This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Loremaster (talk | contribs) at 15:14, 25 May 2024 (→Controversial?: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 15:14, 25 May 2024 by Loremaster (talk | contribs) (→Controversial?: Reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| 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.
|
Islam
Why have opinion of non muslims have been quoted under heading of Islam. it's distortion. editor to address this issueRashid37009 (talk) 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 nontrinitarians (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). MaynardClark (talk) 23:20, 3 April 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." by User:Lovemankind83 with this text:"Hast nothing to do with the articles subject"
Contact the editor: mail: https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:EmailUser/Lovemankind83 wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Lovemankind83
Should not that topic not be included in the article somehow, somewhere? MaynardClark (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
References
- John Parsons (2007). "Should Christians be Torah-observant?". Retrieved 21 July 2007.
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help)
- - 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 - WP:UNDUE says, "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all" - and the source is questionable (WP:QUESTIONABLE) as it is a self-published website written by one person with no editorial oversight - Epinoia (talk) 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). MaynardClark (talk) 20:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Non-scholarly, deceitful polemics
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.
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.94.138 (talk) 10:49, 27 April 2020 (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, adoptionism is, by definition, a nontrinitarian theological doctrine and most scholars agree that some if not all Ebionites were adoptionists.
- --Loremaster (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- 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. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
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 sources 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)
- An Arabic text on the website of a church is obviously not a reliable source... Please find an essay/book 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)
- 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)
- 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