Talk:Paul the Apostle: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →

Alecmconroy (talk | contribs)

1 user group
8,935 edits
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Andrewa (talk | contribs)
Administrators
63,503 edits
→Requested move: clarify and expand comment
Line 105: Line 105:
*'''Support''' '''Paul the Apostle.''' However, he wasn't one of The Twelve and began referring to himself as an Apostle in the NT. Today, it's very common to refer to him as Apostle Paul, so ''Paul the Apostle'' is consistent with scripture and contemporary usage. ─[[User:Afaprof01|AFA Prof01]] ([[User talk:Afaprof01|talk]]) 17:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''' '''Paul the Apostle.''' However, he wasn't one of The Twelve and began referring to himself as an Apostle in the NT. Today, it's very common to refer to him as Apostle Paul, so ''Paul the Apostle'' is consistent with scripture and contemporary usage. ─[[User:Afaprof01|AFA Prof01]] ([[User talk:Afaprof01|talk]]) 17:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
:*'''Comment''': Yes, exactly. But Paul is still the one most commonly referred to as ''the Apostle'', despite being neither one of the original [[twelve Apostles]] nor the one elected to replace [[Judas Iscariot]], who was one of the twelve but is almost never referred to as ''the Apostle'', both for reasons of ambiguity and because of what he done. Paul in his writings, now part of the [[New Testament]], stresses his own position as an Apostle, which is probably why the name stuck. It's more recently become fashionable in some circles to call him ''Paul of Tarsus'' instead, for reasons I won't go into here, but it's still less common than ''the Apostle''. Wikipedia should not follow this fashon until and unless it becomes the common usage. No change of vote. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] ([[User talk:Andrewa|talk]]) 20:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
:*'''Comment''': Yes, exactly. But Paul is still the one most commonly referred to as ''the Apostle'', despite being neither one of the original [[twelve Apostles]] nor the one elected to replace [[Judas Iscariot]], who was one of the twelve but is almost never referred to as ''the Apostle'', both for reasons of ambiguity and because of what he done. Paul in his writings, now part of the [[New Testament]], stresses his own position as an Apostle, which is probably why the name stuck. It's more recently become fashionable in some circles to call him ''Paul of Tarsus'' instead, for reasons I won't go into here, but it's still less common than ''the Apostle''. Wikipedia should not follow this fashon until and unless it becomes the common usage. No change of vote. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] ([[User talk:Andrewa|talk]]) 20:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' -- "the Apostle" is somewhat less NPOV than "of Tarsus", since there do exist Christian sects that reject Pauline Christianity (and hence, dispute whether he should be described as an apostle.) --[[User:Alecmconroy|Alecmconroy]] ([[User talk:Alecmconroy|talk]]) 20:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)



;Move to [[Saint Paul]]
;Move to [[Saint Paul]]

Revision as of 20:43, 18 October 2010

Section on Women

Main article: Paul of Tarsus and women

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please see Paul of Tarsus and women. That material at one time was in this article, but it became large enough to become its own article. Thanks for noting the omission here. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)0[reply]
Thanks for the update. Should the whole section just be removed and nothing but the link to the Paul of Tarsus and women be left?Tanktimus (talk) 15:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this section ought to involve a more comprehensive discussion of complementarianism and its relation to marriage. Also, the language used in this section is both redundant and biased toward a feminist viewpoint, with no statement pointing out its adoption by both men AND women. Taishaku (talk) 9:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Taishaku, have you looked at Christian views of marriage? It contains both complementarian and Christian egalitarian discussion of marriage.
Though you didn't specifically bring it up, I'd like to mention the restrictions against women preachers, teachers, deacons, etc. For those who believe in a personal salvation in Jesus Christ, that one is lost by default and gains salvation by hearing about Jesus, repenting of their sins, and accepting him as their personal Savior, the issue of denying over half of churched Christians (the women) the ability and privilege to answer the call of God to preach, teach, lead, etc., is a very serious one. Cf. Great Commission Matthew 28:19–20 which is gender-neutral, saying (You) GO into all the world and teach all nations. Then, Romans 10:14 says "How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?" For further debate on the matter, please see 1 Timothy 2:12 ("I suffer not a woman") .
One final observation, since Jesus is Lord over his church, and he never restricted on the basis of gender except that The Twelve were all male (not unlike combat being limited to males until the last decade in the U.S. due to the conditions in combat), we must at least consider the possibility that Paul was not prescribing against females teaching and preaching for all people of all times, but as he often did, he might have been addressing specific problems in the church at Ephesus.
Please forgive me if this is too much "soapboxing" for you. I very much appreciate your interest in the subject. Respectfully, ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 19:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul's appearance

Paul is a Black Man

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But, outside Martin Bernal's imagination, Egyptians were no blacker (as they are not now) than the other inhabitants of North Africa - some are and were as dark as Sadat (although they were more often identified as Nubians then than now), others as light as Nasser or Mubarak; we have a long series of funeral paintings of ordinary Egyptians, from the time of Paul and the centuries thereafter. As for Niger, that no more proves subsaharan descent than Pescennius Niger (or Lodovico il Moro); Cyrene was in Libya, but it was a Greek colony - and its inhabitants were no darker than the inhabitants of the Aegean. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Modern Egyptians are largely of Arabic decent as are most North Africans. Egypt was a Greek colony under the Ptolemies before the Romans came along. The are many paintings in Egyptian buildings showing the races, the Ancient Egyptians depicted lots Libyans and Nubians as blacks, the Greeks referred to Egyptians as Copts and black Africans as Ethiopians. Niger is a Latin word meaning black, or dark. see here [1]--Degen Earthfast (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul's repressed homosexuality

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

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

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

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

Well, it's certainly no less ridiculous than the theory that Paul was black, as articulated above. I suppose we would need more than Spong's fevered speculation to warrant the insertion of such material, but with enough reliable sources, this theory might be notable enough for inclusion in the article. Uncle Dick (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spong is no authority on Paul, per se. Instead, Spong has his own agenda on the topic of homosexuality. So many people have written books on Paul-- maybe we can look at this idea when and if anyone ever publishes a book on Paul and comes to the same conclutions that Spong has. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 10:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul of Tarsus or simply Paul?

