistaken in this case. Hopefully I can assist you in your understanding, and in the process help to educate you a bit regarding this amazingly resilient and passionate people know as the Jews.

Please understand that the term Jew, or Jewish, is not exclusive to a particular ethnic group, but also belongs to those who are of the Jewish faith. This has been noted over several thousand years of history, and is as true today as ever. The term in this context is utilized to differentiate between Jews who have rejected Jesus as their Messiah and those who have accepted Jesus as their Messiah, who later came to be known as Christians. There are Ethiopian Jews, Arab Jews, and many other ethnic groups who have Jews as part of there national and religious identity. I personally find this to be both intriguing and beautiful, all at the same time!

What further complicates this issue is the fact that those who were Jews prior to their acceptance of Jesus as their Messiah, continued to consider themselves no less a Jew; this belief continues to this day among those who have accepted Jesus as their Messiah and were Jews previously, they are often refereed to as "Messianic Jews".

Being that this topic is religious in nature, the usage of the term Jews in this context is quite appropriate. To claim that the writer's use of the term "Jews" is "not defendable", and accuse him of being anti-semitic, and therefore disqualified from citation is ludicrous; furthermore, if he "is" propagating anti-semitism, then you had better remove every single entry that utilizes the term Jews in this context from all of Wikipedia, or better yet, label the book as anti-semitic and have it banned.

The term Jews is only a "dirty" word amongst the anti-semitic, which I am in no way implying that you are! I just see that you are simply lacking information in this area, and I am herein providing you with such.

In spite of this, I would be happy to dialog with you on this, and consider alternative wording that may be more descriptive while maintaining context and not detracting considerably from the textural flow of the section.

A few suggestions are; "Jews who have rejected Jesus as their Messiah", or "Jews who have not accepted Jesus as their Messiah". Unfortunately, either way it draws out the sentence structure beyond what would likely be deemed acceptable. More suggestions are obviously needed for consideration. Another idea would be to provide an in-text link to a definition of the word in context, thus clarifying it's meaning and helping to prevent an anti-semitic interpretation, if the concern is that serious.

Please take the time to read the articles I have linked to in this comment, they will deepen and broaden your understanding of this subject considerably.

I'm looking forward to working cooperatively with you on this project, and sincerely appreciate you bringing this topic up for discussion, rather than hastily hacking away at the article. WikiMasterCreator 00:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is either a mean-spirited response, extreme arrogance, or possibly you live in a remote part of the world, where I live I have never met any adult who needed the explanation you gave. The parts that were true are grade school obvious, and parts that are false are probably the result isolation sprinkled institutionalized hate. One piece of advice if you ever meet someone of Jewish descent do not be so foolish as to use the phrase Messianic Jews because they will dismiss you as a fool. I tried not to respond to this post—but I found it to insulting not too. You obviously do not understand that how big the world is. Good-bye. --Riferimento 23:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are mistaken. WikiMasterCreator 00:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous IP editors I urge you to sign-in and create an account. I believe I speak for everyone in saying that your opinions are valued. I hope you realize that the contributions of legitimate anonymous editors are sometimes difficult to distinguish from a common vandal.--Riferimento 22:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for as I am aware, there is absolutely no rule or policy in place on Wikipedia that compels one to register in order to be considered a legitimate and respected contributor. "All" editors deserve the benefit of Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Presumption of innocence.

If you genuinely suspect that someone is "sock puppeting", than report such to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets.

There is nothing "Anonymous" about IP address preferred editors., in reality they are all the more exposed and traceable by exposing their IP address to the public.

This continual "questioning" of the integrity of every so called "Anonymous IP editor" that doesn't happen to agree with one's particular POV, only serves to offend and cast a cloud of suspicion over the head of every IP address preferred editor. This behavior is causing mistrust and tension between editors, and is quite selfish in it's motivation. WikiMasterCreator 22:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would not make the accusation of Sock-puppetry, because I do not care if they are sock-puppets. You are mistaking me for one of those childish Wiki-lawyers. My point is simply it is difficult to identify an anonymous editor. I do understand that I am not the enforcer of rules.--Riferimento 23:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Riferimento. In general there is no Wikipedia policy against edits by anonymous IPs. The only exceptions would be semi-protected pages. Grover cleveland 23:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have shortened the previous version, including the removal of some bible quoting and rephrasing. I also merged with elements from Roger's preferred version.

