Revision as of 14:14, 17 June 2024 editLoremaster (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers55,212 edits →No primary sources: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:28, 17 June 2024 edit undoLoremaster (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers55,212 edits →Robert Eisenman: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit ReplyNext edit → | ||
Line 120: | Line 120: | ||
Fringe. His works on The Dead Sea Scrolls are rightfully rejected. He is a Muslim by faith. ] (]) 07:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC) | Fringe. His works on The Dead Sea Scrolls are rightfully rejected. He is a Muslim by faith. ] (]) 07:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC) | ||
:I hope you are not suggesting that someone's Muslim 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 modern scholars who written on the Ebionites. t. | |||
:Magdalene. | |||
: --] (]) 14:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:28, 17 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. |
|
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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archives |
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11 |
Peer Review Archive |
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
|
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)
Controversial?
Why is the topic of “He was not of one faith” so controversial? Hzea (talk) 13:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hello Hzea,
- Thank you for your contributions to the Ebionites page on Misplaced Pages. Your recent edits have been reversed due to a few issues: the sentences were written in an idiosyncratic manner, didn't fit properly with the surrounding content, or included redundant information.
- For example, you wrote: "But the followers of the Ebionites were not of one faith. Some of them believed that Christ was a different personality from Jesus of Nazareth."
- Firstly, it's unnecessary to say "followers of the Ebionites" when "Ebionites" suffices. Secondly, the introduction section of the Ebionites article focuses on the beliefs that many (but not all) Ebionites seem to have shared. It's more appropriate to discuss their divergent beliefs in another section of the article, which is already the case if you look at the subsection "Judaism, Gnosticism and Essenism" in the "Views and Practices" section.
- Additionally, you wrote: "some of them denied the crucifixion of Christ"
- Beyond the grammatical issues (e.g., missing capital "S" for "some" and missing period at the end), it would be more appropriate to include this notion in the subsection "Judaism, Gnosticism and Essenism" within the "Views and Practices" section of the article.
- Thank you for understanding and for your efforts to improve the article.
- Best regards,
—Loremaster (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- What about adding a page titled “The Development of Belief”?This is a page with this title that is present on many pages that talk about sects and I know several sources that mentioned the development of the Ebionite doctrine
- And because there are websites that talk about the Ebionite, you find conflicting information because their belief changed over time. For example, website says that they says Jesus is the son of God, and another website says that they says Jesus is not the son of God. So I think that it is a good idea, especially since there are people who ask what their belief actually is, Because of this problem. Hzea (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Your suggestion of creating a new section isn't necessary since I've now substantially revised the content within the introduction section of the Ebionites article in order to resolve this dispute. —Loremaster (talk) 01:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- P.S. Since there is a lot of misinformation and disinformation on the Internet, we must verify if the source you want to use for content you want to add to the Ebionites article is considered a reliable source according to Misplaced Pages standards. Loremaster (talk) 01:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, the important thing is that you told me to add it in the subsection “Judaism, Gnosticism, and Esseneism.” ? Hzea (talk) 07:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but only if we can determine that your source is reliable and can be read in English to make sure it says what you claim it says. Loremaster (talk) 10:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- My source is St. Takla Haymanout Coptic Orthodox Website. in this page. The website can make it in English
- https://st-takla.org/books/helmy-elkommos/cross/look-alike-origins.html Hzea (talk) 10:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Whether or not it can be translated in English, an Arabic text on the website of a church is obviously not a reliable source... Please find an essay/book originally written in English by a respected scholar or, at the very least, an entry in a respected secular encyclopedia. Loremaster (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- By the way, your source is mistaken. Irenaeus, in his work Against Heresies, primarily targeted the teachings and beliefs of various Gnostic sects. The specific passage your source cited refers to the beliefs of a Gnostic sect that followed the teachings of Basilides. Basilides was an early Christian Gnostic religious teacher in Alexandria, Egypt, who taught from about 117 to 138 AD.
- The sect of Basilides held some quite distinctive views on the nature of Jesus' crucifixion. They believed that Jesus was not the one who was crucified on the cross. Instead, Simon of Cyrene, the man compelled by the Romans to carry Jesus' cross as described in the Synoptic Gospels, was transformed to appear as Jesus, and it was Simon who was crucified in Jesus' place. Meanwhile, Jesus appeared as Simon and stood by, observing the crucifixion. According to Basilides, Jesus was an immaterial being or phantasm who could change form at will, thus escaping physical suffering and death. This belief is a reflection of the Gnostic view that the material world is inherently corrupt and that the divine is entirely spiritual and thus not subject to physical suffering.
- Irenaeus strongly opposed these teachings, arguing for the very real incarnation and physical suffering of Jesus as central to Christian salvation doctrine. He believed that by denying the real crucifixion and suffering of Jesus, the Gnostics undermined the entire Christian message of redemption and salvation through Jesus' sacrifice.
- However, unlike the Gnostics, the Ebionites never denied the suffering and crucifixion of Jesus. They simply did not view it as an atoning sacrifice for the sins of mankind. Loremaster (talk) 17:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but only if we can determine that your source is reliable and can be read in English to make sure it says what you claim it says. Loremaster (talk) 10:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, the important thing is that you told me to add it in the subsection “Judaism, Gnosticism, and Esseneism.” ? Hzea (talk) 07:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- And because there are websites that talk about the Ebionite, you find conflicting information because their belief changed over time. For example, website says that they says Jesus is the son of God, and another website says that they says Jesus is not the son of God. So I think that it is a good idea, especially since there are people who ask what their belief actually is, Because of this problem. Hzea (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2024 (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 I suggested 4 years ago, the Ebionite article has an unclear citation style. We should focus on improving it, which include making proper use of primary sources as much as necessary.
- That being said, you seem obsessed with beating dead horses since no one here 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 that readers know that the Priory of Sion has been thoroughly debunked as a hoax. However, it is important for you to understand 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.
- Bottom line: Please avoid engaging in unprovoked and absurd personal attacks against contributors to the Ebionite article. --Loremaster (talk) 14:14, 17 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 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 modern scholars who written on the Ebionites. t.
- Magdalene.
- --Loremaster (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages former featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Old requests for peer review
- C-Class Religion articles
- Mid-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- C-Class Judaism articles
- Low-importance Judaism articles
- C-Class Jewish history-related articles
- Mid-importance Jewish history-related articles
- WikiProject Jewish history articles
- C-Class Christianity articles
- Mid-importance Christianity articles
- WikiProject Christianity articles
- C-Class Veganism and Vegetarianism articles
- Low-importance Veganism and Vegetarianism articles
- WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism articles