Talk:Paul the Apostle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Paul the Apostle was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: June 11, 2006
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.


Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Removed Paragraph

I removed the following, as Paul did NOT write Ephesians.


is evident from the frequency of Paul's counsel on marriage and family that he placed great importance on the subject. Paul exhorts the women in the Ephesian branch of the church to submit themselves to their own husbands (literally, become subject or obedient to), as they would to the Lord, comparing the husband and the family to Christ and the Church. (See Eph. 5.) But he also charges the husbands to love their wives (see Eph. 5:25) as their Savior loved the church, so that they might sanctify and perfect their families through love. Paraphrasing one of the great commandments—to love one's neighbor as oneself—Paul says, "So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself." (Verse 28.) A husband is not to rule as a tyrant over his wife but is to preside in love. (See verse 33."

There has been so much good scholarship done on Paul that it is disappointing to see such examples found all over the New Testament pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.233.138 (talk) 03:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Plenty of scholars still accept Pauline authorship of Ephesians; its very much up in the air. I am reinserting this paragraph. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Quoting "The Harper Collins Study Bible" (1993) "Marked differences in style, phrasing, and viewpoint between this Letter and the seven unquestionably authentic Pauline Letters have cast significant doubt on Pauline authorship of Ephesians. It is more likely that a disciple of Paul wrote the Letter in Paul's name, probably after the apostle's death." I will, again, remove the paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.233.138 (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry- the quotation of one source does not resolve the problem. The fact of the matter is that many scholars are indeed divided on the issue, and therefore we should mind this fact in the article in the interest of neutrality. Historical perspective is also an issue- the relatively recent theories of scholars on the authorship of Paul's epistles should not usurp prior theories/beliefs on the subject (we should avoid a bias towards recent scholarship per policy). If the epistle is attributed to Paul, then we should mind the attribution while providing information on the fuckin disputed status of authorship. It's not even that I disagree with your changes, but your cited justifications are poor. The sections already have problems, but I do not believe this is one of them.--C.Logan (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed More

What I removed here hardly even makes sense, nor does it even sound like an encyclopedia at all. Paul may never have married in the first place, and it seems like a fairly obvious conclusion one can make from the unquestionably Pauline epistles. The following is completely unnecessary, is based on no scholarship, and instead on the most questionable and preposterous speculation.


"What sense would these statements make if they came from an unmarried man? In view of all that Paul has said on marriage in 1 Corinthians, it is quite unlikely that the Corinthians would accept his epistle and his arguments if he had been divorced or separated from a wife. The message of 2 Corinthians 7, however, is that the first epistle was accepted and many Saints repented. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.233.138 (talk) 03:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Stil More

Paul did not write either Timothy or Titus. Accordingly, I removed the following in its entirety.

"Finally, in Paul's last epistles, which were written to Timothy and Titus, he places further emphasis on the desirability of marriage. In listing the qualities necessary for a bishop, Paul includes being married (see 1 Tim. 3:2) and being a good leader over his house: "For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?" (1 Tim. 3:5; cp. Titus 1:5–9). Even those called "deacons" in that day (the Greek literally means "one who serves" or a "helper") were to be married and have orderly households. (See 1 Tim, 3:10–13.)

The evidence of Paul's writings leads to the conclusion that he not only tolerated marriage among the saints, but encouraged and exhorted them to marry and bear children. He indicated that marriage is an essential part of the gospel framework, and asserted that one of the signs of apostasy in the last days would be teachings against marriage. (See 1 Tim. 4:1–3.) Certainly Jesus was foremost in importance to Paul, just as he should be in the hearts of men today, and on occasion Paul had to remind men called to the ministry to be fully dedicated to the Lord's ence of the Lord, the man will not be without the woman, neither the woman without the man."

Paul and marriage is a worthy subject, but it should not be too long. Paul did not tell women to subject themselves to their husbands as the authors of Timothy and Titus did. Paul saw no distinction between man or woman, a distinction which the pseudonymous authors of Timothy and Titus later do not make. Compare , for instance, Colossians 3:11 (which Paul wrote), and Corinthians 12:13 (which he did not write).