To make additional cuts would likely cause an irreparable loss of pertinent information.

I hope this edit can bring about an agreeable consensus. WikiMasterCreator 01:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your efforts, but in my opinion they do not really help. You have reworded a few parts, but you have not shortened it significantly. My opinion is that the 1st five paragraphs should be shortened to only 2. Specifically:

• The first para - the comment that Acts 21-28 is the only source is unnecessary (and maybe wrong).
• The second para (beginning "Upon his arrival...") is mostly OK but could be shortened. I'd also like to see re-inserted the comment that some scholars dispute that Paul would have kept the law so strictly. The Catholic Encyclopedia quote, which used to be in there, summarised well both the criticism and a response to the criticsm.
• The third para (beginning "Almost one week...") can mostly go. We don't need the quote from Acts. We don't need the detail. Suffice to say that he was arrested on suspicion of breaking the Jewish Law. Merge it into the second para.
• The 4th para (beginning "The Roman commander of Jerusalem was notified...") can be deleted entirely. It's a diversion. Without it, the net effect is the same - Paul was arrested.
• The 5th para (beginning "The Roman commander took Paul into custody...") is mostly OK.

In summary, delete the 1st and 4th paragraphs, merge the 3rd into the 2nd, condensing the 5 paragraphs down to two. That is my opinion, anyway. And, for what it's worth, the version I reverted is much closer to that. Which is why I'd rather start from that shorter version, not the longer version. Peter Ballard 02:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great suggestions for the most part in my opinion. I have attempted to address the broad spectrum of disputes, but I see that you are very interested in maximum conciseness.

Please allow me a bit of time to work on implementing some of your suggestions, and attempt to shorten this section as much as possible without causing a rift.

As for the first para, I'd prefer it to stay, as it is a "good faith" effort, although I agree that citation needs to be made if at all possible. WikiMasterCreator 02:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, I implemented some of your suggestions, performed additional shortening while attempting to be as "surgical" as possible. I also returned information on dissenting views and the Catholic Encyclopedia quote, although the added information somewhat offset much of the effect of the shortening. Thanks to your suggestions, this section has been vastly improved in my opinion.
Thanks! WikiMasterCreator 03:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken it further, pretty well doing what I said above. I've also shortened the Catholic Encyclopedia quote to the most relevant bit (I hope). I don't pretend that it's the final version or that it'll make everyone happy yet, but hopefully we're getting closer to consensus. Peter Ballard 06:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, I made a few grammar corrections, and smoothed it out a bit. WikiMasterCreator 07:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coming back to the article today and getting a fresh read on it, it was blatantly clear that the information on Paul's relationship with the law was out of place, and caused a terrible disruption to the flow of this section. I relocated it to it's proper section, "Relationship with Judaism", and provided an anchor to it. WikiMasterCreator 18:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a lot of ^{[citation needed]} and other notices where references are most urgently needed. Please don't remove them without addressing the underliying problems. I've made a start (with some great help from Riferimento) on providing sources. I hope they are helpful. Grover cleveland 03:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great work both of you, much needed! WikiMasterCreator 03:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I have explained, the references are there. The question which editors need to answer is what purpose is served by references. They are intended to direct readers to the source. If subsequent editors do not look at the source, this is their problem. Those who rely on online sourcing should be encouraged to find a library. Those who do not know enough about the subject should consider themselves readers, not editors. The contention that everything should be referenced is arguable. The material on dating is all in Ogg's essay in Peake's commentary on the bible. Please read it - it is short - before changing things. White makes his own assured contribution, but it is essential to read his claims in the light of Ogg (and others). The 'underlying problem' may be the unwillingness of editors to use paper libraries. If the unwilling lead the unwilling, all will fall into a ditch. We have to remember that the whole purpose of this exercise is to help readers. I have written this before and do so again because this article is in huge danger of falling into the hands of people who are sure that they are right but differ from each other. Roger Arguile 10:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edits to this section strike me as jarring, as they introduce a theological controversy over the circumcision of Timothy, where the rest of the related sections read like a historical account. I suggest that issues surrounding Paul's complicated relationship with the Law be handled in the section 'Relationship with Judaism' Tiki2099 12:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the information has been relocated to the proper section. WikiMasterCreator 19:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't (שאול התרסי in Hebrew), pronounced as: Shawul HaTars ? (not sure about last word) and not : St. Paul ? We all know that Saul ( שאול ) was the name of St. Paul before his name was changed to Paul, but surely there's a hebrew alternative to Paul.

