Talk:Ebionites/Dispute Archive

message: The disputed section on Spiritual Ebionites was placed on Talk:Ebionites/Neo-Ebionite  by the RFC editor.  The talk sections relevant to the dispute have been moved to the same page.  An abstract of the resolution of the dispute is shown below.  Ovadyah 20:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on what I've seen here, I support the removal of the SE group from this page. I'd also support on the deletion of an article devoted exclusively to them-- so, I don't exactly support the creation of a page devoted to them, but if that's the direction ya'll want to take, I understand it's a way to be very extra careful about that decision to remove that material.  --Alecmconroy 07:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alec, thanks for your perspective.  I'll proceed with the changes outlined above.  Ovadyah 14:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Your need to vent your frustration is understandable, but everything has been preserved on the Talk:Ebionites/Neo-Ebionite page.  The sections were moved over in the same order and nothing has been altered.  This talk page was becoming cluttered with sermonettes and rambling rants (like yours) which discourage discussion of other topics relevant to the article.  Please direct any further rants to that page.  Ovadyah 02:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll set up a Further Rants section on the Neo-Ebionites page to preserve your comments.  Incidently, I noticed your anonymous IP has been cited repeatedly by Wiki for acts of vandalism, so I guess we are back to sometimes malicious self-serving POV.  Ovadyah 03:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your suggestion.  I'll read up on it.  It's not my Ebionite article.  I had almost no hand in creating it.  I was just trying to conduct a fair hearing for a dispute of neutrality.  I didn't even know who you folks were at the beginning.  It's not the content of your words that bothers me, it's the way they are delivered.  Look at some contentious talk pages like the Nazarene page and you can get a better sense of what editorial style works and what doesn't.  I don't want this page to also degenerate into an ideological battleground where religious sects shoot arrows at each other.  That is not the purpose of an encyclopedia.  Ovadyah 14:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC Archive

message: I created a new section so we don't mix up the discussions of ancient and modern Ebionites.  You are off to a good start, NM.  Keep in mind that some of what you just quoted from Epiphaneus directly contradicts the earlier writings of Hippolytus on Ebionite's obedience to the Law, so it's fair to say this material is less certain.  Ovadyah 19:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section on Modern Ebionites or the EJC should not be removed unless the editors have reached a consensus.  Consensus does not mean an agreement between you and your friends.  It must reflect the consensus of the editors who had input into the article and the wider Wiki community.  Personally, I think the section adds value to the article and should be retained.  I have marked the section as Disputed.  Let's continue to discuss it.  If a consensus can't be reached, it can be left in dispute with reasons why on the talk page.  Ovadyah 22:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical Ebionites

message: The spiritual Ebionite section was never resolved!
Considering what I have only begone to pull up  short quotes from the writings the Ebionite artical already says has scholary support elimenating the spiritual Ebionites who are in agreement with them but keeping the modern Ebionite section in the artical that seem to hold to one or two little fragments of that is considered Ebionite to support thier point of view and discard the rest is unfounded.
Is it a notability issue? We covered thoes bases and then we were archived to pretend the case was resolved. The space shuttle program is notible but guess what? Its not in the Ebionite artical because its not relevent to the "Ebionites" and after all thats what this artical is about. Its not about modern ebionites or space shuttles. actualy the modern Ebionite section cast a very biased POV toward the entire artical, Historical witnesses, and writings that scholars support as Ebionite in origin.  
If the Ebionite artical is going to include thoes today that claim to be ebionites and disregard the rest of the artical that has also been deemed Ebionite related how can you then not include a group that is in agreement with them? Ive noticed the Essene artical has groups mentioned that are no more notible then Allan Cronshaw's group. but they are not archived for not being notible. Guess I will have to pull up more stuff from the Ebionite related writings untill the artical just looks plain silly with the modern section in it. NazireneMystic 18:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After reading Alecmconroy's comments on the Neo-Ebionites page, I have come to the conclusion that the Modern Ebionites should be deleted to resolve the neutrality dispute once and for all. --Loremaster 21:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I've now included a mention of so-called modern Ebionites at the end of the History section of the article. --Loremaster 21:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unresolved dispute