Someone should dig up that quote because I forget where it is, about Peter being married but Paul saying he wished others could be like him and not marry. I can't remember where it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.233.138 (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

"I removed the following, as Paul did NOT write Ephesians."
"Paul did not write either Timothy or Titus."
As this appears to be the justification for the removal of this text, I find myself severely questioning your contributions. Make no mistake- there is a problem with these paragraphs, but it is one of possible original research. Your own cited reasons have no place here, because they concede to only one point of view, and not even one which is of any great majority or unanimity. I think that the editors who watch this page should look over the text because the phrasing is questionable and the sources provided are insufficient for interpretive analysis of the verses is question (a secondary source supporting the view should be cited); the reason you cite is invalid and is completely unacceptable.--C.Logan (talk) 07:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


Quoting the Harper Collins Study Bible (1993), from its introduction to the Letter to Timothy, "Though some try to reconcile these problematical features with a vestige of Pauline authorship by assuming that secretary wrote the Letters form sketchy notes or that a later author crafted them around fragments of authentic letters, it seems best to acknowledge their pseudonymity. An unkonwn author used Paul's name to give authority to his attempt to address problems in some post-Pauline chruches." I will again remove the paragraph. The introductions to 2 Timothy and Titus refer the reader to this paragraph for discussion of the authorship of those two letters. (2 Timothy and Titus.) "An unknown author used Paul's name" could not be more clear. Look at the Wikipedia articles for those letters people and they will tell you the truth. Wikipedia should not be made a fool of by ignorant people whose religiousity does not allow them objectivity. 99.140.233.138 (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I repeat my response again:
"I'm sorry- the quotation of one source does not resolve the problem. The fact of the matter is that many scholars are indeed divided on the issue, and therefore we should mind this fact in the article in the interest of neutrality. Historical perspective is also an issue- the relatively recent theories of scholars on the authorship of Paul's epistles should not usurp prior theories/beliefs on the subject (we should avoid a bias towards recent scholarship per policy). If the epistle is attributed to Paul, then we should mind the attribution while providing information on the disputed status of authorship. It's not even that I disagree with your changes, but your cited justifications are poor. The sections already have problems, but I do not believe this is one of them."
First of all, the articles acknowledge the fact that the issue is disputed- you seem to believe this means that it is settled in your favor. This, unfortunately, is not the case. The issue is indeed unresolved, and- on top of that- justifying changes based upon other Wikipedia articles is not an advisable practice.
Second of all, there are obviously a myriad of bibles which could be quoted in opposition to the quote which you have provided- what does that prove? We need to maintain an objective mindset concerning this issue, and your own personal comments near the end aren't helping.--C.Logan (talk) 01:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it's more than one source. It's 50+ Ph.D.s that edited the Bible and wrote the introduction. This whole section is plagiarized anyway! Look at this website!

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=transcripts&id=78

It is word for word plagiarism! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.233.138 (talk) 03:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I've repeatedly explained that the text itself is problematic, but your own reasons for removing it is hardly defensible. Must it be explained again that there is no scholarly consensus on the issue? The Harper Collins bible is not representative of the whole of scholarship, so do not try to present it as such.
If plagiarism is evident, the text should be revamped. The source/site itself is acceptable, but copying the text word-for-word is not acceptable. Additionally, we may not want to rely on one source alone- some of the particular points present should be included in addition to alternate, sourced interpretations.--C.Logan (talk) 09:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not A Member of The Sandhedrin

Paul was a Pharisee, and so not a member of the Sanhedrin. Phillipians 3:4-6, "If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: 5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; 6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. "

From the Wiki page on the Sanhedrin, "Some claim that the New Testament portrays the Sanhedrin as a corrupt group of Pharisees, although it was predominantly made up of Sadducees at the time. This does not agree with the New Testament in which the Sanhedrin's leadership - Annas and Caiaphas were Sadducees. The Gospels also consistently make a distinction between the Pharisees and "the elders," "the teachers of the law," and "the rulers of the people." 99.140.233.138 (talk) 23:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, many do not see the classifications as mutually exclusive. All the same, there is nothing explicit in the text itself which supports the possibility that Paul may have been part of the Sanhedrin. Some do believe this to be the case.--C.Logan (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On Marriage Is Word for Word Plagiarism

This section is not only wrong, it's plagiarized anyway. Here is the website, see for yourself.