My hebrew is HE-0 , but i can pronounce the letters.

Regards --Lord Anubis 14:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, the reason I assume is the article was renamed but no one bothered checking the Hebrew! Anyway, why not just delete it: I suggest that the Hebrew is not relevant, since Paul wrote in Greek. Peter Ballard 12:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented out a sentence that claimed:

A number of other sources including Clement of Rome, say that Paul survived Rome and went to "the limits of the west.". The apocryphal Acts of Paul, the apocryphal Acts of Peter, the Muratorian Fragment and First Epistle of Clement 5:6 all say Paul survived Rome and traveled west.

I checked online texts of the Acts of Paul, Acts of Peter, and the Muratorian fragment. I may well have missed something, but in none of them was there an obvious claim that Paul survived Rome. Acts of Paul even gives the gruesome detail that when he was executed under Nero milk spurted over the clothes of the executioner! As for 1 Clement, the matter is at least disputed, since Brown and others interpret the text as saying that Paul was martyred in Rome (see text in main article). I'm not sure if these texts are all saying that Paul went to Rome, left, and later came back to be executed. If this is the interpretation then we should at least make that clear. Secondary sources on the interpretation of these works would be a good thing, as always. Grover cleveland 22:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The statement appears to be a paraphrase of the Catholic Encyclopedia: St. Paul: "Finally, not to mention the later testimony of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Epiphanius, St. Jerome, St. Chrysostom, and Theodoret, the well-known text of St. Clement of Rome, the witness of the "Muratorian Canon", and of the "Acta Pauli" render probable Paul's journey to Spain."

Clement 5:7 (2nd edition of Apostolic Fathers, 1992): "having taught righteousness to the whole world and having reached the farthest limits of the West. ..." "footnote 15: farthest...West: i.e. the Straits of Gibraltar"

Metzger's Muratorian Fragment 38-39: "as well as the departure of Paul from the city [of Rome] when he journeyed to Spain. ..."

75.0.15.51 06:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With respect it is not good enough to rely on online sources. It does not lie beyond the skill of children to surf the net. One of the improvements to WP editing could be if those do not have in their libraries or have access to original or translated documents would assume good faith. On my desk is a copy of 1 Clement which includes the text cited above. Whether St. Paul returned to Rome (!) and there was martyred is a possibility. Clement may be wrong. But I suggest that editors resort to a library before raising questions which cannot be answered from the net but which can be researched by using libraries or even bookshops! It is, as editors may detect, a source of some little irritation that such a basic prerequisite to adding or questioning material is not adhered to. Roger Arguile 10:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has now received hundreds of edits in the space of a few weeks. The net effect of this is to create confusion. The return (yes) of White's theories (after an absence of some months) without any attempt to integrate them into the text is a classic example. White's view is controverted by Ogg in the text. His claim to certainties where conflicts exist merely provides the reader (who matters more than the editors) with a confusion of information. I recognise that the hard work of reading articles carefully and integrating any well-founded sources into the text requires tme and diligence; but nothing else will do. WP is not a hobby for amateur theologians and church historians but a service to communities. Inevitably, after such a flurry of contributions, the task of restoring the text to some degree of consistency has to be the work of a very few minds. I am sure that many will disagree with this. Having worked on the article some time ago in order to remove contradictions, repetitions and assertions in the past, I feel I have some reason for making this statement. Roger Arguile 10:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roger. I am utterly mystified by your comments above and by your recent edits to this article.

