Talk:Ebionites: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 05:33, 17 January 2024 editCewbot (talk \| contribs)Bots7,272,020 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 5 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 5 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Religion}}, {{WikiProject Judaism}}, {{WikiProject Jewish history}}, {{WikiProject Christianity}}, {{WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism}}.← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 11:49, 28 June 2024 edit undoLoremaster (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers55,212 editsm →Robert Eisenman
(40 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 64:		Line 64:
	\|leading_zeros=0		\|leading_zeros=0
	\|indexhere=yes}}		\|indexhere=yes}}
	{{Broken anchors\|links=
	* <nowiki>]</nowiki> Anchor ] links to a specific web page: ]. The anchor (#Persecution of Christians by Christians) has been ] before. <!-- {"title":"Persecution of Christians by Christians","appear":{"revid":5105639,"parentid":5084650,"timestamp":"2004-08-08T19:12:37Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":339712202,"parentid":339709573,"timestamp":"2010-01-24T12:14:42Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"very_different":false,"rename_to":"Persecution of Christians in Ottoman Empire"} -->
	}}

		⚫	== This article has an unclear citation style ==
	==Islam==
	Why have opinion of non muslims have been quoted under heading of Islam. it's distortion. editor to address this issue] (]) 06:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
	:Interestingly enough, the 'confusion' may have gone way back to at least the 19th century in the USA when ] (some were leading lights in academia, banking, industry, and society) were sometimes called 'Mahometans' (in what the 'describers' could have thought would be 'conceptually illuminating' (but which could have been 'taken as a slight' by practicing Muslims, if they had heard it). ] (]) 23:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

		⚫	I suggest that all contributors to the ] article follow the example of the ] article when it comes to notes, citations and sources from now on. So we have a lot of work to do. —-] (]) 15:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
	== Modern reception ==
	A segment of text was removed:
	"In a 2007 polemic, a Messianic writer asked whether Christians should imitate the Torah observance and acceptance of rabbinic understanding of "neo-Ebionites", who are defined as those who accept Jesus as Messiah, reject Paul and claim Moses as the only guide for Christians.<ref name="Torah Observance">{{Cite journal\|author = John Parsons\| title = Should Christians be Torah-observant?\| year = 2007 \| url = http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Articles/Torah_Observance/torah_observance.html\| accessdate = 21 July 2007}}</ref>"
	by ] with this text:"Hast nothing to do with the articles subject"

			== No primary sources ==
	Contact the editor:
	mail: https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:EmailUser/Lovemankind83
	wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Lovemankind83

			Here we have an article about a "group of Christians" that are devoid of any primary sources. I notice one contributor is obsessed with the "bloodline theory of Jesus Christ" as found in the book "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" even though it had nothing to do with Pierre Plantard and the Priory of Sion, and Plantard distanced himself from the nonsense in late 1982 on a French radio programme. Also Plantard actively criticised the book from 1989 onwards. The subject matter has been dead in France for ages. Plantard was a spent force in 1989 when his latest manifestation of the Priory of Sion was responsible for the final demise of Pierre Plantard, who died in 2000. It's only the British people that ever became obsessed with "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail". Plantard himself had no interest in the "Jesus Bloodline" from the get-go because he was an old-fashioned French Roman Catholic, as can be gleaned from his works and writings. ] (]) 07:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
	Should not that topic not be included in the article somehow, somewhere? ] (]) 18:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
	{{reflist-talk}}

			:As the Misplaced Pages article on the ] clearly states in the introduction section: "Since historical records by the Ebionites are scarce, fragmentary and disputed, much of what is known or conjectured about them derives from the polemics of their Gentile Christian opponents, specifically the Church Fathers." This fact has never prevented numerous respected secular and religious encyclopedias of having entries on the subject of Ebionites.