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=transcripts&id=78

I'm going to go ahead and edit heavily.

To compare what I have removed, I will include the previous text:


In the first place, Paul himself was likely to have been married because of his Judaic background.[76] In his defense before the Jewish crowd outside the Roman barracks of the Antonian tower, Paul states that he was taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers and was zealous in living that law. (See Acts 22:3.) Again, in his defense before the Pharisees and Sadducees, Paul claims that he is a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. (See Acts 23:6.) To the Galatians, Paul had written that he was more zealous in fulfilling the requirements of his religion than others of his time. (See Gal. 1:14.) The emphasis that the Jews put on marriage as part of their law and tradition would certainly have been used against Paul in view of such statements if he had not been married.

Further evidence that Paul may have been married is found in the possibility that Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin.[citation needed] One of the qualifications for becoming a member of that body was that a man must be married and the father of children[citation needed], which was thought to make him more merciful in dispensing justice in the courts. Paul (Saul) was one of the official witnesses of the stoning of Stephen (see Acts 7:59), an action ordered by the Sanhedrin. He also gave his vote with the Sanhedrin against the Christians prior to his conversion. (See Acts 26:10.)3 Further evidence of Paul's position is found in Acts 9:1–2 where Paul went before the high priest and requested letters authorizing his "official" persecution in bringing Christians to trial and imprisonment. In view of these evidences, most non-Mormon scholars do not argue that Paul had never been married, but that he was either divorced or was a widower by the time he wrote to the Corinthian church.


ETC ETC. Jsmaine22 (talk) 01:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, citing Acts as a reliable source is not scholarship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsmaine22 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I would have to say that acts definitely can't count as a reliable source, since it is viewed by the majority of scholars as contradicting Paul's own letters (the Epistles). Clinkophonist (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
More to the point it (like the entire Bible) is a primary source, not a secondary source. See WP:PSTS: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation". Peter Ballard (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Added the Sickness sub headline and information

and I also put scriptural and commentary references.

Hope it meets the standards.

K8cpa (talk) 09:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Date of Birth

Is around 3-5 AD. some one add this please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dran0258 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research. 75.14.210.20 (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arrest and death

"According to Acts 21:17–26, upon his arrival in Mexico, the Apostle Paul provided a detailed account to James" - "[...]in order to disprove the accusations of the Mexicans[...]" Is there also a biblical Mexico? The provided source only mentions an arrival to Jerusalem... I don't know about this subject enough to correct this paragraph. Any volunteers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.23.32.141 (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism to which you refer has been undone.--C.Logan (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] death

There is no Proof for time of death, Therefore it should be corrected —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dran0258 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] banner

I have reverted temporarily Woody's very sound edit, as I had linked to this page at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Mass-spamming_by_User:John_Carter_and_User:Betacommandbot, protesting about just this, & I can't face trying to find another article where GA tags have been upstaged. I will re-revert in due course, promise! Johnbod (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Accusations Against Paul by Thomas Jefferson

I would like to again bring up the topic of Thomas Jefferson's accusations against the Apostle Paul. I read the archived Talk for this article and see that a clergyman from England blocked its inclusion. Allow me to present the facts for a renewed discussion.