message: The following text was previously a section in the article:
In 1985, Shemayah Phillips founded a movement that would eventually grow into the online Ebionite Jewish Community by 1995. This movement claims to be the legitimate descendant in teaching and practice of the original Ebionites.
The Ebionite Jewish Community promotes Yahwism, the recognition of Jesus as a Jewish prophet (rather than as a Messiah as he is portrayed in Christian writing), and claims that Christianity is not a biblically-based religion. Ebionites actively campaign against missionary work done by Christian groups, and encourages a return to a Tanakh-reliant approach to Judaism amongst messianic Jews, Hebrew Christians, Gentile Christians and others.
Modern Ebionites are not gnostic, or dualist, but strictly monotheistic. Ebionites believe that monotheism disallows a belief in a "Satan" that competes with God. Modern Ebionitism emphasizes the social justice aspect of the Tanakh, and Yahwism as a socio-economic as well as a religious idea. They also reject membership for those involved in occupations deemed to be "exploitive."
Loremaster, I moved the original Modern Ebionites section to the talk page just to keep things consistent.  Some scholars that have published research on the Ebionites are familiar with the EJC, and I want to bring this point up during peer review.  Ovadyah 23:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with this. By the way, it would be extremely helpful if you could name these scholars and their work. --Loremaster 13:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: James Tabor is one that comes to mind.  I know he sent Shemayah an autographed copy of his recent book, "The Jesus Dynasty: The Hidden History of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity" (April 2006).  Ovadyah 15:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is whether or not Tabor (or any other scholar) has written a peer-reviewed academic essay on the modern Ebionites? Simply being aware that they exist or sending them a copy of a book on ancient Ebionites is obviously not enough. --Loremaster 17:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW, I ran across a link to a graduate thesis that debunks a lot of this pseudo-Clementine business:
A CRITICAL INVESTIGATION OF EPIPHANIUS' KNOWLEDGE OF THE EBIONITES: A 
TRANSLATION AND CRITICAL DISCUSSION OF 'PANARION' 30.*
GLENN ALAN KOCH, /University of Pennsylvania/ 
<http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/query.cgi?field_1=lname&value_1=KOCH&field_2=fname&value_2=GLENN%20ALAN&advanced=1> Date: 1976 Ovadyah 15:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern Ebionites

message: Historicly ALL references to the Ebionites claimed they accepted him as Messiah but this new group being promoted does not claim he was. In this section they try to dance around this and say not as potrayed in christian writing but indeed they do not accept him as a Messiah in any way. On the sites FAQ section Was Jesus Messiah its clear Jesus is potrayed as a failed Messiah. This section is not relevent to the Ebionite artical in any way. Read the FAQ it is clear they are not only sayings he was not Messiah as the christians potray him but that he plain wasnt and failed, In fact they call Jesus Messianic . Guess they think Jesus thought a messiah was comming. They proudly pronounce thier belief in Jesus's failed attempt.NazireneMystic 13:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jesus as the Prophet like Moses, or True Teacher (but not to be confused with YHVH God of Israel), who will anoint his Messiahs on his right and left hand when he is revealed in power following his rejection and death. These two figures, the Davidic Nasi (Prince of the Yachad) and Priest, will rule with him in the Kingdom of God. 
--Loremaster 14:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Messiah claim? 

message: The title Neo- Ebionite was created by a very self serving POV and should be changed to reflect the actual title of the section that was once in the artical" Spiritual Ebionites" This is tipical of of the deception used by some editorsNazireneMystic 19:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can only guess at who you are referring to here. ;-)  In fact, the title was created by Alecmconroy when he created that page during the RFC process.  As I requested before, please confine your rambling rants and personal attacks to the Further Comments section of that page and save the main page for objective discussion of the article. Ovadyah 20:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archives 

message: Listen up Wikipedia Editors.
I have read the archive section will be used in part of the peer review. OvadYah restored the so called Modern ebionite section and listed reasons way he found it relevent to the peer review and I restored the spiritual section as it was in the artical also and gave simular reasons. Then OvadYah deleted  the spiritual section and said its archived and cant be unarchived till theres a concensus among the editiors. Is this true?? anyway why would it matter? Im not tring to restore it to the artical or the artical talk page. Im only tring to resotre it to an ARCHIVED page and the very spot that others are prepairing for peer review. Anyone with the ability to reason should read the edit history of the archived talk page and read what I restored compaired to the modern section that was also restored. The spiritual section was to be used to show articals written by Allan and linked to in the Spiritual section have even been used and reprinted by P.H.D.ed Scholars. If the Spiritual ebionites are going to peer review with our mouths taped and hands tied how is that not POV? You should  carfuly be looking at whos doing these things.NazireneMystic 20:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ultimately, it doesn't matter to me where and how sections have been archived as long as they can be easily found. Please stop obsessing over this. --Loremaster 14:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion from archived Pages! 

