Saints

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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article had a peer review that has been [[Wikipedia:Peer review/Template:Namespace prefix of associated pagePaul of Tarsus|archived]]. It may contain ideas that you can use to improve this article.

[[Category:Old requests for peer review|Template:Namespace prefix of associated pagePaul the Apostle]]

"the anonymous collection of wisdom sayings known as the Q Document that was in circulation in late 1st-century Galilee."

The phrasing of this sentence suggests the the Q document has been proven to exist.

This article is a joke. Specifically it is a POV nightmare with the opinions of extreme minority groups presented as prominently as the opinions of 2000 years and billions of Christians. 71.198.169.9 16:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why nothing discussing the possiblity of Paul being an epileptic? Some scholarly research into this has been undertaken, and it does help explain the road-to-Damascus incident. If I can find some decent citations, I might consider adding them. Does anyone else think this a relevant addition to the article?

That would be interesting if you could find an appropriate place for it.

It would be nice to have a map of the Meditteranean showing Paul's travels. Pdxgoat 19:29, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This is wrong: "Paul expressed a number of social views in his writings that were very much grounded in the mores of his contemporary society, which include his restrictive views on sexual morality, condemnation of homosexuality (1 Cor. 6:9f; Eph. 5:21-33" contemporary pagan mores were tolerant to promiscuity, homosexuality, and the like. In fact, you may read about it in Romans chapter 1: "he [God] gave them up to their own lusts", etc specifically about homosexuality. His judgments about morality were based on the Old Testament law and, presumably, on the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Watcher

--Mlo 06:20, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)mlo Actually, the Roman Empire was not very tolerant towards women at all. He was very much a man of his times.

You seem to be confusing modern notions of "tolerance" with Roman and/or Christian morality. Paul was not trying to be tolerant/intolerant to anybody, he was expounding the religion's view on marriage, sexual morality etc. It is a view that at times roughly coincided with the one common in society, e.g. his take on marriage duties of husband and wife are similar to those commonly accepted at the time. In other matters, Paul's instructions are radically different from society's attitude, in as much as Romans were tolerant of deviancy and promiscuity, and the Christians and Paul himself obviously were not. Watcher 10:30, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Paul was quite a radical egalitarian for his time. He abhorred class distinctions and preached against any difference in status based upon wealth. Consider also what he says in Galatians 3:27-8: "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Misogynist attributions, for example, tend to come from the Timothy Epistles, which evidence suggests were written 30+ years after Paul's martyrdom.[1] Other commentators have attributed an anti-female statement in Corinthians to later interpolations added after Paul [2] Thus, what we have in Paul is someone who espoused theretofore unheard of arguments that all men (and women) are created equal; all backgrounds, all classes, all sexes are equal before God. --Rehnquist 17:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you folks can say you are right or wrong. Both arguements can find justification in his writings. An in depth analysis of his way of thinking would be necessary. For instance, I would say that paul's egalitarian views can only be taken as such by someone for whom the maxim "all men are created equal" holds any meaning. Rather, paul seems to think that we are not created equal but can be made equal by proper belief. On the other hand, he still sets out certain roles for men and women, such as dress and hair length, etc. These do indeed conform to the norms of his contemporary society being indications of sexual morality (or lack of it). Get the point? These questions need more context provided in terms of paul's distinct way of thinking.

Two questions: 1. Why no references to show where the information in the article came from, only the alternative view section gives a reference? 2. Why such a short talk page for such a long article? ChessPlayer 02:34, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from the history, this article is a homegrown product of Wikipedia. References are sprinkled here and there, supporting various points. Some major portions bear the marks of Stephen Carlson, a particularly good Wikipedian, writing mostly on religious topics, and an expert on NT textual criticism. For the last question, in my experience talk pages grow longer only when an article is in trouble, especially when some individual is pushing his personal version of "neutrality". Mkmcconn — 06:06, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem an odd state of affairs that anybody could do that, as others could simply direct such a person to Neutral Point of View, and quote to them where what they say in their private interpretation is in conflict with what is said on the NPOV page, using direct quotes if need be. No, I don't think that explains the shortness of the talk page at all. In my experience, what can quickly expand the size of a talk page, is when instead of keeping to a discussion of the article and related issues, people start slipping in personal attacks, veiled or otherwise. ChessPlayer 07:45, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you say this here because you suspect me of a veiled criticism, I am innocent! I am honestly reporting my experience and opinion that, a busy edit history, producing a long article and a short talk, is the sign of vigorous wikihealth - well-commented and supported edits don't need a lot of chat to straighten them out. Mkmcconn — 19:40, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

His conversion may have been famous enough that he felt no need to describe it explicitly. - This statement is a common apologetic, a standard theological speculation by those who are trying to build a case to explain why Paul doesn't describe his conversion. As it argues a POV, the article is wrong in stating it like this. Correct would be citing a representative theologian who believes it, and attributing the view to him. The article is taking on a biased tone by incorporating statements like this into a smoothly flowing text. ChessPlayer 06:35, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

We only have Paul's word about his "conversion", anyone else who told such an outlandish story wwould be locked away for his own good. Paul was no more than an opportunist who furthered his interpretations of the Mission of Jesus at the instigation of the Roman Empire. Why? To divide and conquer. --Numerousfalx 15:45, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Yeah, right. They DID lock Paul away for his 'story' (preaching the Gospel), several times, mistreating Paul for years, and finally be-heading him in Rome. But he never changed his story. Doesn't sound like an 'opportunist' to me.

129.24.93.219 20:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC) (Nov.) And, Paul DID talk about his conversion- in the Letter to the Galatians.[reply]

• comment on this statement: "In addition, an adequate explanation for Paul's conversion is lacking in the absence of his vision."-- I wonder if the explanation that rather than converting he simply hijacked the existing faith would be considered 'an adequate explaination.' ~~amyanda2000

It has been stated 'one cannot start the article with "saint" as that is something that is conferred on Saul/Paul later'. While this may be true, articles at Encyclopædia Britannica, Britannica Concise Encyclopedia, and Encyclopedia.com all are titled 'Paul, Saint'. Our article is 'Paul of Tarsus', I presume because Saint Paul is a disambiguation page. Pædia 14:31, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)

He knew Latin, he just thought of himself as a small part of what the movement of christainity was then in his time. He probably thought that his past acts, when he infact persecuted those that believed the Christainity doct, that he was not worthy of such a call upon his life.

Doesn't paulus mean "small" in Latin? Why did he take this name? --Error 01:28, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) Did he even know Latin?

He was a Roman citizen. But I don't know what that would actually mean. --Error 23:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In Acts 21:37 he speaks to the Roman officer --- in Greek, then speaks to the crowd in the Hebrew Language (generally assumed to be Aramaic). He wrote his Letter to the Romans ... in Greek.

The question is why dump the name Saul? Too Jewish?

The word σαῦλος (Saulus) in Greek meant "waddling" or "prancing" and was often used to describe how a prostitute walks. [3] This was not the kind of a name that a self-respecting first-century man wanted to call himself. Think of calling a car Nova in Spanish-speaking countries (no va = "does not go"). Stephen C. Carlson 04:06, 2005 August 10 (UTC)

Actually, that Nova thing is a common business myth which has nevertheless made it's way into business texts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Paul_and_Thecla#Paul

So Saulus became Paulus, because the name was ridiculous in Greek. That makes sense, but then why call himself "Small"?

Besides, if he was Jewish why did he become a Roman citizen? If Romans were enslaving the known world, and if they routinely sodomitized their slaves, can we expect Saulus to have been sodomitized? Why did he become a traitor?

Jesus was rather forgiving with prostitues and burglars. Saulus was rather not, if we consider his "letters". Saulus even killed christians, then he became christian, but the apostolates were rather unconvinced because he was a murderer. Later christians were murderers also, but 1,000 years later. Is this a coincidence? I think Saulus views, rather confrontational, are the source of the problem. I think Saulus views are a big step in the opposite direction of the teachings of Jesus, because Saulus's language is rather offensive. While Jesus forgives and accept people as they are, only asking for a "change of heart", Saulus prefers to use the force.

The only book of the bible that was written in Greek was the apocalipse, which states that the antichrist has "a number that represents his name", being 666, in Latin that is DCLXVI. By the same time, the head of the christianity is called "Representative of the Son of God", in Latin VICarIVs fILII DeI. The letters that represent numbers are: VICIVILIIDI, sorted is DCLVVIIIIII. I think Juan, who wrote the apocalipse, was trying to warn us about Saulus.