THE WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON: contains:

Letter To William Short. Monticello, April 13, 1820. DEAR SIR, Your favor of March the 27th is received, and as you request, a copy of the syllabus is now enclosed. It was originally written to Dr. Rush. On his death, fearing that the inquisition of the public might get hold of it, I asked the return of it from the family, which they kindly complied with. At the request of another friend, I had given him a copy. He lent it to his friend to read, who copied it, and in a few months it appeared in the Theological Magazine of London. Happily that repository is scarcely known in this country, and the syllabus, therefore, is still a secret, and in your hands I am sure it will continue so. But while this syllabus is meant to place the character of Jesus in its true and high light, as no impostor Himself, but a great Reformer of the Hebrew code of religion, it is not to be understood that I am with Him in all His doctrines. I am a Materialist; he takes the side of Spiritualism; he preaches the efficacy of repentance towards forgiveness of sin; I require counterpoise of good works to redeem it, etc., etc. It is the innocence of His character, the purity and sublimity of His moral precepts, the eloquence of His inculcations, the beauty of the apologues in which He conveys them, that I so much admire; sometimes, indeed, needing indulgence to eastern hyperbolism. My eulogies, too, may be founded on a postulate which all may not be ready to grant. Among the sayings and discourses imputed to Him by His biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same Being. I separate, therefore, the gold from the dross; restore to Him the former, and leave the latter to the stupidity of some, and roguery of others of His disciples. Of this band of dupes and impostors, Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and first corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus. These palpable interpolations and falsifications of His doctrines, led me to try to sift them apart. I found the work obvious and easy, and that His past composed the most beautiful morsel of morality which has been given to us by man. The syllabus is therefore of His doctrines, not all of mine. I read them as I do those of other ancient and modern moralists, with a mixture of approbation and dissent..

Then Thomas Jefferson went on to edit the bible (twice) (including French, Latin, and Greek translations) to remove what he considered to be falsehoods added by his disciples.

No one in the archived Talk pages for Paul the Apostle disputed the above facts. The accusation by Thomas Jefferson that Paul was the "first corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus" was not included in the WP article because a clergyman from England questioned the qualifications of Thomas Jefferson. "Thomas Jefferson was the third President of the United States, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence, and one of the most influential Founding Fathers for his promotion of the ideals of Republicanism in the United States. Jefferson supported the separation of church and state and was the author of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. He edited the bible to remove what he considered to be deliberate falsifications made by Paul and others.

I propose the following addition to the Paul the Apostle article:


Among the critics of Paul the Apostle was Thomas Jefferson, who wrote that Paul was the "first corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus".

Reference: THE WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON: BEING HIS AUTOBIOGRAPHY, CORRESPONDENCE, REPORTS, MESSAGES, ADDRESSES, AND OTHER WRITINGS, OFFICIAL AND PRIVATE. PUBLISHED BY THE ORDER OF The JOINT COMMITTEE OF CONGRESS ON THE LIBRARY, FROM THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS, DEPOSITED IN THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WITH EXPLANATORY NOTES, TABLES OF CONTENTS, AND A COPIOUS INDEX TO EACH VOLUME, AS WELL AS A GENERAL INDEX TO THE WHOLE, BY THE EDITOR H. A. WASHINGTON. VOL. VII. PUBLISHED BY TAYLOR MAURY, WASHINGTON, D. C 1854.

Comments and discussion please...

Monticello Fellow (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems about as relevant as Freud's theory about Moses: maybe in a separate, non-historical section? Grover cleveland (talk) 07:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Since Jefferson was by no means a Biblical scholar, it's a bit irrelevant here. We can't have everyone's opinion on Paul. It would be better placed on Jefferson's article, than here. Carl.bunderson (talk) 09:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The existing WP article on TJ states "Though his religious views diverted widely from the orthodox Christianity of his day, throughout his life Jefferson was intensely interested in theology, spirituality, and biblical study." He wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom and edited his own version of the Bible (which then excluded Paul's revelations). His written accusation against the Apostle Paul is unique, noteworthy, and provocative. The fact that the accusation came from a former U.S. President and author of the Declaration of Independence tips the balance toward inclusion rather than exclusion. I am not aware of any other world leader who bothered to make such a strong criticism of Paul. I don't think the comment should be suppressed. I believe that one sentence in the existing "Alternative views" section would be an interesting addition. Repentance 15:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The larger issue is that Paul's writings are the divinely inspired word of God to most of Christianity, but here we have a well-known historical figure who labels it ignorance, absurdity, untruth, charlatanism, and falsification, names Paul as the first corruptor, and cuts out Paul's words from the Bible and leaves them on the floor.