• If White is contradicted by Ogg, the correct way to handle this is to present both views, attributing them correctly to each scholar with references, and to let the reader decide between them. It is not the job of Wikipedia to champion one scholar's position and to suppress all opposing views. Please see WP:NPOV. Your talk about "removing contradictions" from the article suggests that you may not understand how NPOV works.
• The edits removed a lot of very useful references that used Wikipedia's approved citations templates and contained direct links to the pages referenced, replacing them with less useful references. Please explain how this improves the article.
• The attitude expressed in your comment that "WP is not a hobby for amateur theologians" comes very close to showing disdain for your fellow editors. Please respect that we all are trying to improve the article., and that you are not the owner of this article.
• The removal of a large number of citation-needed tags, in most cases without adding citations, suggests that you don't take seriously Wikipedia's core policy of verifiability. Even where you do provide references, they often do not include page numbers. Your attitude to the reader seems to be "trust me: I've read the literature". That is not the way Wikipedia works: every assertion in an article that might be challenged must be supported by citations.

I am tempted to revert your changes, but instead I'm going to ask the other editors on this page to add their views on this matter, while I cool down. Grover cleveland 17:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GC is quite right to question. I shall try to reply.

As I have indicated there are many cases when wikilinks are provided.

Secondly, I am sure the GC is right that one should not trust that any person has read the literature. However, in some cases the reference is to the bible which is in the text. Moreover, the fact that an 19th century commentary which is online but which could easily be replaced by quotations from modern commentaries which take into account modern scholarship makes one wonder why anyone who has a modern commentary on their bookshelf should choose to quote from a book which is not available in print and which is over a hundred years old.

Thirdly, the correct way to comment on Ogg is not to lay out a table which in no way relates to or argues with him from White. That is, as I stated, to create confusion. I have not championed Ogg. On the contrary if GC would read it it would be plain that Ogg coes not take up any position at all but makes the point that all of the solutions present their own partciular difficulties which is why it is so hard to make any sense of White's description of five visits without explanation. It is this which makes it difficult to elide White's views with those of anybody else.

Fourthly, my intemperate remarks about amateur theologians, which may be harsh, press the case for editors to indicate that they have read modern books rather than stuff that happens to be on line. If I have disdain, it is for those who do not quote from relevant modern literature. I think that one of the reasons why people become upset is that they have not read widely and rely on surfing rather than reading Davies or Wright or Munck or Schmittals etc. The most useful references are not the the most easily accessible books online but to the best scholarship. Regretably perhaps, but I don't think that Davies' Paul and Rabbinic Judaism is online; but if we haven't read it, I wonder if we can comment.

I am happy to find page numbers by picking the books of my shelf. I shall remedy that defect shortly (on the assumption that I don't get reverted!)

As so often I find myself dealing with generalise remarks but without specific examples. thisi a constant headache with WP. I deny that GC is right and have offered explanations at each edit. I would be grateful if she or he would instantiate her/his objections.Roger Arguile 18:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roger

With respect I don't think your comments really addressed the issues. I also don't think that they justified the edits that you made and that I referred to. I'll try to be more specific with two examples.