I removed recently added statements to the effect that the doctrines of Original Sin and the divinity of Christ were originated by Paul. At the very least, these statements go too far. The most that might be said in that direction is that Paul's writings are the earliest that clearly express these doctrines, which is not at all the same thing. -Rholton 16:54, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

O.K... but then who did originate the beliefs? And could I re-insert something about Christ's divinity? (Sorry about the edit, by the way -- after rereading it, I realised it sounded like Paul originated sin itself, or something. Brutannica 21:22, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. What I am mostly concerned with is the idea that Paul himself introduced these doctrines into the early Christian community. I realize that many people (including scholars) take this view, but it is far from universally accepted. I have no problem with this line of thought being included in the article, but not as simple facts. Ideally, it would be good to supply a reference to a published work to support this view (as well as any opposing view). As I have time over the next couple days, I'll see if I can find references for both views. Keep on editing! This article can use lots of work, and anything you can do to improve it is great. -Rholton 05:07, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

O.K. I have no reliable source (at least not one I would feel comfortable quoting) but I'll put something in with disputes mentioned.

Those statements are back in again. They're really troubling (at least with out counter point to be Wiki like)...and i would suggest a pretty major re-write. Not because the article is *bad* per se, but because it's incomplete. There are some views that support such supercessionist views, but there are a lot that don't. My training is more in the latter, but i do have grounding in the readings that do view Paul as an "ex-Jew" and author of the doctrine of Original Sin. I'll try some stuff up there over the next week or so. bwurtmann

Actually, I think the article's very good so far. I think the theology bit could use some fleshing out (he provided a good portion of Christian thought, didn't he?) but I'm very impressed with the bio portion. One thing it could use, as Pdxgoat mentioned, is a map of Paul's meanderings. Brutannica 21:30, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why isn't much in here about Paul's anti-semitic views? Didn't he accused the Jews in the Letters to the Thessalonians ? Didn't he write that they should be punished for their sins ? --217.235.119.173 20:01, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Let's see... It says, "Then He will punish those who do not know God and who do not obey the Good News about our Lord Jesus Christ. Those people will be punished with a destruction that continues forever. They will be kept away from the Lord and from His great power. This will happen on the day when the Lord Jesus comes to receive glory because of his holy people." (2 Thessalonians 1: 8-10) That doesn't seem to single out the Jews specifically, or suggest Christians do it now. Brutannica 22:59, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It would be odd to accuse Paul of anti-Semitism, seeing how he was born & raised a Jew, & probably considered himself one to his death. (Although many Jews from his time on would eagerly disown him.) His views towards his fellow co-religionists are far more complex than any simple label would suffice to explain. -- llywrch 00:56, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Was the Apostle Paul really a 'Hellenized Jew'? In what way? Just because he may have read the Greek classics, does it make him 'Hellenized'? How many other 'orthodox' Jewish rabbis have read some or many of the Greek classics? Let's try to be consistent. 129.24.93.219 23:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC) (Nov.)[reply]

Paul is is exactly consistant with the definition and the historic use of the term "Hellinized Jew"DaveHM 20:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From section "His social views that became part of Christian doctrine" Second paragraph, second sentence:

"Some of his other dictums included advice to his contemporaries not to marry in the expectation of the near return of Jesus and the Apocalypse; permission to marry, or at least to stay married to, an unbeliever..."

Is this a typo? Not to marry in the expectation of the near return of Jesus and the Apocalypse? Not to convert?

Just wondering,

Confused passer-by

Not a typo, but definitely a matter of contention, and the article should probably be revised for NPOV.

First of all, one Christian position is that the entire doctrine of Christianity preexisted Paul, although most people (probably even most believers) reject that. Under this view, though, Paul's personal views never became a part of Christianity ... these things were all God-inspired.

Second, as for "Not to marry in the expectation of the near return of Jesus and the Apocalypse" the relevent text is I Corinthians 7, which should probably be read in its entirety. Here Paul advises against marriage, while repeatedly saying (over and over again, to make sure there is no confusion) that he is giving his own opinion, and not a command of the Lord. (These passages are, in fact, often lifted from their context to make a case that Paul was always giving his own opinion and never a command of the Lord, but Paul contradicts that view in I Corinthians 14:37.) Thus, he wanted it to be perfectly clear that marriage was allowed but might not be advisable. He says this is "in view of the present distress," and interpretation of that phrase is the key. Some believe the first century Christians expected an imminent return of Christ, so that is where the interpretation in the article comes from. Others believe this refers to persecution of Jews and Christians related to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. and also growing strong again toward the end of the century. Still others believe this refers to the distress of persecution and living a "not of this world" Christian life and refers to all time.

As for what you interpreted as "Not to convert?" I think you've misinterpreted what the article said, and I think the article has possibly misinterpreted what Paul said. The relevant passage is again in I Corinthians 7: verses 12 through 16. Here the commandment given is that if a Christian is married to an unbeliever they are not to divorce that unbeliever (though if the unbeliever insists on a divorce the Christian is to allow it). Many interpret this as permission to marry outside of the church, but that is certainly not explicitly stated in the text, and many believe other passages of Paul teach against marriage to unbelievers. The only thing that can be stated definitively is that this passage applies at least to those who were married before their conversion whose spouses have not converted, and possibly to those who have married outside the church since becoming Christians.

Permission (commandment, actually; the article should perhaps be reworded) to stay married to an unbeliever does not at all amount to saying the unbeliever should not convert or that conversion of that spouse is unimportant. In fact, conversion of the spouse is one reason the Christian is commanded to stay married to the unbeliever; see verse 16, where the question is asked, "How do you know whether or not you will be able to save (by conversion) your spouse?" Jdavidb 15:23, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• I think that one thing that has been missed here is that Paul was warning his fellow believers against being 'unequally yoked', by marrying an unbeliever, and thus having her or him pull against the Christian believer in another direction. "And I would spare you", Paul explained. 129.24.93.219 23:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC) (Nov.)[reply]

In the "Life" section, I've added some quotes from Acts 15 and Galatians 2 about the Apostolic Council, as this part of the article was comparing the points of view expressed in these sources and I did not feel that this was being done from a NPOV. What was there beforehand said that the two accounts "vary considerably" and stated a couple of things that weren't in the original sources to justify this (Paul saying he'd attended on his own initiative, and reference to excommunication).

I've not had much practice at writing from a NPOV myself though, so feel free to comment / edit / flame.

I also added a bit after that about Paul's disagreement with Barnabus, which was quite an important personal event in his life that led to where he went on missionary journeys and had not been covered at all in the article.

Apologies for not doing the edits from a user account (I was 82.152.147.32) - I've sorted one out now. I didn't know about edit summaries at the time (newbie missed the box, d'oh) so more apologies for not including one.

Ua heth 13:01, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

...cleanup is needed.

Not to nitpick, just to point it out.

4If anyone would like to be charitable and use this as a lesson for a wikipedian who doesn't know how to format articles I would be greatly appreciative.

These two years were added by an anon [4] with no reference. I'm removing them as I can't find any source to back them up. anthony 警告 00:15, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What is this stuff about the new perspective on Paul being Noahide? That is complete rubbish! I have not heard anyone proficient in this area espouse this viewpoint. Where is the comment on N T Wright and others who are the proper representatives of the New perspective on Paul?

Noahide? Que! This is obviously a POV point, trying to make Paul into a religious pluralist. Please, some neutrality!

I will try and run some stuff up to replace this material. --Totalthinker 02:22, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What if his beliefs were more akin to noahide and or samaratan viewpoints? And who are you to say what the proper noahide persepctives are? Being loud and incrredulous does not make an argument or discussion. I read NT Wright and I have my own feelings about his personal beliefs.--Numerousfalx 18:30, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The determination of the Council of Jerusalem was Noahide. According to Acts, Paul accepted this determination. Paul in his letters doesn't mention the determination directly, however his teachings afterward reflect them.

I have been on the ebionite website and they state that they believe that Paul was a fraud and an opportunist who usurped the teachings of Jesus and that the anti-christ in revelations was Paul in his position as an agent of Rome. In both the religious and imperial sense. What say you?--Tomtom 18:53, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Check out John Dominic Crossan's new book In Search of Paul for a recent, more conciliatory view. --Blainster 20:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I added the statement "some" to the claim that begins "The Ebionites and some Restorationists argue that Paul was a Roman who tried to convert to Judaism" In fact I am not aware of any Restorationist claims of this sort, and I would appreciate it if someone could look into this. It may well be true of some (Restorationism as defined on the page linked too is a very broad movement encompassing all sorts of different religous sects, from Mormons to Adventists, but it is certainly not true of all. 146.82.111.234 20:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC) (That was me, apparently I had not signed in at the time) Demmeis[reply]

Along these lines I would suggest S.G.F. Brandon's 1966(?) book The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth in which he suggests, as decade before Maccoby, that Paul grafted Greek mystery religion and Elusinian concepts onto Christianity. Brandon has a fascinating way of reading the Bible and clearly shows how Paul was furious and frightened by word coming to him from the original Christians to stop warping the teachings of Jesus.

