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

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

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Here is the passage with a false citation:

but was just as quick to claim agreement with it on the nature and content of the "gospel of Christ."

The problem is it quoted Galatians 1:23-24, which says:

But only, they kept hearing, "He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy." And they were glorifying God because of me.

While I agree with the passage in question, this citation just doesn't work. I'm sure you can find a better example, this one isn't quite right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glorthac (talk • contribs) 01:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not unhappy with the article name "Saint Paul", why was it renamed without consensus? Peter Ballard (talk) 04:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. The decision to rename the article to this, when this wasn't even one of the two names we voted on, is controversial, to say the least. --SgtSchumann (talk) 04:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, while I am happy with the outcome, the route here was very poor. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a short close justification at the top of the discussion. These discussions aren't votes. The conclusion from reading the discussion was that both names had problems and neither name would generate much happiness, so the best thing to do was to find a name that would generate less unhappiness, and this one [for saints and people at least] meets WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and avoids both, was suggested in the poll and was suggested by Paul's perennial side-kick Saint Peter. One can do this kind of thing or one can go poll after poll closing each poll that doesn't get consensus and leave a bunch of people unhappy their arguments aren't addressed. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that it seems to be SOP to retain the article where it is if there is not consensus for a particular move. Why move an article to X when there is not consensus to move it there? For comparison, see Pope Clement I and Julian the Apostate; these have been suggested for moves several times, and there is a fair degree of discontent with where they are, but since there is no consensus to move, they've remained where they are. I'm not sure it is really my place to tell you how to do your job, not being an admin myself, but I think that persons who dislike this outcome could with ease use this as a pretext to raise cain [sic] about the outcome. Having said that, "very poor" was a tad strong, and I do honestly agree with the end result. Thank you for being bold. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deacon-- you say "both names had problems". But I don't really see this in the discussion. The way I read it, the only real problem with "Paul of Tarsus" was that it wasn't "Paul the Apostle", i.e. it wasn't especially controversial, it just wasn't some people's first choice of title. But, by and large, I doesn't seem that "Saint Paul" was anyone's first choice either (other than, of course, yours). --Alecmconroy (talk) 06:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least two problems with your rationale. First, when people fail to reach consensus, what usually happens is that the status quo is maintained -- that is, nothing changes -- so this is what people's expectations were. When you do something strongly contrary to people's expectation, you shouldn't be surprised if people don't receive it well. Second, regardless of whether "these discussions aren't votes", that is how (some) people were treating it for the purpose of making their arguments. I for one did not see the point of debating whether St. Paul should be the title, when the discussion was about choosing between two other alternatives. If I could have known that someone was silently trying to determine whether to implement a third choice, I would have argued against St. Paul more strongly than I did Paul of Tarsus. The name of this article should be reverted to Paul the Apostle. --SgtSchumann (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I too am not overwhelmingly unhappy with the outcome that Deacon has imposed. I think the assertion that Christianity bestows the title of "Saint" on Paul of Tarsus is certainly far less controversial and far more verifiable than the assertion that Paul of Tarsus was one of the Apostles.