• Example 1: you removed the table comparing Acts with the Epistles with respect to Paul's mission to Jerusalem. Your justification for this removal is that the table is "controverted by Ogg", that it "introduces certainties where conflicts exist", and that it "confuses the reader". I will respond to all three of these points.
  • • If the table is "controverted by Ogg" then the correct response is to describe Ogg's objections, with citations, not to remove the table. You will notice that the table was specifically ascribed to White and a reference, including a link, was given to the page of White's book where the original is to be found. The section was not asserting that the table was correct: it was merely ascribing it to White.
    • You claim that the table "introduces certainties where conflicts exist". I am not sure what certainties were introduced: the possible identification of the passage from Galatians 2 with the Council of Jerusalem was specifically qualified with the word "possibly". I don't see any other certainties introduced here.
    • You claim that the table "confuses the reader". I would respond that the table is a darn sight less confusing that prose such as this, which you reinserted into the text

      Thus, while Michael White thinks that Galatians 2:1 corresponds to the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, others^[who?] think that Paul is referring here to the meeting in Acts 11 (the "famine visit") and that the letter to the Galatians was written after the men had come to Antioch demanding circumcision and before the "Council of Jerusalem," the public meeting, had taken place—or even as he was setting out for it — this interpretation would make Galatians the earliest letter to be written (it is generally dated between 48 and 55). If the meeting was private, Luke's informants might have had no knowledge of it; however, it could not have taken place fourteen years after the first encounter (or seventeen from the date of Paul's conversion), because the famine relief took place in the reign of King Herod Agrippa, according to Acts; he died in 44. That would put Paul's conversion at 27, likely before Jesus' death.

  • Example 2: You removed helpful information from references. You changed this:

White, L. Michael (2004). From Jesus to Christianity. HarperCollins. pp. 148–149. ISBN 0060526556.

to this

Michael White From Jesus to Christianity (Haper Collins 2004) ISBN 0060526556 p. 148

which misspelled "HarperCollins" as "Haper Collins", neglected to terminate the italics, removed the helpful web link, and omitted the "L." from "L. Michael White". Again, I ask you to tell me in what way this represents an improvement. And you have done this to many references.

In view of this attitude towards references, your remarks about "quoting from modern sources" rings hollow. In fact all the references I added (and which you have removed or disturbed) did quote from modern sources, with the exception of the Lightfoot translation of 1 Clement, which I don't see is out-of-date in any way.

I would love to hear what other editors of this page have to say about these examples. Cheers. Grover cleveland 19:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My misspellings I apologise for. They need correcting, but I am not clear what rings hollow. The sentence which sets out a complicated issue I don't apologise for. I am not sure who inserted McGarvey. It could be argued that the inline system is more accessible, indeed it is, but it leads to quotations from a narrow range of books and is inconsistent.

A comparison with the article on FDR (Roosevelt) would be instructive. That article has been fiercely guarded, as I know to my cost. I attempted to add material when I knew rather little save from a very few books which I have on my shelf. Another widely read editor noted that my knowledge could not be justified from the key authors. He did not suffer from my poor typing skills, which was good. I wholly disagree that White's table, without arguments from him is helpful. As for the remark about bravado, I left it in, but it lacks evidence itself. What does typify most of the references is that they are online, which makes one suspicious, perhaps unwarrantably so. But I repeat myself.Roger Arguile 19:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A total revert of much refering as well as controversial but detailed undos? I think we need a moderator. Please will and admin help Roger Arguile 19:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe Roger fully understands Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Cite sources policy. 75.15.200.189 19:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Case in point, at User_talk:Grover_cleveland#Paul_Article Roger wrote: "I can't prove that I have sources for what I have added" 75.15.200.189 19:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was an admission, wasn't it! Fast typing: I should have added 'at the moment'. It seems to me that CG's objections are fine so far as they go, but they don't go very far. Personal comments I shall ignore. Substantive improvments to asked-for sources had been begun, but are now deleted. I wonder if anyone will bother to restore any of them. If some are pleased with having caught me out, I trust that the enjoyment is full hearted. The problem of inline only sources remains, as it has for a long time in this article. It is a bad way to proceed. As before I note that the major purpose of WP guidelines is to produce the goods for readers, not to enable point scoring.