This article should include a section on the New Perspective on Paul: http://www.thepaulpage.com

I believe recent computer analysis of word frequency and patterns in the epistles has come to the conclusion that he only wrote the first 4 epistles, regarded as his major ones, plus probably Hebrews. The others are all by different authors, except the the 2 to Thessalonians are by the same author, as are the 2 to Timothy. This view at least deserves a mention. A very small number of theologians did already hold this view. PatGallacher

Response: I am somewhat familiar with this, but not enough to write about it in a cogent fashion. I would recommend that this information be included in Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles. I will be inserting a reference to this article in the appropriate section shortly.--Midnite Critic 05:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I changed the above is because I had read: List_of_common_misspellings_in_English.

I'll revert your changes for now. If you have a problem with that, please let me know first. Thanks, Ian Cairns 23:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would have preferred 'supercede' myself, but every dictionary I can find confirms that 'supersede' is the correct modern spelling... Supersede is derived from supersedere, to sit above... Though in Med L. supercedere is also found, that would be to go above or to yield... closer to the mod. sense of supersede... Influenced by cede, precede, procedure, etc. Codex Sinaiticus 23:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For qn article like this, is is paramount that we keep all terminology as NPOV as possible.

User Dougdelt has just now added as section with "new" information on the subject of whether or not Paul announced the abrogation of Mosaic Law. This is a highly controversial point; indeed, most of the article as it stood beforehand already addressed this very difficult point in as factual and NPOV a manner as possible, without appearing to endorse either POV in this controversy.

The new section starts out:

"The weight of the evidence proves Paul announced the abrogation of the Law of Moses."

It then goes on to say "Some Christians claim... others claim... " and then continues with language like : "However, neither view fits the corpus of Paul's works"...

I'm sorry, but this new section does not strike me as being written from a neutral point of view. If it were at all true or correct that the "weight of the evidence" proved one thing or another, ther would be no controversy. The very fact that it is unclear and subject to varying interpretation, is precise;y why we have such a controversy. This is an encyclopaedia, not a soap-box, or a place to impose one POV over another. Any sections that address this controversy (as most of the existing sections of this very lengthy article already do, from every conceivable angle) need to be written from a neutral point of view, and not summarily declare that one side or the other is "correct". Especially on theological matters. Therefore, if this new pov content is not re-written from a more neutral standpoint, it will have to be deleted. Codex Sinaiticus 12:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right. So I took it out. There might be some good contributions in there, but someone needs to rewrite them to make them NPOV. Jdavidb 13:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To study theology without faith turns it into history in the worst cast or at best philosophy, it is neither. I think this articual is overly historical and not greatly theological. To create NPOV in a subject area which presurposes a POV (i.e. Paul is writing to Christians) misses the point. Comments please - i'm open to Wiki-education - but let me guess, "there's an articual i need to read...[.html]" (you). Lastly to complete the circual and thereby, paradox, which we postmoderns are so proud of living amongst, i surpose that NPOV is infact a POV itself! Now i'm ready to read that articual...--Indigrthym 11:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is an image of a statue of Saint Paul at Image:StMarysAylesburyDetail2.jpg that I took yesterday: the statue is one of two on the south door of St Marys Church in Aylesbury. I don't know whether you would want this included in the article or not: personally I think the article could do with another image but don't know where is best to place it. -- Francs 13:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great, good pic! But can you (or someone) zoom in on the statue a little bit? This can easily be done by "cropping out" the surrounding photo. As it is, unless we make the photo quite huge, it will be hard to make out any detail of the representation. I'd crop it myself, but don't trust myself to do it properly. Cheers, Codex Sinaiticus 13:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What about this one: Image:StMarysAylesburyDetail5.jpg. -- Francs 16:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

St Paul was listed under "Deaths" on both the articles 64 AD and 67 AD. I'm assuming the latter is correct, as that's the one that's on this article, so I've removed him from 64. sjorford #£@%&$?! 15:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since St. Paul redirects to Saint Paul (disambiguation) and since that article already has many St. Paul's on it, does it seem proper to merge St. Paul's (disambiguation) and redirect to there? Zhatt 17:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea - I may do it myself shortly. sjorford #£@%&$?! 12:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask for references about the identification of Paul's brother, Rufus, with Pudens? If these references are those in Rufus Pudens Pudentianna article, could we remove that part from Paul's early life?--Panairjdde 15:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

venerated as a saint ... some Lutheran sects ... Does anyone have references for this? also veneration should be a link, i'll fix it. Srl 19:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Surprised me, too. Possibly someone was trying to state that Paul is often called "St. Paul" among Lutherans, without implying that he, or other "saints," are "venerated" by Lutherans in the way that they are among Catholics and the Orthodox. --Midnite Critic 19:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Many Lutheran churches are named St. Paul, but I think that is veneration as in honor and not as in veneration. This came up in discussion on w:mt:Talk:Pawlu_minn_Tarsu. I think this should be clarified, but I don't have the refs to do so. Srl 20:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How does faith balance with NPOV? I would love to add to this articual and have been reading and rereading it for a while always intending some additions, but not been brave enough, for fear of overt POV. I like the lastest edition but feel it lacks mention of the Holy Spirit.

My studies have been evangelical / penticostal / charasmatic in nature through the University of Wales, which obviousely colours (I'm English btw) my POV. Much of the infomation I would like to add would probably sound pneumatologically bias. It seems, however, that for Paul to be a Chirstian was to be "in Christ" and to be "in Christ" is most closely defined as being a dwelling (temple) of the Holy Spirit. Indeed the majority of H.S. doctrine comes from the Pauline corpus of whom / which Luke was probably a pupil that prephered the dramatic to the dogmatic. In short, Can I add some charismata and pneumatica? (I hate transliterating!)and is it posible to do so with out sounding like a "fire-preaching Texan"? --Indigrthym 11:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NO. Please refrain from the Be bold dogma. Keep your infernal pneumatology to yourself, thank you very much. User:USER

sorry for the typeo. Any serious objections? Do the doctrines of the Holy Spirit originate with Paul?--Indigrthym 00:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Paul asserted that Jesus was crucified, suffered under Pontius Pilated, died and was buried, and arose from the dead on the third day, 'according to the Scriptures'. At that time, the Gospel accounts had not yet been written; therefore, Paul necessarily must have asserted that the details of Jesus' life, death and resurrection had been predicted in the Hebrew Scriptures, the Old Testament. Paul and the other early Jewish-Christians therefore proclaimed Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, according to traditional Messianic Judaism. The teachings of Paul and his ancestors the Jews were therefore 'in harmony'. If anyone 'modified' the teachings of Moses the Prophet, it was Jesus; who as Messiah and being God Incarnate, He had the authority to do so. 129.24.93.219 17:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I comepletely agree. this is a very problematic paragraph:

Due to his body of work and his undoubted influence on the development of Christianity, many modern scholars have considered Paul to be the founder of Christianity, who modified Jesus' teachings and added important new doctrines. However, this view remains controversial. Many Christian scholars say that no teachings were modified, and assert that Paul taught in complete harmony with Jesus. Some Christians, however, particularly those who embrace dispensationalism, believe that Jesus' teachings are for the Jews – especially those teachings found in Matthew – and that Christians necessarily have a different belief system since Christianity, according to this perspective, only arose as a result of the rejection by the Jews of their Messiah.

the language seems extremely stiltd and emphasizes an extreme minority view among both Christian theologans, Christian churches, and most secularly oriented theological scholars.

There seems to be something else going one here. Some of this revisionism on Paul needs to be reworded and certainly does not belong so high in the article. At the very least the emphais should be reversed so as to present the majority theological view ahead of marginal extremes.

"expanded" is more the correct term as the great majority of theologans do not see any disharmony.

• It is conceivable that the Jewish Kingdom of Heaven would have been ushered in immediately at that point, and all of mankind's history since then would have been abolished and avoided, including the Jewish people's long wanderings, persecution and Diaspora, and also the Holocaust could have been avoided. 129.24.93.219 17:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Baloney, it is not conceivable in the least, in fact, it is quite inconceivable.