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

There is a disambiguation page right in the beginning of the article Saint_Paul_(disambiguation). Per that disamb page, there were several Saint Pauls in the last 2000 years although if you type "Saint Paul" it will go to this article, since he was the most famous: it's a good solution. And Paul of Tarsus is not an American invention, he is called that way by many populations and in many languages before America was even discovered. Now the hits that you bring make me reflect though, and perhaps other editors might be involved for a new consensus. Cheers. --Sulmues (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helpful feedback. Please note: I suggested that "Paul (apostle)" might be a better title than "Paul of Tarsus." I do not believe that "Saint Paul" is a viable alternative. ("Saint Paul" to me is London's famous church.) I still feel that "Paul of Tarsus" is an idiosyncratic version of the apostle's name, constructed, maybe, as an analogue to "Apollonius of Tyana." Could anyone please cite a pre-nineteenth-century source in which Paul is mentioned by the name of "Paul of Tarsus"? Are there any pre-Columbian examples in, say, Spanish literature? William Weldon Champney's sermon, The Conversion of Paul of Tarsus (1859) is the earliest English example I am aware of. In German literature, "Paulus von Tarsus" seems to be even more exceptional than in English literature. (Nevertheless, the German WP article on Paul has been harmonized with the English version.) I might, of course, be entirely wrong. Baroque Trumpet (talk) 02:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Paul of Tarsus → Paul the Apostle — Fails WP:COMMONNAME by a country mile. Another option is Saint Paul. I've set up voting for either name. They're both redirects to this article already, so it's just a matter of choosing the best title. JaGatalk 12:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Paul the Apostle
  • A Google scholar search gives 80,600 results for Paul the Apostle and 23,300 results for Paul of Tarsus. With quotes, it's 9,780 results for "Paul the Apostle", 29,300 results for "the Apostle Paul", and 2,600 results for "Paul of Tarsus". But even if Paul of Tarsus were more scholarly, what's important is the WP:COMMONNAME. Is the average user most likely to type in Paul of Tarsus, or something else? --JaGatalk 20:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not an entirely fair comment given WP:COMMONNAME is based upon reliable sources, not straight web results or personal opinion. Here is the breakdown of Google books results; Paul of Tarsus: 34,100 hits[2], Apostle Paul: 362,000 hits [3], Paul the Apostle 129,000 hits[4]. Google scholar: Paul of Tarsus 2,600 hits[5] Apostle Paul: 80,800 hits[6], Paul the Apostle 9,780 hits [7].--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support; It seems like the people who know more about this favor Paul of Tarsus because it is perhaps more scholarly, but it also not a very commonly used name for Paul. I guess people will still be discussing what the name of this article should be in 50 years assuming there is a Wikipedia then. Personally, I'm fine with just about any of the suggestions except St. Paul. --Davefoc (talk) 20:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think all apostles should be of this form. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Unambiguous and the most common name. Saint Paul would be my second choice, this Paul is the clear meaning but the name is not as common as the Apostle. The current name is popular within a recent theological movement, and is the third choice, maybe not too bad but we can and should do better. Andrewa (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Would Paul the Apostle bring the name in conflict with how he is named in other religions?--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support In my opinion, almost any of his other names would be better than Paul of Tarsus. Before I first read this article, I had never, ever heard of the word Tarsus. Paul the Apostle is much more clear in terms of the subject. SilverserenC 19:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Clear and unambiguous and readily identifies the topic. I would probably prefer Paul (apostle), however. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 01:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that we need some consistency for the Twelve Apostles. Six of them have "the Apostle" on them, which is fine, but four of them are "Saint", and then there's "Simon the Zealot" and "James, son of Zebedee". All of these definitely need to be renamed so that they are consistent. SilverserenC 02:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Do we really need this consistency? Is this reflected in policy or guidelines anywhere? And if it were to be, wouldn't that contradict other policies, notably those concerning common names? Common names don't tend to be completely consistent, and we don't tend to allow promotion here of the (common) desire to standardise them. See also my comment below for some of the difficulties in standardising as proposed above. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Paul the Apostle. However, he wasn't one of The Twelve and began referring to himself as an Apostle in the NT. Today, it's very common to refer to him as Apostle Paul, so Paul the Apostle is consistent with scripture and contemporary usage. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Yes, exactly. But Paul is still the one most commonly referred to as the Apostle, despite being neither one of the original twelve Apostles nor the one elected to replace Judas Iscariot, who was one of the twelve but is almost never referred to as the Apostle, both for reasons of ambiguity and because of what he done. Paul in his writings, now part of the New Testament, stresses his own position as an Apostle, which is probably why the name stuck. It's more recently become fashionable in some circles to call him Paul of Tarsus instead, for reasons I won't go into here, but it's still less common than the Apostle. Wikipedia should not follow this fashon until and unless it becomes the common usage. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- "the Apostle" is somewhat less NPOV than "of Tarsus", since there do exist Christian sects that reject Pauline Christianity (and hence, dispute whether he should be described as an apostle.) --Alecmconroy (talk) 20:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Saint Paul
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F391511384