but-- procedurally, this seems quite odd. "Saint Paul", although it got a few mentions in discussion, received less endorsements than either "Paul of Tarsus" or "Paul the Apostle". Unilaterally moving it to "Saint Paul" isn't a bad solution for a King Solomon trying to "split the difference"... but it wasn't consensus. Bad form, old boy. --Alecmconroy (talk) 06:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So are users happy with the outcome, are do you want it moved back to Paul of Tarsus?-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy. Carl.bunderson (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unhappy -- both because of the way the change was made (without consensus) and because of the result. --SgtSchumann (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being upset that he is called Saint is illogical. That is how the Christians call him and the rest of the world calls him by that name. Using that name does not imply you accept the christians' worldview or religion. Similarly you could call an indian yogi Baba-Whatever and it wouldn't mean that you accept the hindu religion. You use the phonetic value of the name not it's meaning.--Xenovatis (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a consistency in using terms like Saint. I notice that the article about Jesus is not called "Jesus Christ". In the Bible, the only primary source, he is merely called Paul. Whether or not he is a saint is not verifiable. Muslims consider him a heretic and never call him a saint. Scholars normally call him Paul of Tarsus. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind "Saint Christopher" because there is no historical Christopher (sometimes described as a 10-foot tall dog-headed soldier). But I don't like "Saint Paul." But there really was a Paul of Tarsus, whom some take to be a saint. I say use the historical term for historical people: Paul of Tarsus. Leadwind (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice too that in general the term "Saint" is used as part of the name for Catholic saints canonized before the Reformation. Most Coptic saints for example do not have "Saint" in their articles' names, and neither does "Joan of Arc". It seems that whether or not they are called saints depends on a Protestant POV. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find it objectionable too that this move took place without any consensus. Sure, there is nothing wrong with Saint Paul, but neither is there a problem with Paul of Tarsus. Both are perfectly arguable titles. So the default move would have been no move. This isn't ultimately a big deal, but precisely because of that there was no reason for stepping on people's toes over it. --dab (𒁳) 14:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although it was a topic I was fairly ambivalent about, I think the decision to change the name of the article to something besides Saint Paul was correct. I am sure that I am just repeating arguments by others but:

1. Sainthood is not a universally accepted idea even within Christianity. Use of Saint slants the article towards Christian denominations that incorporate sainthood as part of their beliefs. 2. The title of saint certainly wouldn't have been contemporary with Paul and as such it is misleading to call him Saint Paul. 3. The name Saint Paul, would not necessarily be familiar to most people who might be well aware of who Paul was. Davefoc (talk) 02:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know this topic has been discussed and "resolved" but it not. There is now a double redirect that goes from Paul of Tarsus to Paul the Apostle then to Sait Paul. Since the Paul of Tarsus page is uneditable there needs to be some administraive involvement. This is a unacceptable redirect and needs to be resolved asap.--Tainter (talk) 04:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the opening section:

Thirteen epistles in the New Testament are traditionally attributed to Paul, three of them are disputed as such.

From the Authorship section

Thirteen epistles in the New Testament are traditionally attributed to Paul, of which seven are considered absolutely genuine, three are decidedly not from Paul, and the other three are in dispute.[9]

The WP article, Authorship of the Pauline epistles suggests even more controversy about the authorship.

I think something like this for the sentence in the opening section might be more appropriate:

Thirteen epistles in the New Testament are traditionally attributed to Paul, however the authorship of many of them is disputed. See the Authorship section of this article and the separate article, Authorship of the Pauline epistles, for a more detailed discussion.

As a general note this is one of the better written and documented of the various new testament WP articles. Thank you.
Davefoc (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What the lead says now is sourced. It might be good to add that 7 are decidedly not genuine, but that is all that is really needed. The self-referential "See the Authorship section of this article and the separate article, Authorship of the Pauline epistles, for a more detailed discussion." is really bad style; its already wikilinked right there. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response Carl.bunderson. I accept your criticism of the bad-styleness of my suggestion although it is a style that I like. I still quibble with the sentence as it now stands.

Thirteen epistles in the New Testament are traditionally attributed to Paul, of which seven are considered absolutely genuine, three are decidedly not from Paul, and the other three are in dispute.