Jesus was appointed to die for the sins of man. It was predestined by God to happen that way, at that predetermined time and that specific way for God's intended reason. Silly question to ask.--ARNO 02:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)10 march 2006.[reply]

No mention in the article of the theory that Paul was Gay, eg as described by Bishop Spong in the book, Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism: A Bishop Rethinks the Meaning of Scripture ISBN 0060675187, which explains Paul's Thorn in the flesh, as well as his attitudes to women, as well as his conflicted attitude to Jewish law. User:USER

I'm against mentioning it, simply because there are zillions of theories about Paul which are not worth mentioning here. Bishop Spong's position is hardly mainstream, and seems to be as much for shock value in the current debate over homosexuality in the Anglican church as it is serious scholarship. Demmeis 20:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Spong's hypothesis is mere supposition. It is one thing to neutrally discuss different views of facts, it is quite another to recount every unsupported theory. The subject might be appropriate to a bio on Spong himself, but not here. Including such material would necessarily require setting forth the substantial evidence that refutes Spong's suppositions. For one, there is a consensus today that the "misogynist" statements about women attributed to Paul were most likely not wirtten by Paul, but originated after his death. --Rehnquist 23:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that its mere supposition. But it is a supposition that I have often seen made - its a popular view even if it isnt very well supported by academics or devout Christians, and so notable enough for it to be appropriate to mention in the article. The view tends to assert that Timothy was Paul's "boyfriend", though there is "debate" as to whether the supposed "romatic relationship" was sexual or celibate. Clinkophonist 11:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added a new section to Judaism and Christianity on "love." It is just a stub of a section, hopefully others will add more about the Jewish notion. But I know that my characterization of the Christian notion is at best wildly incomplete. Perhaps among the contributors to this page there are some who could go over it and add whatever additional material, detail, nuance, explanation they think necessary. I am very concerned about not misrepresenting, or doing justice to, the Christian point of view. I also added a long quote from Maimonides to the section on Heaven and Hell; in fact, I did a rewrite a week or two ago. I know the Jewish position is well-represented but again I am concerned that in the process the Christian view may appear misrepresented or at least underrepresented. So, I'd be grateful if someone checked and made sure the Christian view(s) are accurately and sufficiently represented. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 20:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "A. Victor Gardatta" and why should I care about his opinion?--Midnite Critic 20:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t find any information on A. Victor Garaffa apart from his articles at comparative-religion.com, nor can I find any references to Garaffa's credentials or publications. Therefore, I'm removing the "Paul as userper" section as original research. (Note: The section in question was added by 212.50.170.253 (talk · contribs) on June 24, 2004 [5]. —Wayward ^Talk 08:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

title of "Apostle" post-conversion. See Galatians. -- GUÐSÞEGN

Note: Actually "of Tarsus" was never used as a surname, but a posthumous appellation, used almost font> – UTEX – 23:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC) (I'll count myself the first vote in favor)[reply]

I noticed that during Peer review there was a request 1) You have cited and quoted from the Bible, so it would be good to note what version you are using and add it as a reference I also have the same request. Gnangarra

Image:Paul of Tarsus.jpg this image has an obsolete copyright tag, not enough to prevent GA but still needs to be addressed. Gnangarra

Image:PaulT.jpg this image claims PD-OLD but there no source information available. Gnangarra

(c. 3 – c. 67) is these dates can we assume 3AD to 67 AD or is that 3BC to 67AD Gnangarra

The lead makes a good stand alone article, it should be a summary see WP:Lead. second para says Paul is venerated as a Saint by all the churches that honor them, including those of the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglican traditions, and some Lutheran sects using Paul is venerated as a saint by all the churches that honor them. is sufficient to convey the same message within a summary. This sentence about names in honour should be in a section near the end of the article not in the summary He is the "patron saint" of Malta, the City of London and has also had several cities named in his honor, including São Paulo, Brazil, and Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA. Gnangarra

Also in reading the use of Some believe and Some commentators read as Weasel words use cites to avoid this. When presenting Alternative views suggest that consistance in format be developed and use. Maybe use a format of one source and then state the alternatives seperately. ie

• Marriage
  • Alternative view 1
  • Alternative view 2

Gnangarra 14:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About 49, after fourteen years of preaching can we assume 49AD. All dates and numbers need to be clearly dates or numbers Gnangarra

I appologise but based on just what I have read and investigated there is sufficient cause to fail GA. Over the next couple of days I'll continue to work through the complete article and post suggestions here.

I suggest that this article be considered for a complete split into two seperate articles

• • Paul of Tarsus - focus this on his life and writings
  • Theological teachings of Paul of Tarsus - focus this on the use of his works.

That's not to suggest that both are mutually exclusive Gnangarra 13:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the more i read the greater I see a need for Daughter articles as well. Gnangarra

I'm reluctant to offer further critisms, I have highlighted the first instance of issues only, all have repetitions. On the wikiproject for Saints I have suggested that this article needs a collaborative effort as the burden of a major copy edit shouldn't rest with one or two individuals.

I am willing review this article again at anytime in the future please leave a request on my talk page. Gnangarra 14:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Augustus never had the title "Son of God", rather the proper translation is "son of a god". This is based on the Roman pagan understanding of the gods and their philosophical relationship with one another, and with the metaphysical organizational superstructure of the universe. "Son of God" would have been very out of character for Augustus' political maneuvering, would make little sense, and does not accurately portray his title which rather labeled him as son of the divine Julius Caesar (who was a god, not God).

I fiexed this Lostcaesar 23:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Greek and Latin there isn't a difference between the titles; "Son of God" and "Son of a god" were written identically. Clinkophonist 22:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are written the same, but certainly the sense is different. That was the point of my comments. English articles ought to properly render the correct sense of Augustus's title, which is "son of a god".Lostcaesar 22:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Original Research

I removed this line: "Paul taught that women were not to cut their hair (1 Cor 11)". 1 Cor 11 says "In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman." Nothing about hair. 1 Cor 6 says a woman ought to cover her head if it is a disgrace for her to have all her hair cut / shaved off. 1 Cor 15 says a woman ought to have long hair (not the same as "not cutting" one's hair - my wife has long hair and I still pay for the hair cuts, so I know). Lostcaesar 13:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If women were to never cut their hair then it would get really rather long. You don't really see early christian texts writing about women with hair so long it touched their feet. Clinkophonist 22:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The manual of style says specifically that AD/CE is only required if there is a range of dates that starts in BC/BCE. We don't say "AD 2006". And the wikipedia guideline clearly states this. THis is not the place to change that. Perhaps this needs to be discussed on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) so that the whole cite changes, instead of changing this one article. However, as it stands, this article needs to be formatted acordingly. --Andrew c 00:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Interpretation, a discussion on this very matter.--151.47.119.2 00:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's allowed in cases like AD 9; I wouldn't have known Paul wasn't born in 9 BC. This is the consensus and the very example used in the ongoing discussion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where in MoS is written that it is allowed in cases like AD 9. Where is this consensus, and why did it not change the MoS accordingly?--151.47.119.2 00:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the guideline nowhere states that AD is "allowed" in this case. Furthermore, the date is wikilinked for anyone who is confused. The reason I want to remove any unnecessary or redundent ADs or CEs is to avoid edit wars concerning which dating format should be used. Ideally, I would like to see the dating format as a user preference that each individual could change how it displays on their computer. But in lieu of that, getting rid of these redundent ADs and CEs works for me.--Andrew c 00:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what "consensus" ??? is talking about over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). The wording on the actual page hasn't changed. These edits are completely fine under the current guidelines. I understand that this issue IS being actively discussed on talk, but as far as I can tell, the guideline has NOT been changed (and there is not resolution to halt edits of this sort while this is being discussed). As I said, removing the redundent ADs and CEs avoids edit wars over AD vs. CE, or worse the "compromise" found at Jesus of AD/CE that just slipped into this article. Does anyone think seeing 9 is any worse than seeing 9 AD/CE?? I understand that some users, such as ???, does not like the guidelines, but it is disrespectful to revert another editors good faith edits that are simply following the current guideline that specifically states you should use plain numbers for years in the Anno Domini/Common Era. I personally do not feel that this is an article to article, but instead a site-wide style issue. Therefore, I'd recommend letting discussion finnish over on wikipedia talk, to see if the policy can be changed to allow these usages.--Andrew c 21:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Over the past few days my watchlist has been flooded with this edit war between AD/CE and “[[]]”. Why is this minor difference such a passionate issue? I would understand if it were between AD and CE (I have a rather passionate position concerning this myself), but the current argument just strikes me as overly trivial. Lostcaesar 09:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone think seeing 9 is any worse than seeing 9 AD/CE?? Yes, actually. The sidebar currently says that Paul was born c. 9 January, which look slike his birthday, not the year of this birth. I strongly approve of the convention that either AD or CE or both should be used for dates between AD 1 and AD 999, to make it clear that the year is being referred to. Myopic Bookworm 13:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is no source for the "January" so it can probably be removed. In fact, searching the Oxford Reference Online, they don't list a birth year, and list the death at "c. 64". and on a different article give the range of "62 and 68" (hmm.. and even Oxford doesn't list AD or CE with these years). Britannica online says "born AD 10?... died 67?," Encarta has "circa ad 3-62". I don't know where the January came from. Maybe we should give a range of dates, like they do for Jesus. And maybe we shouldn't wikilink the exact years, but instead 0s and 60s instead resulting in 3-10 — 62-68? --Andrew c 15:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The edits of removing AD and CE from article is just following the current guidelines in the Manual of Style. I understand now that a number of editors would like to see AD before single, double, and triple digit years. I personally do not want to see that because it increases the chances of someone coming along and changing the style from AD to CE when in fact, neither one is necessary. The edit wars have been between the people who are following the Manual of Style and the people who want to change the guidelines. --Andrew c 15:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall reading that, though I do recall reading: "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." (the article did say that years should be linked, but I don't recall reading that this entailed dropping the BC/AD notation) So, though I am admittedly dispassionate about the matter, I must say that I disagree with this analysis based on my recollection. Lostcaesar 18:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. Changing between AD to CE or vice versa is against policy. I did not change the era format. What I did was remove the era for positive years. Here is the guideline: Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Anno Domini/Common Era, but when events span the start of the Anno Domini/Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range. For years in AD/CE, use plain numbers. Only add the era for ranges of dates that start in BC/BCE. Right? However, some people interpret the word "normally" differently than I. This is causing debate on the wikipedia talk page, and may lead to a guideline change in the future. But until that happens, I feel like my removing of AD from this article was fine according to the stated guidelines, but other editors disagree and reverted me. That said, I'm over that, and I would like to discuss the actual years included in this article (and I'm asking for a source regarding the month of Paul's birth). --Andrew c 18:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well, I see – I wasn’t trying to get into a “who started it” sort of thing. My only real objection is that, if we are to use the AD dating system, then we should use it right and put the AD before the number. Oh, and I too would like refine the dates to be accurate (or ambiguous if we do not know). Lostcaesar 18:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some have edited information on Saint Paul and I would like to discuss it here.