I should point out that I rewrote a good deal of the article some time ago. I did not quote sources and it is time-consuming to identify them all. I make no complaint about doing the job which should have been done before. But havng been detered by recent vandalism I await the judgement of an admin. Has anyone read Davies' book yet? Roger Arguile 20:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS "Any editor is entitled to demand a source: there is no requirement that they must have read any books on the subject in order to do so." I think that's lovely.Roger Arguile 20:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying you refuse to follow Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines? 75.15.200.189 20:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simply review his history here on Wikipedia, it's really quite obvious what the answer to your question is.

Add these to your list as well:

Wikipedia:Assume good faith

Wikipedia:Etiquette

Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers

Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

I have really been impressed by the work that everyone "besides him" has been doing here lately; lots of friendly, collaborative dialog and editing has been taking place, and Grover's excellent attention to so many of the very important "little", and not so little, often overlooked details, which are so crucial to the finish and polish of an article has been fantastic. All was going well, the article was finally progressing again, and thanks to the friendly collaborations that were taking place by the editors, the article has improved considerably, but alas, "he's" at it again!

There is one thing that I do agree with him on though, which is his statement regarding the need for a moderator, but for the sole purpose of moderating his generally unacceptable, unilateral, and dictatorial behavior here on Wikipedia.

Roger, your "latest revert is quite wrong. It misuses the notion of vandalism. This is the kind of approach which creates edit wars." Please reconsider you attitude, as well as your activities here: "join" the community, rather than fighting to control it. I suspect that you have much to offer in the way of contribution, but unfortunately it is being overshadowed and prevented by your own attitudes and actions, which are also harming other individual editors, and the community as a whole. WikiMasterCreator 00:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, I've been away for awhile. The article is looking better than ever, congratulations to everyone for their hard work and diligence, it definitely shows! I think what this article is most in need of at this time is a "citation expert"; to get those taken care of, to clean things up, especially in the later sections. I also think a good picture in the "Arrest and Death" section would be an important addition. Other than that, and a few little tweaks here and there, I think the article will be ready for re-submission for review as a Wikipedia:Good articles candidate. What do you think? WikiMasterCreator 06:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the "later sections" were written by User:Roger Arguile. It would be nice if he would document his claims or kindly delete them if they are merely Original Research. 64.149.83.133 19:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What most people don't realize is that Saul is responsible for the crucifixion of Christ based upon the deceitful testimony of one of his intelligence assets that Jesus was a false messiah. This can only be proven by the application of Common Sense. Whoever gave the order for Jesus to be Crucified first had to be the most prominent Jew of the day, Saul (because Jesus is Messiah) and, because he was crucified by the Romans, this person must of necessity have held Roman Citizenship, again Saul. This simple triangulation of facts leads to the inescapable truth, though in some sense circumstantial, that Saul of Tarsus, Paul, Saint, gave the order for Jesus of Nazareth to be killed. That he was decieved to do this is also inescapable because, according to his letters, which all churches accept as Holy Scripture, Paul was zealous of the Law and wanted to do nothing but please God, do His will, and prepare for the arrival of Messiah. It seems that there was a vast conspiracy to give Saul a bad name. Make him do that which he was most averse to doing, 'Kill the Wrong Guy!' And how hard would that be? Saul was born killing people at an unprecidented rate. Anyone who can persecute The Church must of necessity be the most prolific killer of all time. Setting up Paul is easy, especially for one of his spies. Escaping him, after the fact, would be impossible. Only a fool would try to give Saul of Tarsus a bad name.

Virtue Lord Purple 14:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Virtue[reply]

Um... would you care to elaborate on your religious affiliation/perspective?--C.Logan 23:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gladly. I was raised Roman Catholic in Montclair NJ, was born in 1968 to an African father and an English mother. My mother raised me, a black boy in the midst of the civil rights movement, as an English boy, as some kind of experiment. How could I look scornfully upon this? A black boy with an aristocratic British accent!! Please raise me as an English Boy!!! I have a unique perspective on Race in America, and the World. After many years in the Catholic Embrace I have found deeper truths to the meaning of The Eucharist, as an example. I have found that one does not need a trained Priest to bless the Bread and Wine, but simply a sincere heart and grateful Spirit. With these, one can celebrate in peace and alone if necessary as I have had to do. As I write this, I am currently a prisoner in the Psych ward at Colombia Presbiterian Hospital in NY and will suffer whatever is necessary for the name of my blessed savior Jesus. As time is a constraint right now I will leave this discussion and look forward to converse in the future. May you find and let the peace of The Lord settle upon your heart. With Sincerety, 156.111.149.96 19:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC) Virtue Lord Purple[reply]

