This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles 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.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
I've re-written this. I didn't think an entry based on a 1890's encylopedia really did it justice. I notice some of the other New Testament entries have a simmilar problem. --Doc Glasgow 18:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Is it possible to clarify the phrasing?
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
"There is no way of knowing what happened to Onesimus after the letter. Ignatius of Antioch mentions an Onesimus as Bishop of Ephesus in the early second century; as Onesimus was not an uncommon slave name, some commentators have suggested a connection between the slave mentioned by Paul and this Bishop of Ephesus."
Is the import here meant to be that there is a likely connection because the name is not common (or in other words "is uncommon" rather than "was not an uncommon" name for a slave)? Or are we to understand that only _some_ commentators have suggested this connection, and there is no accepted consensus on this point, because the name is so common, and thus the matter far from conclusive? -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 14:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Apostolic authority
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I'm wondering about the sentence, in the lede, which states in part; "Paul does not identify himself as an apostle with authority..." I'm looking at Philemon 1:8 where Paul says he could command Philemon to do what he requires but chooses not to. This seems similar to 1 Thessalonians 2:6 where his apostleship is made clearer. Philemon 1:14 suggests Paul could compel him. I wonder if we should tweak that statement a bit while still maintaining the emphasis on the brotherly relationship. Just a thought. JodyBtalk14:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