I enjoy writing information on Saint Paul; however it does me no good to write about his first letter, which was intended to explain the coming Apocalypse, when someone will edit it because it does not reflect well with their current religious view.

All sources and objections are welcome. Please keep them objective mind you, attacks on authors, sources, etc will not be allowed, all information disputed should be disputed with other information, not ad hominem fallacies where one attacks an author because it conflicts with the biblical work "acts".

If we are to interpret scripture literally, we must also say Saint Paul believed Jesus arose from the dead and no one saw him. This is indeed how Saint Paul viewed the resurrection. This unfortunately goes against each gospel account of Jesus' resurrection. This is STILL NOT GROUNDS FOR ALTERATION.

Biblical1 18:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read 1 Corinthians 15, 4-8. Paul give a whole list of witnesses of the Resurrection, all in all 514 persons. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose my ignorance of Paul's view of the ressurection has been exposed. I am only aware of the controversy surrounding his view of the tomb.

In the Mark version of this very important passage, the women are going to go and anoint the body. By the way, remember, there's no tomb in Paul at all. So this is a completely new version of the story, from what we saw in Paul. There's no tomb in Paul. In Paul we have "raise from the dead"; we have appearances; what we don't have is the empty tomb. Mark is the first time we see that. But when we see it, Mark has the women planning to go to the tomb, literally go inside the tomb and work on the body for funerary practices, anointing. These were very standard funerary practices

Matthew, on the other hand, does something different. Look what happens. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were there, sitting opposite the tomb, when they buried. And after the sabbath, on the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. Are they going inside? No. They're not. Why aren't they going inside? Because in Matthew, we have that passage now interceding. That's not there in Mark. And it's the story of how they put a guard at the tomb so that no one could steal the body. That's in Matthew. And not only is it not in Mark; it's not possible in Mark's construction of the narrative. Do you see that? What's happening? We've moved from a very skeletal outline of the passion and resurrection, that Paul believes is absolutely true. But in the process, the story is gaining layers.

The above is a transcript from Michael White's presentation at Harvard in 1998. Some have attacked "PBS" and said it is an unreliable network. Fortunately the information is only hosted on their website, and the information itself comes from acadamia.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/symposium/historical.html Biblical1 19:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Biblical, the above cannot be taken very seriously, when it includes "there is no tomb in Paul at all". Whoever can utter nonsense like that has lost all credibility.

Paul repeatedly proclaims Jesus as having risen from the dead - where is it that the dead usually are?

With White's reasoning I can create a contradiction between A, saying that his mother is dead, and B, saying that A's mother is buried in the cemetary.

Having said that, look up the 1 Corinthians 15 passage again and you will see that Paul actually says that Jesus was "buried" (verse 4) - now where was he buried.

The differences between the gospel accounts are real, but in this case very slender and stemming from the fact that each writer wrote an account of his own. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that while Paul speaks of a resurrection no doubt, he never speaks of a physical resurrection, only a spiritual. Meaning that I think if you could ask Paul, he'd tell you that Jesus' body was indeed buried in a tomb. In other words, there is no empty tomb in PaulJPotter 20:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Facinating. Never heard of the Gospel of Paul before. BTW the resurection as described in the "Gospel" accounts does not contradict a spiritual resurection (different appearances ect) Agathoclea 21:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask everyone before he writes such fascinating stuff as Jason to read the passage I have cited above, 1 Corintian 15 - died, buried, rose from the dead seems pretty physical to me. To distinguish between a physical resurrection in the Gospels and a spiritual resurrection (whatever that is supposed to mean) in Paul is artificial. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone cool down, and keep in mind WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR. We can all give our personal interpretations of the text till the cows come home. It isn't going to help. We need sources to back up anything that goes in the article. (And because I always manage to find myself in the middle of debate, I'll refer people to a scholarly article that speculates that Str1977's verse is a later interpolation).--Andrew c 21:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, I am (relatively) calm. I merely object against WP being dunked in nonsense, even if it comes from people with a degree. It still remains nonsense. And yes, I am also bugged by everyone thinking to come up with "(his) understanding" or, as you term it, "personal interpretations". Let's stay on the ground. Let's not switch off our brains. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that Paul believed in a spiritual resurrection rather than a physical one as per the gospels certainly isn't my idea. I am just sharing what my studies and professors have said, certainly there is debate in the Christian and secular community regarding the interpretation of Cor 15. Str1977, please do not refer to anyone's comments as nonsense. Or be bugged by one's interpretion of scripture. At any rate, it won't be hard to show that there is debate regarding the interpretation of Cor 15 and that a large segment of thought indicates that no where does Paul speak of a physical resurrection, much unlike the gospels. JPotter 21:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[6],[7] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jason Potter (talk • contribs) 21:56, 28 July 2006.