			:As I suggested 4 years ago, the Ebionites article has an unclear citation style. We should all focus on improving it, which means, among other things, making proper use of primary sources (the Church Fathers and the Jewish-Christian gospels) when and where needed.
	:- I agree with User:Lovemankind83 that the removed text is not relevant to the article - it is not a view held by the majority of scholars - ] says, "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all" - and the source is questionable (]) as it is a self-published website written by one person with no editorial oversight - ] (]) 19:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
	:: I had asked, "Should not that topic not be included in the article somehow, somewhere?" (nto whether THAT comment ought to be included). ] (]) 20:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

			:That being said, you are the one who is obsessed with ] since no one here currently believes in the Priory of Sion myth of Pierre Plantard nor the conspiracy theories of the authors of <i>The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail</i>. I've been watching over the ] article for years to ensure, among other things, that readers know that the Priory of Sion has been thoroughly debunked as a hoax.
	== Non-scholarly, deceitful polemics ==

			:However, what you seem to fail to understand is that the uncontroversial notion that James the Just is the biological brother (or half-brother) of Jesus is NOT related to unfounded speculation of a Jesus bloodline from Mary Magdalene. (For the record, I personally think that Jesus didn't father any biological children due to a vow of celibacy because of his belief that marriage would cease to exist in the Kingdom of God on Earth, and his alleged promotion of ]s as role models.)
	The below passage (within subsection '''Jesus''', which is by the way a poor choice for a heading) references works of Hyam Maccoby. His works are widely rejected by modern scholars and considered non-historical polemics against Paul and the early church without reasonable substance. I recommend this whole passage to be removed. To me this sounds like an anachronistic reading of history favouring obscure sources to peddle the highly debatable notion that mainstream trinitarian Christianity is an aberration of the 'real' teachings of Jesus. This deceptive rhetoric usually emphasise the 'Oneness of God' (buzzword) as a central Ebionite dogma but completely ignores teachings that are contradicting established christianity/islam as e.g. the rejection of the virgin birth. It seems to me that this has been written to discredit trinitarian Christianity solely and not the offer an impartial view on the history of Ebionites without presupposition or dogma.

			:Bottom line: Please avoid engaging in unprovoked and absurd personal attacks against contributors to the Ebionites article. --] (]) 14:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
	''The Ebionites are described as emphasizing the oneness of God and the humanity of Jesus as the biological son of Mary and Joseph, who, by virtue of his righteousness, was chosen by God to be the messianic "prophet like Moses" (foretold in Deuteronomy 18:14–22) when he was anointed with the Holy Spirit at his baptism.'' <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			::FYI: You'll be happy to know that the mention of ″relatives of Jesus″ (which could be misinterpreted as promoting the hypothesis of Jesus bloodline from Mary Magdalene) has now been deleted from the Ebionites article. --] (]) 09:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:Although I do not have a problem with removing the expression "oneness of God" (which is not a buzzword) and supporting this passage with a different source, there are three problems with your request:
	:1. As long as we do not misrepresent Maccoby's opinion as reflecting the consensus of modern scholars on a particular issue, the fact that a majority of modern scholars reject the opinions of Maccoby is not a legitimate reason for excluding his opinion on a particular issue in this article.
	:2. Historical Ebionites are primarily known through aggressive polemics against them written by Church Fathers who accuse them of rejecting some fundamental mainstream Christian beliefs. Past contributors of the Misplaced Pages article on the Ebionites have simply tried to present Ebionite views in an impartial way that is as fair as possible to the Ebionites.
	:3. Belief in the virgin birth of Jesus does not necessarily support the belief in the Trinity. In other words, not only it is entirely possible for some Ebionites to have believed in the virgin birth of Jesus without believing in the pre-existence of Jesus or the Trinity of God, but this is what some Church Fathers seem to tell us where the actual beliefs of some Ebionites. Furthemore, ] is, by definition, a ] theological doctrine and most scholars agree that some if not all Ebionites were adoptionists.
	:--] (]) 15:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

			== Robert Eisenman ==
	::Anyway, trinitarianism was invented centuries after the death of Jesus. Jesus did not wander through Israel preaching that he is the second Person of the Holy Trinity, as Bart Ehrman stated. ] (]) 15:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

			Fringe. His works on The Dead Sea Scrolls are rightfully rejected. He is a Muslim by faith. ] (]) 07:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
⚫	== This article has an unclear citation style ==

