Talk:Marcionism

message: For some reason, another user reverted my edits here, claiming they were "not an improvement". I fail to see how any reasonable editor could come to that conclusion. My edits were to replace outdated wording such as "betook himself too", along with clearly in violation of NPOV wording such as "credited with correctly transmitting the gracious universality of Jesus' message in opposition to the harsh dictates of the 'just god'" and " He rejected the heathen mythology of Gnostics, and adhered to Christianity as the only true religion; he was less speculative, and gave a higher place to faith". I added a WP:RS in Bart D. Ehrman, and added additional information that clarified the entire section. The lead before that had essentially been taken straight from the Phillip Schaff work, which is so biased in it's wording as to barely be considered a RS, if, indeed, it should be considered such at all. Greater explanation of why my edits were reverted is needed here, but in the meantime I have reverted back to my edits. I will not break 3RR, but this must be discussed. Vyselink (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: - I agree, your edit seems to improve the lead - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: I have removed the section "In modern history" from the article for the following reasons:
*1. written like a personal essay. WP:NOTESSAY
*2. poorly cited. WP:UNSOURCED WP:VERIFY
*3. uses weasel expressions like "some atheists", "some Christians", "for some", "others have argued". WP:WEASEL
*4. the paragraph on the relationship to Nazism cites the Deutsche Christen, but the articles on the Deutsche Christen and Religion in Nazi Germany do not mention Marcionism. WP:NOR
*5. the article on Christian deism does not mention Marcionism. WP:NOR
*6. uses the pejortative term "heresy" for Paulicans, Bogomils and Cathars. WP:LABEL
*7. makes statements like ""Marcionism" and "neo-Marcionism" have sometimes been used in modern times to refer to anti-Jewish tendencies in Christian churches" without supporting citations. WP:UNSOURCED WP:VERIFY
*8. the section is mostly speculation and shows no relationship between Marcionism and any modern religious movement. WP:NOR
-cheers - Epinoia (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like good work to me. The entire article is not very well written and violates a number of the points you have above. I've done some work on the lead but haven't been able to work on it more yet. Vyselink (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  In modern history 

message: Price is a supporter of the Christ Myth Theory (CMT), which is widely regarded as a fringe theory rejected by the academic consensus. His views should not be quoted, since they are obviously unreliable. -Karma1998 (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's see if anyone else has anything to say. Editor2020 (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  As you wish.-Karma1998 (talk) 23:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  - Robert Price is a supporter of the Chirst Myth Theory, but I don't know enough about him to decide if that discredits all his work. Is his work on Marcion solid? If Price is kept in the article, I think we can certainly lose the quote by him as it repeats what has already been stated and adds nothing. -  cheers - Epinoia (talk) 01:04, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

text: Not sure what Price being wrong about Mythicism has to do with  his ability to assess the Pauline corpus. Holding a fringe postion doesn't make one unreliable. It seems that you don't understand what is meant by "fringe". Spiker 22 (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fringe theory 

message: ""In bringing together these texts, Marcion redacted what is perhaps the first New Testament canon on record, which he called the Gospel and the Apostolikon, which reflects his belief in the writings of Jesus and the apostle Paul respectively.""
This is a rather awkward way to describe Marcion's  activity. Redaction is editing and that is not  what happens when you assemble a canon. 
This has the affect of playing into the idea that Marcion edited Luke and Paul. Also, where would Marcion have gotten "Jesus writings"? What writings?  Further should we be citing Harnack when there's more recent scholarship. The article seems to be more of a narrative than an informed presentation Spiker 22 (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belief in the writings of Jesus, the meaning of redaction and current scholarship