Wikipedia is not the place to call POVs nonsense (maybe on the talk pages, sure, but never in an article). Part of NPOV is to, yes, even present nonsense. However, we have to keep in mind undue weight. We shouldn't focus too much on minority views, and we need to state exactly who holds the views and how prevelent they are. I'd say one or two crack pots with a website do not deserve wikipedia consideration, but a group of scholars who speculate on a mythical Jesus, however much we may disagree with them, do deserve some mention, IF properly cited, AND not given undue weight. --Andrew c 21:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree, my instinct is telling me that those who interpret Paul as referring to a spiritual resurrection is more substantial than the Jesus mythicists. JPotter 22:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Over the past five years, I have tracked well over two thousand scholarly publications on the resurrection. Each source appeared between 1975 and the present, in German, French, or English, written by a wide range of critical scholars....As firmly as ever, most contemporary scholars agree that, after Jesus' death, his early followers had experiences that they at least believed were appearances of their risen Lord. Further, this conviction was the chief motivation behind the early proclamation of the Christian gospel. These basics are rarely questioned, even by more radical scholars. They are among the most widely established details from the entire New Testament....This [the belief that the earliest Christians thought they saw Jesus risen from the dead] has been a mainstay of critical thought since nineteenth-century German theology....More recently, James D.G. Dunn agreed: 'It is almost impossible to dispute that at the historical roots of Christianity lie some visionary experiences of the first Christians, who understood them as appearances of Jesus, raised by God from the dead.'...I have argued elsewhere that, while they still hold a decidedly minority position among the total number of commentators, recent decades have revealed a slight increase in scholars who espouse naturalistic hypotheses to account for Jesus' resurrection....As it was at the end of nineteenth-century German liberalism, as well as at the end of the twentieth century, probably the single most popular alternative to Jesus' resurrection was the hallucination, or subjective vision, theory....After a hiatus of many decades, arguably almost a century, the subjective vision theory has made a comeback....One old standby, the swoon or apparent death theory, has even appeared in a few places recently, although it is seldom espoused by scholars....Each of the naturalistic theories was attacked piece by piece by the liberal scholars in the nineteenth century, as each criticized the others' approaches. In the twentieth century, critical scholarship has largely rejected wholesale the naturalistic approaches to the resurrection....Exhibiting an amazing amount of consensus, most researchers across a very wide conceptual spectrum have rejected naturalistic approaches as explanations for the earliest Christians' belief in the resurrection of Jesus....Accordingly, the path of natural alternative theories is definitely a minority approach....Even before the publication of N.T. Wright's monumental volume The Resurrection of the Son of God in 2003, the tide had begun to turn toward the view that Jesus not only was raised miraculously from the dead but also appeared in a spiritual body. So, the resurrection is an event that happened to Jesus, rather than either an internal experience or a natural occurrence. The risen Jesus featured both bodily continuity, including qualities that could be observed and perhaps even touched, as well as transformed discontinuity. Thus, Jesus appeared as far more than a vision of light from heaven. Further, it was usually held that firm historical evidence accompanied these appearances....While sporting a few new wrinkles as well as some improvements, the view that Jesus was raised bodily is currently the predominant position, if judged in terms of scholarly support. Moreover, some scholars who reject this view still hold that it was at least the New Testament position, including Paul's own teaching. This is a marked change from recent decades when Paul's view was often interpreted far differently....less than one-quarter of critical scholars who addressed the historicity question offered naturalistic theories...The almost three-quarters of remaining scholars hold either of the two views that Jesus was raised from the dead in some sense....[more than three-quarters of these people] take the position that Jesus was resurrected in a real, though still transformed, body...The supernatural view that Jesus rose from the dead in one of two senses is a distinct majority position over the natural option (almost three to one). Very surprisingly, while the supernatural internal category (the old 'objective vision theory') was the most popular among scholars through the middle to late twentieth century, it has been relegated to a minority response in recent years, in favor of bodily appearances of the risen Jesus (more than three to one)." (Robert Stewart, ed., The Resurrection of Jesus [Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press, 2006], pp. 78-80, 82-84, 86, 88, 90-92)

On Jesus being crucified

"I don't know what he was actually saying about the Kingdom of God, but if we can infer from the bits and pieces we have from the gospel stories, and also what we have in Josephus and other Jewish contemporary records of what other Jews are saying about the Kingdom of God, he might have been saying that it was on its way. That it was coming. That perhaps it was even coming that Passover. And we're seeing this now in American culture with certain kinds of fundamentalist forms of Christianity. If you really think the end of the world is at hand, that has a kind of liberating and frantic energy that goes along with it. It's not good for quiet crowds and social stability. And given the emotional and religious tenor of this holiday, anyway, to have somebody preaching that the Kingdom of God was really on its way, perhaps ... within that very holiday... [is]the equivalent of shouting, "Fire!" in a crowded theater. It would be enough to get somebody in trouble. Even if everybody knew perfectly well that he was not a revolutionary leader." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/arrest.html

On historical accuracy of the Gospels

So where do the Christian Gospels fit in all of this? They are without doubt some of the earliest sources we possess regarding the life and death of Jesus. Some are earlier than, or at least contemporaneous with, Josephus: almost all are earlier than Tacitus. But they still come from a considerably later period than Jesus himself. The earliest is the Gospel of Mark, which was written sometime between 69 and 75 CE... Thus all the Gospels come from a period at least forty years - or one full generation - after the death of Jesus. In fact, they come after the first revolt. The latest, the Gospel of John, might be from a full century later... .. Jesus himself wrote nothing and left no direct archaeological evidence on the landscape of Judea. It is as if no one really cared to keep a record at the time, but later, after the movement had started to take off, people began to reflect on Jesus’ life, what happened to him, and why… Thus, these later sources – and here we must include the Gospels- reflect ideas and issues that were not at work in Jesus’ own day or at the time of his death.. .. The Gospels are not "histories" as such, at least not in any modern sense. Rather, they fall into the ancient literary category known as "lives", such as were written of Alexander the Great and other famous people. It is quite common in such literature to embellish the story with fanciful or romantic details, some of which might or might not be true. Many times the sources were oral traditions, legends, and exaggerations that grew up to fit the fame or persona of the character in later times... In like manner, the Gospels were written as "lives" of Jesus as the founder of the Christian movement. They are thus products of later reflection of his light in light of the importance that later believers placed on him. They are, in that sense, expressions of the faith of those early Christians who told and retold the story of Jesus in the later decades of the first century. … Matthew 28 11:-15 clearly reflects a similar effort on the part of Christians. The story concerns the guards stationed at the tomb of Jesus, who were bribed to say that his body was merely stolen. But this account only appears in Matthew and ends with a telling comment: “And this story is still told among the Jews to this day (Matt 28:15). Thus, the author has given us a subconscious clue that reflects an effort to refute later Jewish polemics that had begun to circulate by the time the Gospel came to be written. It too is a secondary reaction, not a primary fact."

On the Gospels with Jesus' Death & Resurrection

The Gospels disagree dramatically regarding the cause of the arrest and execution and the role of various Jewish groups. Mark II suggests that the "cleansing of the Temple" was the cause and that the priests were behind his demise (cf. Mark 15:11). In John's Gospel, however, the "cleansing" occurs two full years before Jesus' death and has no direct role in his arrest (cf. John 2:13-22). Matthew 21 seems to make the "triumphal entry" the cause and the priests along with the Pharisees the chief instigators (cf. Matt 21:45-46). There are numerous other differences between the accounts. .... All the Gospels agree that Jesus rose from the tomb on the third day and appeared to his disciples. Historical considerations: The Gospels differ on numerous details. Only Matthew has the account of guards being placed around the tomb. Mark and Matthew have the post resurrection appearances occur only in Galilee. Luke has the appearances occur only in and around Jerusalem. John has some of both. Luke also adds that Jesus was present for forty more days after the resurrection before he ascended (Acts 1:3-12)"

On Paul's vision of Jesus and his apocalyptic view

But when God, who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with any human being... (Gal 1:15-16)

The terms that Paul employs here to refer to the nature of his experience are important. In Galatians he uses "to reveal (Greek apokalypsai), the verb form of the word "apocalypse" or "revelation". ...Paul indicates that he is quite accustomed to having such revelatory visions, in keeping with the apocalyptic and magicial religious environment out of which he came. For example, when Paul went to Jerusalem for the second time to consult with Peter and James on the issue of Gentiles, he says that he "went up by revelation" (Gal 2:1). Elsewhere he refers to having other "visions/appearances and revelations" (2 Cor. 12:1), following which he goes on to describe one such experience where he was "caught up into the third heaven" and saw paradise (2 Cor.12:2-5). This last description is very much in line with Jewish apocalyptic tradition of heavenly ascents and visions.

Interesting Tidbits/Paul's proclamation he can write with his own hand

We know also from several comments that Paul employed such scribes for his letter writing. The most obvious occurs in Romans 16:22, when his scribe Tertius offers his own greetings. So too Paul on several occasions says something like, “See what large letters I make when I am writing in my own hand!” (Gal. 6:11) or “I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand” (1. Cor.16:21). In these cases we must imagine him at that point taking the pen from the scribe and writing a personal greeting in his own, distinctive handwriting, similar to what we see very often in the papyri. It is unfortunate that none of the originals of Paul's letters have survived, for we would be able to get a glimpse of him, at least as the "second hand".