Still, the words are Jefferson's, not ours. We have the "Alternative views" area already, which contains the views of Elaine Pagels Robert Cramer Father Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, O.P Hyam Maccoby F.C.Baur Adolf Deissmann Richard Reitzenstein Albert Schweitzer

I do not object to including a brief mention of Thomas Jefferson's view, as long as it is not given undue weight. Myth America (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I don't think one or two sentences in the Alt view section would be terrible. I expected to lose this one anyway, after Book of Revelation. I still don't see why Jefferson should be included along with a Dominican, Elaine Pagels, and the like. The are biblical scholars, Jefferson was an opinionated deist who happened to be someone important. Just because someone is a president, or celebrity, doesn't mean their opinions on everything matter. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Added the sentence to the Alt view section. Monticello Fellow (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page rename

A user renamed this page from Paul the Apostle to Saint Paul (apostle) without discussion. I have renamed it back. I have no strong opinions on what name is preferable, but any potential rename must first be discussed on this talk page, because I know it has created a lot of discussion in the past. Peter Ballard (talk) 06:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

p.s. old discussion is at Talk:Paul the Apostle/Archive 4#Article Rename, just to illustrate that any rename requires consensus. Peter Ballard (talk) 06:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. If it is moved again with out discussion and clear consensus, it will be moved back. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I hadn't seen the first discussion. There seemed to be an agreement on this title but it wasn't a formally organized vote or move request. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Lets vote Andycjp (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the key issue is whether the page title should include the word 'Saint'. Last time there seemed to be a consensus against. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I would call it 'St Paul' or 'Saint Paul'. But including 'saint' in the title of an article is against the trend of WP policy, isn't it? Carl.bunderson (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Social views section

I removed this whole section as it is pure editor interpretation of the primary sources and has remained unsourced for almost a year, with no attempt to improve the sources. Please re-include any info with sources.