Well, I hope that Christ blesses you, and helps you in this time in rehabilitation.

Now, where exactly did you come about this perspective on Paul? Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you claiming that Paul had a direct hand in the Crucifixion? This is something I've never heard, and I just have to tell you that we have a policy about the inclusion of information: it has to be reliably sourced. We can't turn Wikipedia into a forum for our own ideas and opinions, and therefore we discourage what's called original research. If you could elaborate on the above, in a straightforward manner (it's currently more of a discourse, which can be confusing to the uninitiated), it would be much easier to work with this information. Most importantly, the information needs to be sourced. That is to say, if any particular book led you to this conclusion, and it is written by a scholar, we may be able to include the information.

Keep one thing in mind when considering your sources: no synthesis. Any conclusions that you may have come to on your own from assessing multiple sources is unacceptable; there must be a source cited which reaches the same conclusion. If you have any questions, ask away.--C.Logan 01:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the 'Sources' that are relevant to this discussion are held secretly by The Vatican. We know that they hold many Secrets and many Sources. Regardless of whether or not what I say is true, The Vatican has much to explain; like The Inquisition; their role in the Slave Trade; their role in The Holocaust; their role in the current events in Africa and so on and so on. Who exactly gave the order for Christ to be crucified has been obscured by those who carried it out, for remember, Pilate Washed His Hands!! This is very important to remember. If Jesus had not knocked Paul off of his horse, Paul would definetly have wiped out The Church!! People forget just how powerful Paul really was. I could go on forever about how wealthy Paul was in the material sense, to say nothing about how wealthy he was spiritually. An example of this is that he was The Tentmaker! What does that mean? Do you really think that he supported himself sewing tents?!! That is preposterous!! The wealth of The Church was not made with a needle!!! To be a tentmaker is like being the owner of an Oasis. Everybody gets along in the Oasis, because if you raise your voice in anger in the Oasis, even at the man who just murdered your mother, you will immediately be kicked out, and you will die!!! Everybody gets along with the Tentmaker, because if he kicks you out, even if you are a King, all of your servents will die, because they will not have tents, your army will die, for the same reasons, and you will die! Remember you can not carry your house on your camel's back and you need to get from point A to point B. It is an enduring mystery, who killed Christ. Perhaps it is time; time for Joseph Ratzinger to open the Archives of The Vatican and let every mystery be revealed. Until this happens, I will forever remain a prisoner. May Christ enter into the lives of all those who wish sincerely to be at peace and to know a Sacred Love. Virtue Lord Purple 156.111.149.96 19:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the introduction, I've altered the passage on authorship to make it more objective (not assuming authorship of Paul).Topologyrob 03:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I attempted to remove what I view as a nightmarish fantasy from this article. That being Paul's martyrdom. How do I go about doing so? A source written 600 years later can surely not be reliable? Even one written 200-300 years later seems feeble to me. Clement??? Where does Philippians mention guards? Sounds to me like Paul was having a nice time in Rome, hobnobbing with Caesar's household. Those other views are neither clear nor reasonable to me.

I'm left with Luke. Yes, Paul is under guard, but he lives in his own rented house (sounds very unRoman to let an enemy-of-the-state live in comfort by the way). Now why does Luke say so much about Paul speaking to the Jews (who aren't even angered by Paul's words), but nothing about his treatment at the hands of the Romans??? Two years Paul spends in peace and serenity as far as I can tell from Luke. And then? Martyrdom? Luke doesn't bother telling us??? Come On!!! Where's Luke's publisher?

Will someone please help me rid the (wiki)world of this nightmarish fantasy-view of the world. Let's replace it with REALITY. You know, the kinda stuff people are likely to encounter in their day-to-day real lives.

StephanNaro 22:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV. Let's remember that just because you don't happen to believe or understand the entirety of the situation concerning Paul's martyrdom, you aren't warranted to change the article to reflect your opinion. Other than that, I'm not really sure where you're trying to go with the above. If you have a source which gives an alternate account, then feel free to bring it to the table.--C.Logan 02:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have empathy for the fact that certain people living AFTER the time of Paul had a desire for certainty as to his manner of death. I too like very much to KNOW the truth, but am slowly discovering that God does not always give us certainty.

The only worthwhile source referenced, Luke, leaves the question open. May I ask that we show some humility and follow his example?--StephanNaro 10:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luke is NOT a worthwhile source for the purposes of Wikipedia. Wikipedia uses secondary sources (like scholars), not primary sources (like the Bible). See WP:PSTS. The secondary sources are pretty well in agreement that Paul was marytred. You are welcome to disagree and form your own theories (i.e. perform WP:Original Research), but Wikipedia is not the place for that. Peter Ballard 12:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, Peter Ballard. On a side note, I've read that Luke's silence on the issue was due to the book of Acts being written prior to Paul's martyrdom.--C.Logan 17:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had a suspicion WP wasn't the best place to accomplish my objectives, but have my reasons for proceeding a while longer. I appreciate your taking the effort to give an explicit reason as I tend to duck when I see books thrown at me, so they don't normally hit me like that did. I'd further like to point out that my assuming the Bible to be an acceptable source was based on the fact that it already was used in the article: "According to Acts...". Shall I now expect that to be cleaned out? Oh, I'd also like to thank you for confirming my secondary suspicion, that I am somehow headed for Original Research. StephanNaro 17:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure whether your comment is directed at myself or at Peter Ballard, or which parts within it are addressed to either of us. However, it's worth noting that the use of a primary source as a reference is only acceptable in showing what the primary source itself says. It's very tricky to determine when and when not it is acceptable to use such sources. In this particular example, it is only reasonable to state that Acts of the Apostles says nothing on the matter of Paul's death, because that is indisputable. As I've already noted, however, such a note should be included with several secondary sources which relate the lack of information on the subject to be a sign of the time of authorship. In contrast, using your own interpretation of "what the verses say" to formulate your own exegesis is not allowed here. That said, any primary source citations in the article should be individually assessed to note whether or not they violate this rule. Another possibility, which I believe has been discussed here before, is the reservation of a specific section to a plain presentation of the Acts narrative. I'm unsure how this meshes with policy, but as long as it is noted that the purpose of the section is only to show what is said within Biblical sources, and specifically within acts, I for one see less of a problem with this possibility. Then again, I'm not as well-versed in policy as many others are. (By the way, I ran into a few edit conflicts, so this paragraph may be out-dated.)--C.Logan 19:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done gentlemen! When I made my modest edit, I didn't expect the effect to last long, but I am impressed with the speed and efficiency displayed in neatly turning me into a trivial and meaningless corner off the battlefield. It's what I get for bothering with an insignificant detail that Paul himself doubtlessly cares nought about. Thankfully, I still prefer the sleepdeath of Paul. It somehow smacks more to me personally of the type of "Hope, Faith and Love" Paul wrote of, than do the relics of Vitalian. Though I am absolutely aware of the possibilities provided by a martyrdom. If I chose to join battle again, I'll chose my battlefield more carefully, and come prepared! - StephanNaro 21:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that biblical references can get messy sometimes inside articles. One editor has just placed them as references which I first wanted to do when I first saw them. However, it has been done "historically" in biblically based articles. It makes the references easier to check. Also, it enourages editors to insert references and reject entries that someone has invented (OR). Thoughts? Student7 17:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]