Origen claimed Josephus did not believe in Jesus (Origen Commentary on Matthew 10.17; Against Celsus 1.47)

Thomas Jefferson, to John Adams in 1813 on his project to uncover the historical Jesus:

"We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select even from them, the very words only of Jesus paring off the amphiboligisms [sic, ambiguities] into which they [the Evangelists] have been led... I have performed this operation at my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and by arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as distinguish able as diamonds in a dunghill" (Letter to John Adams, 13 October 1813. quoted from the Jefferson Bible, 17)

Origins of the word Christianity/Christians

So when we look again at this distinctive, new term "Christian" (Christianoi) what does it mean and where does it come from? The term is clearly derived from christos, the ordinary, Greek translation for the Hebrew title messiah. .. and scholars now think that this term [Christianismos)]was coined, not by the Christians themselves, but rather by Roman officials in Greek cities like Antioch, who used it in a derogatory way. It was a slur hurled at the followers of Jesus by outsiders. So it remains unclear whether it initially was meant to label them as "the party of Jesus who is called the Christ" or simply as "the party that espouses messianism". Only much later would this slur be revalorized as badge of honor and internalized to become the new name of the movement. .. the term "Christian" was first used in Antioch, the capital of the Roman province of Syria, a thoroughly Greek city. Nor is it clear when this new title arose. It might easily have been forty to fifty years or more after the death of Jesus. The missionary Paul, who lived and worked in Antioch for quite some time (Gal. 1:21-2:14) never uses the term; nor does it appear in any source. Christian or otherwise, prior to the time Acts was written. Finally, the derived name "Christianity" (Christianismos), as a designation for the religious itself, does not appear before about 112-115, interestingly enough also with a connection to Antioch. (The source here is Ignatius, the Christian bishop of Antioch, who wrote letters to the churches in Asia Minor and Rome while en route to a martyr's death in Rome. For his use of the term Christianismos see Ign. Magn. 10-1-3, where it is specifically set alongside of "Judaism" (Ioudaismos)).....

Paul and Peter's showdown in Antioch/Peter and Judaism

Shortly thereafter Peter came to Antioch, probably to check out the situation there and perhaps to do some follow-up work among the exclusively Jewish congregations of the Jesus movement. That too seems to have been one of the agreements struck in the meet at Jerusalem (Gal.2:7-8). Perhaps this was to assuage the stricter among them while allowing Paul's mixed cellgroups to continue operating within their social orbit. But the results were disastrous:

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned: for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction. And the other Jews joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like the Jews? (Gal 2:11-14)

Initially, it seems, Peter had moved freely between the different factions, even to the point of joining in the dinners of Paul's mixed groups. Then some other Jewish followers of the movement came to Jerusalem - "from James " - and caused Peter to draw back from fellowship involving uncircumcised Gentiles. It seems that James's emissaries had aligned with stricter Jewish cells at Antioch and intimidated other Jews, including Peter. Much to Paul's chagrin, even Barnabas turned on him.

Paul must have realized the implications quickly. His hard-fought efforts to secure a place for Gentiles in the Jesus fellowship were about to face total rejection even by those Jews who had formerly been sympathetic. Paul lashed out. Whether he first implored Barnabas and others to give it another chance is not reported. Whether he once again passionately defended his own understanding of the commission "revealed by God" (Gal. 1:16;2:2,7) is not reported. It came down finally to a confrontation with Peter himself. Paul now erupted. Peter "stood condemned" of hypocrisy, and Paul told him so to his face in front of witnesses (Gal. 2:11,13-14). What follows in Galatians 2:15-21 may well represent what Paul wished he had said to justify his position. But the reality was far different; nor was it a mere difference of opinion. Paul persuaded no one, not even Barnabas, who, according to later legends, became a protégé of Peter.(Cf. Acts 15:36-41, which has Paul part ways with Barnabas over the helper named John Mark, who had been associated earlier with Peter and James in Jerusalem (Acts12:12-17)). The blowup with Peter was a total failure of political bravado, and Paul soon left Antioch as persona non grata, never again to return. It has been suggested that Jerusalem was trying to extend its authority over Antioch, but the attitude of the local Jewish followers of the movement must also be taken into account. The picture in Acts shows that the church in Antioch later viewed the relationship in these terms, while consciously playing down the rift between Peter and Paul. What happened to Paul's mixed Jewish and gentile enclaves remains unclear, but one must suspect that the "circumcision party" prevailed. (cryptic comment in Gal 5:11). For Paul the immediate result was clear. He had to leave Antioch. He chose to embark on a new mission where there was not such a strong and traditional Jewish community. He would go west, toward Greece and Rome, where he could work independently as "missionary" or "apostle" to the Gentiles.

From Jesus to Christianity, L Michael White, HarperCollinsPublishers, 2004 (How Four Generations of Visionaries & Storytellers created the New Testament and Christian Faith)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/etc/bios.html#white

We need to talk about your revert to the introduction. I have made the following changes, which you seem to dislike. First, I cleaned up a lot of information that didn’t belong there. I don’t object to this information, but it is not needed in the introduction. All the business about Paul’s eschatology is misplaced in the introduction – make an eschatology section if you want. That Paul “did not originate the idea (of gentile Judaism)” is unnecessary. If all Paul did, according to you, was continue an earlier idea, then all one needs to mention are his changes to that idea (thus put in the stuff about the Jewish law). Again, if you want to mention the gentile dimension of Judaism, and Paul’s relation to it, make a section and put it there, but not in the intro. Also, I didn’t like the “then came his Road to Damascus experience”, I rather preferred my “until his experience on the Road to Damascus” because it sounds less “story-ish” and more encyclopaedic, if you know what I mean. Lastly, I don’t think you need to say what Messiah means since it is linked to the proper article. Lostcaesar 18:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just performed a major, and very time consuming, reorganization of this article. Over the past few weeks I have watched all sorts of information, most of it dubious, make its way into various inappropriate sections of the article. In the intro there was a discussion of Paul's eschatology. In the writings section there was talk about Gnosticism and Irenaeus. There was also discussion of Revelation (why?). I have reorganized all this, and made the proper sections. Let me advice everyone that I have a reluctance to delete information, and for this reason much that was said remained, although I think it poor. So, before anyone overreacts and reintroduces information, please 'read the article and see if it is already more or less covered. If anyone just tosses more crap in here that is already covered (like another description of the Road to Damascus, even though there is a lengthy section in the article on it, a separate article dedicated to it, and a mention in the introduction) then I will find where you live and bring scholarly wrath upon you. Let me say that I actually changed very little, although the writings section had pov issues, and I encourage everyone to examine my changes (remember, much of this information, which was theological, was simply moved around). Also, let me give two warnings. There were many references from this "pbs" site that were just absurd – I left what I could honestly leave in the article, but please don't reintroduce this crap as though it were stone fact. Also, a fellow named MacDonald gets tremendous play in this article, indeed the entire "legends" section is entirely about his thesis. I don't recall taking any of his stuff out, but it seems odd, and I really don't like the section dedicated as a shrine to his musings.Lostcaesar 18:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

The problem with classifying the PBS website as "just absurd" without recourse gives us ground to use the 'absurdity' tag on anything that doesn't fit our theological beliefs. The PBS website is simply a host to a documentary done on Christianity using the best scholars in the field. Please see this link if you think Yale, Brown, Harvard, Duke, and Depaul's best scholars are preaching 'absurdity' :

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/etc/bios.html ..

Please do not alter any information until you have sufficiently read from each source. I fear that you automatically dismissing the PBS source has given us incite into your bias. Please also discuss each fact you disagree with here rather than attacking a broadcasting network. It is rather 'absurd' mind you that people divert from scholarly information about Saint Paul simply because it does not fit with their theological beliefs.

I am catholic yet I present information about Saint Paul that is renowned, other christians edit the article because they would prefer to suppress his controversial views. This is unacceptable.

Biblical1 19:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I called "absurd" was presenting the pbs information as though it were stone fact, that is to say they express an opinion, a point of view, and the article ought to reflect that. I don't mind it being in there, I mind an opinion substituted for a fact. And btw, I don't see how it matters what you call yourself. Lostcaesar 20:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, half the stuff you put back is already in teh article, somtimes word for word, in a different section (like the stuff about circumcision), please read the article and make sure you arn't doing silly redundancies. Lostcaesar 20:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My goal is not 'redundancies', it is placing Paul's view and life in the appropriate context. If you are indeed a prominent professor whose thesis was on Paul, perhaps you know more than I. I disagre with this guess however, as you keep limiting scholarly information and erasing it for Christian beliefs found in the bible.

The quotesd on circimcusion are intended for the uneducated. Many do not know Moses would've been killed by God, I doubt you knew that his wife was skilled in the matter and chopped off the foreskin of his son, and touched it to Moses'. This is the essence of biblical scholarship. Please do not alter it for 'silly redundancies'.