"seven are considered absolutely genuine" by who? Some people consider thirteen absolutely genuine. Some people consider only four absolutely genuine. Some people consider none absolutely genuine. Personally, I don't think evidence of almost all early new testament history is strong enough to measure up to absolute. If you mean seven are considered genuine by most new testament scholars that is what the sentence should say. I absolutely believe the word absolute is inappropriate.--Davefoc (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that as of right now this article is not consistent with itself on the subject of authorship. The lead section currently cites the "7 unquestionably authentic, 3 unquestionably inauthentic, 3 in question" format, but the Authorship section reads in a way that implies 7 unquestioned, 6 questioned, with no attempt to separate the 3 that may be considered "definitely not by Paul" and the 3 that are merely questionable. Staypuft9 (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of the six disputed letters, you could say that the Pastorals are the most disputed, Ephesians next, Colossians next, and 2 Thessalonians least of all. But we already have Authorship of the Pauline epistles to go into grotty detail. For everyone who says the pastorals are "unquestionably inauthentic" there is another person who says they are genuine, demonstrating that authenticity has, in fact, been questioned. I'll fix the text to be better in this regard. Tb (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone cut the lead way down. A good lead is capable of standing alone as a concise summary of the topic. Please see WP:Lead. Leadwind (talk) 07:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Elaine Pagels, professor of religion at Princeton and an authority on Gnosticism, argues that Paul was a Gnostic [91] and that the anti-Gnostic Pastoral Epistles were "pseudo-Pauline" forgeries written to rebut this. " Huh? In what sense does she say he was a Gnostic? Like John and Thomas are "Gnostic"? Certainly not like Valentius would be Gnostic. Is she onto something or is she a nut? What's her evidence? Without context, this is just a random factoid. Leadwind (talk) 07:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PatGallacher made a few cleanup type edits and duplicated part of the text of the article in a new section Influence on Christianity. This section is almost an exact duplicate of text in an earlier section of the article. I suspect this was an unintentional error on his part and that he may have meant to delete the earlier text.--Davefoc (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pat apparently moved this material out of the lead and put it into a new section. I restored the lead. A fine solution here would be to expand the Influence section so that the duplicate material in the lead winds up being a summary. Leadwind (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And to make room for expanded, cited, scholarly information, we should edit the article down rather severely, eliminating all the unsourced interpretation about what Paul meant, the Holy Spirit, justification, etc.

This article leans heavily on Acts for Paul's biography, but the account of Acts is widely challenged. It was written from a perspective of reconciliation between Pauline Christians and their opponents, so portrays Paul as a law-abiding Jew and omits his dispute with Peter. Acts schematizes Paul's travels and takes liberties with his speeches. The primary source for historical information about Paul's life is the material found in his seven letters generally thought to be authentic. These letters contain very little information about Paul's past, and even Acts leaves important parts of Paul's life undocumented. This information comes form Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, which leans slightly pro-Christian and pro-tradition.

Given that Acts is not regarded as a reliable source, all the material in here based on it should go. It's not only primary source material, it's actually misleading. Leadwind (talk) 22:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Acts in and of itself is not a "Reliable Source" (in terms of WP:RS) for the life of Paul. The content of Acts may be relevant at times, but it shouldn't be presented as straightforward facts about Paul. --Alecmconroy (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but go further. Saying "According to Acts..." doesn't help. It's not enough just to let the reader know that these aren't plain facts. Unless a reliable source references Acts, this article shouldn't. Leadwind (talk) 02:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not get carried away. The Book of Acts is part of the Christian Bible. Obviously there are lots of reliable sources that reference Acts. To exclude Acts from this article is POV pushing. Sure there are sources that contradict the version found in Acts, so cite them, in addition to keeping the ones that reference Acts. 75.15.205.101 (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's impossible to sensibly sort out this conversation without looking at specific examples from the article and addressing them. Tb (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The table from White cited at: Saint Paul#Paul.27s visits to Jerusalem in Acts and the epistles gives an excellent comparison of Acts versus the Pauline Epistles. Note that both sources (Acts and the Pauline Epistles) are listed, not just one or the other. That's called NPOV. 68.123.64.114 (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The table works because it's cited to a reliable source (White) rather than to Acts. Acts itself isn't a reliable source and shouldn't be cited by itself as evidence for information about Paul. Leadwind (talk) 13:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's impossible to sensibly sort out this conversation without looking at specific examples from the article and addressing them. Tb (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twice now an editor has deleted the following text:

• "The delay in the coming of the end has been interpreted in different ways: on one view, Paul of Tarsus and the early Christians were simply mistaken; on another, that of Austin Farrer, his presentation of a single ending can be interpreted to accommodate the fact that endings occur all the time and that, subjectively, we all stand an instant from judgment. The delay is also accounted for by God's patience ((2 Thessalonians 2:6)."; and
• "As for the form of the end, the Catholic Encyclopedia presents two distinct ideas. First, universal judgment, with neither the good nor the wicked omitted (Romans 14:10–12), nor even the angels (1 Corinthians 6:3). Second, and more controversially, judgment will be according to faith and works, mentioned concerning sinners (2 Corinthians 11:15), the just (2 Timothy 4:14), and men in general (Romans 2:6–9)."