			:I hope you are not suggesting that someone's Muslim faith (or Jewish faith or liberal Christian faith or lack of faith) automatically prevents him or her from doing good scholarship on Christianity... That being said, although I'm not a fan of Robert Eisenman's works, we cannot deny or suppress the fact that he is among the few modern scholars who have written on the subject of Ebionites. Furthemore, although one of Eisenman's book is used as a source, the article does not discuss the Dead Sea Scrolls nor link them to the Ebionites. --] (]) 14:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
⚫	I suggest that all contributors to the ] article follow the example of the ] article when it comes to notes, citations and sources from now on. So we have a lot of work to do. :) —-] (]) 15:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 11:49, 28 June 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ebionites article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Ebionites is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 9, 2007.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 13, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
December 22, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
December 24, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
April 12, 2007	Featured article candidate	Promoted
October 24, 2007	Featured article review	Demoted
Current status: Former featured article

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Religion: Interfaith Mid‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Judaism Low‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Jewish history Mid‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity Mid‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Veganism and Vegetarianism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of veganism and vegetarianism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Veganism and VegetarianismWikipedia:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismTemplate:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismVeganism and Vegetarianism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11

Topic specific archives

Peer Review Archive
Spiritual Ebionite Archive
Dispute Archive

Sources

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

This article has an unclear citation style

I suggest that all contributors to the Ebionites article follow the example of the Gospel of the Ebionites article when it comes to notes, citations and sources from now on. So we have a lot of work to do. —-Loremaster (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

No primary sources

Here we have an article about a "group of Christians" that are devoid of any primary sources. I notice one contributor is obsessed with the "bloodline theory of Jesus Christ" as found in the book "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" even though it had nothing to do with Pierre Plantard and the Priory of Sion, and Plantard distanced himself from the nonsense in late 1982 on a French radio programme. Also Plantard actively criticised the book from 1989 onwards. The subject matter has been dead in France for ages. Plantard was a spent force in 1989 when his latest manifestation of the Priory of Sion was responsible for the final demise of Pierre Plantard, who died in 2000. It's only the British people that ever became obsessed with "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail". Plantard himself had no interest in the "Jesus Bloodline" from the get-go because he was an old-fashioned French Roman Catholic, as can be gleaned from his works and writings. Octavius88 (talk) 07:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

As the Misplaced Pages article on the Ebionites clearly states in the introduction section: "Since historical records by the Ebionites are scarce, fragmentary and disputed, much of what is known or conjectured about them derives from the polemics of their Gentile Christian opponents, specifically the Church Fathers." This fact has never prevented numerous respected secular and religious encyclopedias of having entries on the subject of Ebionites.

As I suggested 4 years ago, the Ebionites article has an unclear citation style. We should all focus on improving it, which means, among other things, making proper use of primary sources (the Church Fathers and the Jewish-Christian gospels) when and where needed.

That being said, you are the one who is obsessed with flogging a dead horse since no one here currently believes in the Priory of Sion myth of Pierre Plantard nor the conspiracy theories of the authors of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. I've been watching over the Priory of Sion article for years to ensure, among other things, that readers know that the Priory of Sion has been thoroughly debunked as a hoax.

However, what you seem to fail to understand is that the uncontroversial notion that James the Just is the biological brother (or half-brother) of Jesus is NOT related to unfounded speculation of a Jesus bloodline from Mary Magdalene. (For the record, I personally think that Jesus didn't father any biological children due to a vow of celibacy because of his belief that marriage would cease to exist in the Kingdom of God on Earth, and his alleged promotion of eunuchs as role models.)

Bottom line: Please avoid engaging in unprovoked and absurd personal attacks against contributors to the Ebionites article. --Loremaster (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

FYI: You'll be happy to know that the mention of ″relatives of Jesus″ (which could be misinterpreted as promoting the hypothesis of Jesus bloodline from Mary Magdalene) has now been deleted from the Ebionites article. --Loremaster (talk) 09:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Robert Eisenman

Fringe. His works on The Dead Sea Scrolls are rightfully rejected. He is a Muslim by faith. Octavius88 (talk) 07:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I hope you are not suggesting that someone's Muslim faith (or Jewish faith or liberal Christian faith or lack of faith) automatically prevents him or her from doing good scholarship on Christianity... That being said, although I'm not a fan of Robert Eisenman's works, we cannot deny or suppress the fact that he is among the few modern scholars who have written on the subject of Ebionites. Furthemore, although one of Eisenman's book is used as a source, the article does not discuss the Dead Sea Scrolls nor link them to the Ebionites. --Loremaster (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Categories: