Talk:Paul of Samosata

Historical sources should be critiqued

Virtually all our information about Paul of Samosata comes from his enemies and was written down long after his death. It should be noted in in the article that some of the claims about Paul may have been exaggerated or fabricated. Additionally, Gibbon is presented as an impeccable historical source, when he is dependent on these possibly unreliable ancient sources.

Untitled

The link to LUCIAN is in error, it takes you to Lucian the writer, not the Saint. I fixed that

This article doesn't tell us what the difference between Paul's out-of-date Christology and that which became orthodox was, just that he clung to an older one that was already out of fashion in Rome and Alexandria. Could someone post just what his Christology was and how it differed from what became orthodox? Rlquall, 18:25 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fixed that and another problems with this article, which historically inaccurate and very POV. Str1977 11:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I removed "fidelity to the Scriptures" from the passage about the Paulicians, because as it stands it is POV. If the editor who included it will specify what this "fidelity" was all about, it can be included, but to say their were persecuted for "fidelity to the scriptures" is

a) in this general sense incredible, since the Orthodox church was no less adhering to Scripture

b) pro-Paulician POV - it is their claim, that they are faithful to the scriptures, but if this would have been undisputed there would have been no persecution

c) they (probably) were persecuted for their teaching which they claimed to be found in Scripture. But that's not the same thing.

Str1977 09:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Is it true or false to say that the Paulicians would have disputed that the Orthodox church adhered to Scripture? Is not the Orthodox claim of their own fidelity just as potentially biased as that of the Paulicians? I say that the above comments are clearly biased and do not represent objective historical inquiry. The only unbiased comment that can be made is that the Paulicians and the Orthodox mutually asserted their own fidelity even as they mutually asserted the lack of same in the other. That the Orthodox apparently crushed the Paulicians does not, in ultimate reality, settle the truth or falsehood of either's claims.

Both the nearly 400 years between the time of Paul of Samosata and that of the Paulicians, and the radical differences between the doctrines are generally understood as evidence that the Paulicians were NOT followers of Paul of Samosata. I have so far found no indication of dualism or Gnosticism on the part of Paul of Samosata. On the other hand, such claims in regards to the Paulicians are fairly common. It is possible that they were called Paulicians by their opponents in an attempt to link them with Paul of Samosata. On the other hand, according to the Wikipedia article on the Paulicians, the founder, 'as called upon to restore the pure Christianity of Paul', so the name may refer to Paul of Tarsus. --BobGriffin-Nukraya 01:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Accusations

Jacob Burckhardt seems to believe some of these accusations - See "the Age of Constantine the Great." (various editions so can't give page, but it's Chapter 5). Student7 17:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

removed uncited material

"whom he considered the most impartial among the Christians."

Editor Conjecture; it is more likely that he knew the Roman Pontiff ran the show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.172.64 (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Do we really need Gibbon citations?

In my opinion Gibbon was just a man of lots of personal opinions, and so by citing him, we don't achieve WP:NPOV. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 20:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)