Each deletion has been accompanied only by edit logs that assert the insufficiency of the sources. The former is asserting that there have been different interpretations for the delay of the parousia (is this controversial?). And, it identifies two interpretations which have often been made. One such interpretation is that Paul and others were simply mistaken. It is certainly the case that there have been important people who have asserted exactly this; do we need examples? If so, a {{fact}} tag would be appropriate, tho I think the point is noncontroversial. Is anyone unfamiliar with the existence of people who have said exactly that? The second explanation for the delay of the parousia which is described is the one exemplified by Austin Farrer; the description is a fair version of his views. So, there are three claims made

• that different explanations have been given for the delay of the parousia;
• that one explanation which has sometimes been given is that Paul and others were in error;
• that another explanation which has sometimes been given, eg, by Farrer, is that a proper understanding of the parousia shows that there is no delay.

And, for the second deleted paragraph, the article simply cites the Catholic Encyclopedia's descriptions for various interpretations--all of them from letters ascribed to Paul--of eschatology. Of course, the article here must not take any particular point of view about which eschatological theories are correct, or even genuinely Pauline, but it is perfectly fair to identify the Catholic Encyclopedia's interpretation as such, and its importance in the history of the twentieth century is rather large.

So, what is the assertion which the deleter thinks the article is making here which is not adequately backed up by sources? Tb (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted this material because no contemporary sources have been offered to suggest that this material is relevant. The Farrer reference needs a citation. Shouldn't be hard to find one. The CE one is just wrong, citing a book that's not by Paul as if it were. Catholic scholarship has come a long way in 100 years, and the CE on Pauline epistles can't be taken as an RS. Leadwind (talk) 00:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While it may be your POV that 2 Timothy is not by Paul, the view is simply one among many. Indeed, it is perhaps the most common view among scholars, but it is not universal even there, as a quick look at Brown's Introduction to the New Testament will show--and Brown completely agrees with you about that authorship question. But he is careful to allow that his view is not the only respectable one, even if it is the majority one. Regardless, the history of the interpretation of Paul is a perfectly relevant topic, and the CE is summarizing quite well a very long held view--and one which is only marginally connected with the reference to 2 Timothy. (But if it is really your only objection here that the reference includes mention of 2 Timothy, we can surely simply delete that part, right?) How Christians interpreted Paul for centuries is certainly relevant! Though--of course--it is not appropriate for the article to simply present those interpretations as fact, but it is certainly appropriate to describe them as what they are: the interpretations held for a long time and which have been of considerable importance in the history of ideas. The CE is a perfectly reliable source for what the dominant strands of Catholic scholarship have been from the late counter-reformation to the early twentieth century, which is a period of no small importance for the topic. Tb (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The view that 2 Tim isn't by Paul is not simply one view among many. It's the standard, contemporary, scholarly view. It's the textbook viewpoint. If you think the CE is useful for explaining what people used to think, then refer to it in historical context. "A hundred years ago, Paul's letter were thought to refer to the world to come thus..." Leadwind (talk) 00:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, that would be a useful improvement to the encyclopedia. Since we have both now hit the WP:3RR limit, I'll do no more today (and I hope you'll respect the limit too). We can surely find a consensus text that would satisfy us both. This is much more likely to happen with discussion than with simple deletion of text and the avoidance of discussion. So, help me understand. Your recent addition says, "Paul believed that Jesus would return within his lifetime." If we add to that the observation that apparently Jesus did not return in Paul's lifetime, I assume we do not need a citation for the observation that some think that Paul and the early Christians were simply mistaken. I'm baffled now about why you thought that needed citation, since you've yourself just advanced that view in the article's own voice. As for 2 Timothy, I don't care about the reference; but mentioning 2 Timothy is not some kind of license to delete an entire paragraph! How about the following then to express the point that last paragraph is trying to get at: Paul's understanding of the form the end would take is difficult to identify from his letters. He spoke of a universal judgment including both the good and the wicked (Romans); of judgment which would include the angels (1 Cor.), of judgment according to faith and works (2 Cor, Rom). In addition, the author of 2 Timothy, writing in Paul's name, spoke of judgment of the just according to their works (2 Tim). Something like that seems fair. Perhaps there should be a footnote to the CE, then, just so that the origin of the citations is properly cited to avoid plagiarism. Tb (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have repeatedly insisted that the Catholic Encyclopedia is not a satisfactory source because of its age. This is not at all a criterion; it is unquestionably a satisfactory source by the WP:RS guidelines. That said, it is also an old source, and often the state of scholarship has changed, in which case we should certainly prefer more recent sources. But that does not make the CE a bad source, or an unacceptable source, it simply means that if a more recent source is available which contradicts it, then serious consideration ought to be given to preferring the more recent source's view. But to argue that a more recent source contradicts it, the more recent source must be identified--it is not enough to simply say "outdated" and then insist that the CE cannot be cited for anything because it is "historical" and not "contemporary". That said, of course we should not assert that 2 Tim. is by Paul--but the relevant paragraph isn't about that at all. So please, if you wish to object to something particular, do so--and we can improve the article. (I totally agree that the article is in many ways in dismal shape, but I don't think simply deleting stuff will make it better. Replacing it with better stuff sure can.) So if you have a better more recent source about the various things Paul says about the "last judgment", by all means, we could sure improve on the brief and cursory bit from the CE; but simply dropping it entirely makes the article worse, not better. The CE may not be the best, source, but it is certainly a good enough source for material in the article; and if you have a better source to undergird a more "contemporary" feel to the section, by all means, that would be an excellent improvement. Right now, the section attempts to convey at the very least that the interpretation of Paul's opinions about the parousia is a controversial topic with many opinions about, and that is an important thing we should continue to convey. Tb (talk) 05:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed the disputed text myself-- I agree it's problematic. Without getting into the reliable source can of worms, consider this-- why would we include contemporary eschatological beliefs on the biography of someone who died 1900+ years ago?

Basically, the dispute text tried to address the issue of -- given that the world did not end in the first century, what do modern christians now believe about the end of the world. This is a topic for the "Christian eschatology" article.

And looking over that article, you can see, it's VERY complex. The responses to the fact that the world did not end in the first century are very very numerous. There is _no_ way we can do this topic justice in the middle of this article. Instead, let's just send people over to Christian eschatology --Alecmconroy (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to agree that it could be much improved. But I think improvement would involve more discussion of Paul's eschatology, not less. The CE is giving voice to some serious problems in understanding Paul's eschatology; the issue identified is precisely what Paul does say. What about my proposed text above ? Tb (talk) 17:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Alec. I've just looked up all the verses that the CE is saying refer to judgment, and they are off-hand remarks, some made in passing, from when Paul is talking about other things, not about judgment day. I'd like to see a contemporary source back up the claim that these verses say much about Paul and the world to come. Leadwind (talk) 23:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TB-- I think the difficulties you're having with Paul's eschatology stem from the fact that it is a very giant can of worms that you're trying to open in the space of a few sentences. With religious subject matter, it's very difficult to achieve both NPOV _and_ brevity.

So, taking your proposed paragraph for example-- two giant complications jump out at me on a first reading. One issue is that the situation with 2 Tim is very complex. We certainly cannot say it was composed by Paul, and I'm skeptical that NPOV would permit us to say that it wasn't either! So any texts that rely on 2 Tim are going to be complicated to discuss.

Additionally, the second red flag jumps out is the reference to "faith and works", which contradicts the Sola fide point of view. So, again, we have to tread lightly on THAT issue too, because I think many people will, rightly or wrongly, dispute that Paul insists works is part of judgment.

I think you'll have more luck if you find somewhere (perhaps at one of the aforementioned articles) where there's space to really unfold the whole topic properly, with all the balances and diversity-of-viewpoint that NPOV would require.

And then, off the top of my head, you could try to find some very very neutral tertiary source (e.g. Britannica?) and see if they have a summary of the things that can said about Paul's Eschatology that are nearly undisputed. If I were making the list, I would say that Paul did have a future eschatology, that he expected the kingdom of heaven to be a discrete event that was very likely to occur in his lifetime, and that he did believe in the resurrection of the dead. BUT-- that's my list I just came up with off the top of my head, and I'm not a reliable source, so we can't use me. But you get the idea-- find a barebones list from a MEGA neutral source (CE won't work, since it's Catholic POV), add that list to the main article, and then have a knock-out, drag out discussion in some subpartcle.

Hope this helps! This is a great subject for an article and there's a lot of room for expansion on these early christian history topics. --Alecmconroy (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this a separate article? Doesn't all the contents belong in here? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Paul & Judaism/JewishChristians/"Judaizers" is a wide enough topic that an entire sub-article could be made on just that subject. However there's not a good meshing between the two articles at present, and seem largely to be written without much thought or inter-reference given to each other. --Alecmconroy (talk) 09:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supposedly the Catholic church has his remains. They were carbon dated and found to be from the correct period.

Does anyone know if the skull is intact? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cousert (talk • contribs) 04:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

they have only small bone fragments. not a single intact bone, let alone a skull. I have compiled a "burial" section surrounding this, but it is probably too detailed and misplaced in the "life" section. It needs to be reconciled with the section on "church traditions". --dab (𒁳) 13:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I have created the tomb of Saint Paul section redirect and moved most of the material to the basilica article. --dab (𒁳) 14:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090628/sc_nm/us_italy_saint_1 and many other news leads talk about a recently revealed painting of Paul. It should go into the article, but I can't find the right place to put it. Kdammers (talk) 23:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term has no meaning as there were no schisms at the time, it was even before the Great Schism or even before all the minor Schisms. SP was simply a Christian. It is extremely offensive to label him with one particular denomination as he would need to be labelled with ALL by the exact same reasoning.--Xenovatis (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saint categories are based on recognition today rather than how the saint would have described themselves. The main Early Christian saints categories are non-denominational - Paul is in Category:1st-century Christian martyr saints and others- but the Palestinean and Anatolian ones need to distinguish between saints recognised by Catholic & Orthodox (although these nationalities do not have equivalent Orthodox national categories). The WP categorization of saints is complex & far from perfect, but edits like this, disrupting the existing structure, are unhelpful. Please do not revert again. Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You still have not addressed my main point. If he is termed a Catholic saint then why not Maronite, Armenian, ANglican, Protestant etc as well. I find the categorization as catholic unhelpful and would urge you not to re-instate it again, certainly not prior to a concensus being achieved in talk.--Xenovatis (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John is right. He is recognized as a saint by the Catholic Church, and thus he does belong in the categories you are removing. Being in a RCC category does not prejudice the article's inclusion in any other appropriate category. If there are saint categories for ecclesial communions and other rites, then by all means add them. But by no means may you remove these categories. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enought, I may add more tags in time. Thanks.--Xenovatis (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, have a good day. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have a problem with the category, and category scheme, as a whole, not the inclusion of this article particularly. This should be taken up with the wikiprojects, or at CfD. Johnbod (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is inappropriate to include the speculations of some scholars on Paul's inclusion of women when other scholars disagree -- both on the concept itself and on the evidence used to support that conclusion. I believe that section shows bias in selecting sources and in not presenting both views.--Blue Tie (talk) 04:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are establishing a precedence here that can be very awkward when we must deal with St Luke, St John, St Mark, and others. In some cases they aren't know by where they are from. What do we do, then? Seems to me they all are best know because they were Apostles. I propose one more move for Paul of Tarsus to Apostle Paul.Afaprof01 (talk) 06:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC) :: Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the commandment of God our Saviour, and of Christ Jesus our hope: Afaprof01 (talk) 06:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Author-deleted. Poorly written (sorry). My unmade point was that although he was not one of the Twelve, he claims divine appointment to the office of apostle, and few dispute or criticize his decision. But I surely did not write that.Afaprof01 (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons have been given for avoiding "holy" honorifics. Luke and Mark were Evangelists, not Apostles. Although Paul is sometimes called "the apostle Paul", he is not generally called "Apostle Paul"; Christians tend to call him either "Saint Paul" or just "Paul". Later Christian writers are often known by their place of origin (Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine of Hippo). Myopic Bookworm (talk) 11:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Afaprof01, please let me assure you that the choice of titles is absolutely NOT based on any particular religious view held by wikipedia editors. Speaking for myself and hopefully for all who supported the change, the change in titles is absolutely not meant to be interpreted as disparaging Paul, his life, or the faith of the many people who revere him.