Every letter of Paul includes pastoral advice which most often arises from the doctrines he has been propounding. They are not afterthoughts. Thus in his letter to the Romans, he reminds his readers that, like branches grafted onto the olive, they themselves, like the natural branches, the Jews, may be broken off if they fail to persist in faith. For that reason he appeals to them to offer themselves to God, and not to be conformed to the world. They must use their gifts as part of the body which they are. He invites them to be loving, patient, humble and peaceable, never seeking vengeance. Their standards are to be heavenly not earthy standards: he condemns impurity, lust, greed, anger, slander, filthy language, lying, and racial divisions. In the same passage, Paul extols the virtues of compassion, kindness, patience, forgiveness, love, peace, and gratitude (Colossians 3:1–17; cf. Galatians 5:16–26). Even so they are to be obedient to the authorities, paying their taxes, on the grounds that the magistrate exercises power which can only come from God. As noted above, the Corinthians were inclined to regard their freedom from law as a license to do what they liked. Thus, his attitude towards sexual immorality, set against the mores of Greek-influenced society, is particularly direct: "Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body" (1 Corinthians 6:18). His attitude towards marriage, in writing to the Corinthians, is to advise his readers that it is sin to fornicate because of the "present distress," while noting marriage is better than immoral conduct: "it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion"; the alternative, adopted by Paul himself, is true love. As for those who are married, even to unbelievers, they should not seek to be parted. In Ephesians he appears to be more positive, holding up marriage as a metaphor for the relationship between Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5:21–33). His attitude towards dietary rules manifests the same caution: Paul argued that while "all is permitted," some actions may seem to "weaker brethren" to be an implicit acceptance of the legitimacy of idol worship — such as eating food that had been used in pagan sacrifice. He deals with many other questions on which he may have been asked for advice: their relationship with unbelievers; the duty of supporting other needy Christians, how to deal with church members who had fallen into temptation, the need for self-examination and humility, the conduct of family life, the importance of accepting the teaching authority of the leaders of the Church. His teaching has been criticised as being extremely conservative, and even mystical. His view of the shortness of time before the end was to come is thought to have influenced his ministry ethic. An example of this may be seen in his attitude towards unbelievers, which appears to vary, and may be the result of his responding to various questions that we have no record of. Three particular issues, not all of them controversial at the time, have assumed great contemporary importance. One is his attitude towards slaves, the second towards women, and the third is his attitude towards homosexuality. The issue of slavery arises because his letter to the slave-owning Philemon, whose slave Onesimus Paul sends with his letter. He fails to condemn the practice (as he does also in writing to the Corinthians) but his asking that Philemon should treat him "not as a slave, but instead of a slave, as a most dear brother, especially to me" (Philemon 16) may be thought of as a subtle condemnation of slavery. Many others, however, have used his writings to uphold the institution of slavery. To determine Paul's beliefs on homosexuality, several passages are frequently cited. In 1 Cor 6:9–10, Paul lists a number of actions which are so wicked that they will deprive whoever commits them of their divine inheritance: "Neither the immoral, nor idolaters, not adulterers, nor sexual perverts.[1] nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God." Elsewhere, he describes certain homosexual actions as unnatural, the perpetrators as being "consumed with passion for one another and as having abandoned the truth about God for a lie" (Romans 1:24–27). A number of Biblical scholars, such as Dr. David Hilborn, argue that these passages represent a condemnation of homosexuality by Paul. Liberal scholars, such as John Boswell, Professor of History at Yale University,[2] argue that Paul was not referring to homosexual relationships as we now understand them and contrast the relationships common in the ancient world (such as pederasty) with modern gay relationships. See The Bible and homosexuality's section on Paul.[1].'

Ashmoo (talk) 10:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that's all User:Roger Arguile's contribution, seems a shame just to bulk delete it, but I guess that's what wikipedia is all about. 68.123.64.41 (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
There is some good info in there and it is a topic that does deserve attention, but unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any work being done. Paul's views on marriage and homosexuality have been written about for thousands of years, so someone should be able to come up with some notable sourced commentary to include. Ashmoo (talk) 08:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
What's the point when someone can just come along and block delete all the work on any pretense? See also User:Daniel Quinlan/gaming. 75.14.220.208 (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Or another way to look at it: Sure the current section could use a lot of work, but how does block deleting encourage that? If you provided a better replacement, that would be good, but just block deleting does not encourage other editors to get involved. 75.15.206.144 (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


WP:OR and WP:RS are foundational policies of wikipedia, not a 'pretense'. The section has had a 'cite' tag for almost a year. Editors have had plenty of time to get 'encouraged' to improve the sources. By all means find the sources and re-include the details. But a year is far to long to be violating wikpedia policy. Ashmoo (talk) 08:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I was the major contributer. I have done nothing for some time simply because I came to the conclusion that there were too few people interested in improving the copy and too many people, often highly opinionated, who were more interested in picking flies. those who know the subject will easily recognised the sources. Almost nothing stated lacks an authoritative source. If it is amuses some people to remove large amounts of information simply because they don't know where it comes from, I have no further interest. It seems to me that the strength of WP is also its weakness. I gave up editing quite a long time ago because too many people who knew rather little and lacked the patience to learn, or who held highly eccesntric were as able to trash hard work and to threaten people with wikipenalties into the bargain. Please feel free to delete the lot if it amuses you. Roger Arguile

[edit] Restored an older version of the page

here. It also removed an IP edit that added something from Galatians. A "KYLE SUCKS" crept in there somewhere, although checking the edit history, I'm not sure exactly where. Someone probably reverted and missed a previous vandal edit. We gotta be more careful. Enigma message 00:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)