Biblical1 20:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

also i am a confused as to "POV". It is my understanding the policy is NPOV or neutral point of view. The information I present is anything but personal, as it often conflicts with famously held christian personal beliefs. These views are by definition neutral, you only need look at the sources.

I would also like to comment that it does me no good to refute sources rather than information. We would not argue the source of a mathematician from PBS who said 2+2 = 4, but perhaps we would if our preachers taught 2+2 = 5. I hope you understand, my goal is not to disprove and persuade anybody, rather to present knowledgable and objective information. This by definition, is not POV.

Biblical1 20:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am retracing sources for more accurate information, I will in turn upload it the scholarly consensus section because i do not wish to 'clutter' the article. (Although I would prefer the intention of Paul's first letter be mentioned in the Intro. )

If you uncover new interesting facts, please cite source and share information in scholarly consensus section. (I think it is actually best if most of the objective facts go there as it seems the intro includes some varying religious outlooks). If you disagree with some of the quoted material, please provide sources and state precise information in discussion rather than immediately alter it. This way a consensus can be formed rather than the blatant altering of information, saving us from allegations of particular bias(s) or 'absurdity' along w/not NPOV.

Biblical1 20:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What information did I “erase” that you want in the article? I didn’t consider my edits to be erasing so much as reorganizing. Most of the removals were due to the reorganization, which made their existence redundant (in that they were mentioned twice in the article). Lets go through the specifics of my pov changes in the “scholarly consensus” section.

1: Notice how I say "scholars who hold this say X, while others say Y", whereas you say "X is the truth", or "All scholars say X [quote one]".

2: Whether or not Paul’s writings are “the” foundation of Christian literature depends on whether the traditional Gospels are ascribed to their proper authors. The name of the section is “scholarly consensus”. All scholars agree that Paul’s writings are “a foundation”, but not the foundation. Why? Because there is differing opinion as to whether the next statement you like so much “no writing survives from Jesus’ disciples” is true or not. Many scholars think that Mark was one of the seventy disciples, and that he wrote Mark. Some scholars (though a minority) think that Matthew is the author of his Gospel. Likewise, some scholars identify John as a principle source of the Gospel with his name. Hence, it isn’t fair for the article to say what it does. It expresses a point of view to which there is no “scholarly consensus”. I like my reading much better. It expresses a far more nuanced (and accurate) view of scholarship, and also articulates the traditional Christian position (which I think is worth noting, even if just to bounce modern scholarship off of). It is also the format that most other articles on the New Testament take. Compare:

Scholars generally classify Paul's epistles (or letters) as the foundation of Christian literature, as no writing survives from Jesus or his disciples.

'My edit: 'Scholars classify Paul's epistles (or letters) as a foundation of Christian literature. Scholars who hold that Jesus' disciples did not author the works traditionally attributed to them consider Paul's epistles to be the foundation of Christian literature.

Which is a better representation of the entire field of scholarship, and the "scholarly concensus"?

3: The issue of Marcan priority is not a settled matter amongst scholars. My edits improved the clarity of the article. Paul’s wirtings are considered the earliest New Testament texts by those who ascribe to Marcan priority – what's wrong with that addition? It better expresses the field of scholarship. Scholars who think Matthew wrote first (see Augustinian Hypothesis and Griesbach hypothesis) obviously think that Paul's writings are not the earliest in the New Testament. All I did was change the article to include this view. Compare:

Yet scholars generally concede that we can learn almost nothing about Jesus' life or teachings from Paul. Although Paul lacked knowledge of the historical Jesus, Paul and his followers are attributed with 16 of the New Testaments 27 books and he is also it's earliest writer, earlier even than the Gospel of Mark. The earliest surviving of all Christian literature is Paul's First Thessalonians.

My edit: Those who follow this position [that Jesus' disciples wrote nothing] generally concede that nothing can be learned about Jesus' life or teachings from Paul. Paul himself claimed knowledge of Jesus from visions, or "divine dreams", and from the apostles (particularly James the Just and Simon Peter), as he never met Jesus in the flesh. Christian tradition has seen Paul in a much more authoritative light. Paul is traditionally attributed with 16 of the New Testaments 27 books. Scholars who follow Markan priority see Paul's writings as the earliest of the New Testament, and hold that the earliest surviving of all Christian literature is Paul's First Thessalonians.

Do you see how one expressed a point of view as fact, while the other gives both points of view as points of view?

4: Did Paul dissent from Peter and James? Did Peter and James think of Christianity as nothing more than a Jewish sect? The answers to these are opinions, to which there are arguments in support or against, scholars on both sides, and the like. You present this as fact and give one scholar's opinion to back it up. I present them as differing views.

5: You added the "circumcision was seen as a divine mark" paragraph (and the quote of which you are convinced that I am ignorant) to the "scholarly consensus" section. It now exists twice, word for word, in the article (it is also in the more appropriate "Salvation and the Mosaic Law") section. Why did you put the same words in twice? That is just redundancy to the extreme. It makes the article look very sloppy.

6:You say "Jews compromised their faith" and cite one scholar – I say "some scholars argue that Jews compromised their faith" and cite the same one author – see the difference? Did Jews really compromise their faith? Why not go with my wording?

7:You added that Paul believed there would be an imminent apocalypse. There is a section called "eschatology", which beings "There is evidence that Paul… believed there would be an immediate apocalypse…" – see what I mean about repeating the same material. Furthermore, you added material about the Book of Revelation. What does a book written after Paul died have to do with Paul, and his eschatology? Also, your section claims to know, absolutely, the mind of Paul, both his views on marriage and his understanding of the apocalypse. That's going to far (even if Mr. MacDonald is convinced that he knows Paul's mind). What you gave is one interpretation of Paul's views on marriage. If you are going to quote anything claiming to know the mind of Paul, then quote something from his letters.

8:How do you know that Paul thought the Old Testament God was "never jealous"? Paul never said that, indeed his beloved Scriptures said the opposite (Exodus 209:5). In fact – Paul quoted this in 2 Corinthians 11:2 !

9:The quote from Ezekiel and Jeremiah are now in the article twice (see Jewish Scriptures in Christianity). The stuff about Sheol is now in the article twice (see "nature of the afterlife"). Both word for word !

10:I did remove the following:

These contradicting views and dissimilarities between God in the Old and New Testament were pointed out by dissenters from Orthodox (meaning ‘straight’) Christianity such as Marcion who put them in a now lost and extant Antithesis. Paul's epistles were later joined by the four main Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in 170 by Bishop Irenaeus who believed, "There actually are only four authentic gospels. And this is obviously true because there are four corners of the universe and there are four principal winds, and therefore there can be only four gospels that are authentic.” < Irenaeus' movement subsequently caste all of the other widely circulated gospels as Gnostic, most of which were lost. "Fortunately, the arid sands of Egypt have protected fragments of many works, including the spectacular caches of thirteen forth-century Coptic Codices (or bound books) discovered at Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in 1945. Over a thousand pages of text contain some forty documents otherwise unknown, many of which had been composed by Christians centuries earlier." The discovery at Nag Hammadi gives scholars incite into original Christianity and Paul because it "contained no fewer than 41 early Christian scriptures we've never heard of. Their titles had previously appeared in no list, no correspondence, no surviving document of any kind. If the church could successfully erase all memory of these 41 scriptures, it could do anything; 15,000 years is a long time to get a story straight"

What does this have to do with "scholarly consensus"? What does it mean that Irenaeus "joined" the four gospels together? There are earlier references to gospels books before Irenaeus (like Justine Martyr) – besides again this is an opinion about the development of the Gospels. What does his quote about the four corners of the earth have to do with anything? The sudden mention of Marcion is strange, with no explination – what is he doing here? Orthodox doesn’t mean straight – the ortho part means that, the dox part means something else (and important addition, mind you). What does the business about arid sands of Egypt and Gnostic texts have to do with anything? This is perhaps all a strange and disjoined reference to "Paul's significant to the formation of Christian orthodoxy" – hey, if you want it in make that section (and make it make sense).

I reverting this till we get all the mess straightened out. I'm not unreasonable or uncompromising, either, but I just don't understand the changes. Lostcaesar 22:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find the above arguments compelling and approve of the edits made by Lostcaesar. My only problems with the passages is the use of the word traditional when it seems you meen literalist. Cheers. JPotter 22:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. I particularly agree with Caesar's points 2 and 10. I know this hasn't been set up as a vote, but I wanted to add my 2¢ Carl.bunderson 23:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]