Wikipedia's guidelines and policies for titles say that honorifics are to be avoided in the actual article titles themselves (although of course, the article text itself will still mention the existence of honorific titles). Hence the honorific "Saint Paul the Apostle" is located at Paul of Tarsus, the honorific "The Prophet Muhammad Peace Be Upon Him" is located simply at Muhammad, and the honorific "His Holiness Tenzin Gyatso the Fourteenth Dali Lama" is located simply at 14th Dalai Lama. We have a similar guideline for other honorifics (e.g. royalty).

Take home point: this isn't about Paul at all, it's just routine following of Wikipedia title policy. Wikipedia is absolutely not trying to make any claim that Paul isn't an apostle or that Paul isn't a saint-- after all, both of those titles are still right there, bolded, in the very first line of article text. And if you go to the articles entitled Paul the apostle and Saint Paul, you'll see they all work and bring you back to the article on Paul.

Hope this assuages all, most, or at least some, of your concerns. --Alecmconroy (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alecmconroy: I tremendously appreciate your very detailed, considerate response to my inquiry. I totally agree with everything you wrote. I/we are presently struggling with what to rename the Saint Peter article. We first renamed it to "Apostle Peter" or Peter the Apostle. A good suggestion has come in for "Simon Peter." And...I never thought anyone was disparaging Paul or Christian faith. I apologize sincerely for leaving the wrong impression. (That's what I get for doing things after midnight my time.)

I am in synch with all renaming objectives you've pointed out. I suspect that a lot of people doing a Wiki search for Paul may not think about or maybe know about Tarsus. Similarly, I suspect (in the Peter article I'm working on) that perhaps many Wiki searchers will not think or know about "Simon" as part of his name. YET, I 100% agree with avoiding honorifics. In my myopia I failed to consider "apostle" as an honorific.

What advice have you about a renaming algorithm for those saint articles still in need of a move/rename? Needing attention are '''Saint''' Andrew, John the '''Apostle''', Philip the '''Apostle''', Bartholomew the '''Apostle''', Matthew/Mark/Luke/John the '''Apostle''', Thomas the '''Apostle''', Jude the '''Apostle''' for Thaddeus, Simon the '''Zealot''', and '''Saint''' Matthias. You've obviously given all of this a great deal of study and really sound thought. Do you conclude that the above "apostle," "evangelist," and "zealot" must be changed in those titles? And if so, I'll appreciate any suggestions you may have.

The word "Saint" is still listed in bold in the Lede for several articles whose title has been changed. According to WP:BoldTitle, "Saint" needs to be also changed there to repeat the new title. THANKS! Afaprof01 (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the main page on paragraph named: "The World to come", you will find: "...he therefore encouraged marriage as a means of happiness. (Citation Needed).

I am surprised that no one has taken up this.

Surely the opposite is true. He advised people not to marry as the time, as we know it, was running out!

MacOfJesus (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]