message: The RFC was only for disputed NPOV in the spiritual Ebionite section and not for its notibility! Were did you people come from?NazireneMystic 10:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter the initial reason an RFC was started. Other objections can be raised in process and become the main reason. --Loremaster 14:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Over stepping biased RFC 

message: You did very nice edits on Ebionites, but I strongly advise you to create your own page at Ebionite Restoration Movement where you will tread on fewer toes. Just click on the redlinked article and start writing / cut and pasting. You might still have problems with your writing style (I do advise you to read the preceeding links about Wikipedia writing style etc). When you are happy with the Ebionite Restoration Movement article we can link to it from the Ebionite page. --Michael C. Price talk 19:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The toes have strong POV odor :) 

message: I've created the following two articles and mentioned them in the See also section of the Ebionites article:
* Ebionite Jewish Community
* Ebionite Restoration Movement
I suggest people who have a vested interest in these articles surviving a speedy deletion attempt or a full article for deletion debate not only watch over them but also improve and expand them. --Loremaster 14:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the links to the ERM stub.  The consensus of the AfD debate was DELETE.  Ovadyah 20:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute Resolution 

message: I see someones been busy editing the archived section. If your POV is shown during edit debates on the talk pages it must be easer to get it across after people quite adressing it. I even seeem to be missing replys I made back then.At least one I cant find, Glad my Good Faith wasnt abusedNazireneMystic 20:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Non-sense. 1) Ovadyah added his comments to an archived discussion after I told him that it would be more appropriate for him to post them there rather than here. 2) No one has intentionaly deleted any of your replies on the archived pages so your memory must be faulty. --Loremaster 17:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I once had a replay to Ovadyah's wordy posting that is now archived of which there is no mention the source was talking about Ebionites.Dont know if anything was intentional ro not.NazireneMystic 22:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LOTS of changes with the archived section! 

message: While I, in "good faith" let what I thought would be unbiased editors to the deletion prossess without it seems Ovadyah 
and Alecmconroy were active meatpuppets in the discussion to delete the Ebionite Restoration Movement artical. 
Both of them from the archived talk pages clearly know around 400 people are in our main fourm at any given time. We have around 6 other groups also.
The main one alone has more menbers the the other group. Alecmconroy , in the role of meatpuppet that the group had one or 2 members! 
Ovadyah memtioned the mis- named neo-ebionite archives but failed to mention after we showed that our group was more notible in every aspect brought out in the prosses to exclude us then we both became subs and removed from the artical.
Another voter claimed outside of Allan's sites there in no memtion of the group at all. On my talk page I clearly have one site that takes almost a whole page attacking Allan, another site were a P.H.D.ed religous scholar reprints an artical Allan has written, and still another site were Were modern spiritual Ebionite writings are listed side by side with famous Christian and Jewish Mystics.
By contrast the evidence Ovadyah
claims to be showing his group doesnt even mention them by name and does not show the writers of the articals he links to even know the name of the group or its plaiq I.E. President  I.E.King.
Only the reference that used the past wikipedia "Ebionite" artical back when the artical was mainly a billboard for the EJC mentions the group but that realy dones mean anything since it was obtained from Wikipedia.NazireneMystic 16:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Enough is enough.  I have placed the second formal warning to refrain from personal attacks on NazireneMystic's user page. Ovadyah 18:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: NazireneMystic, please follow the talk page guidelines listed at the top of this page. --Loremaster 18:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most reasonable people would consider being called deceitful or ignorant or diabolical or a meatpuppet to be a personal attack on their character.  If this concept is still not clear to you, I can arrange to have an admin explain it more clearly. Ovadyah 23:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Your argument seems to be that none of the things you allege about me can be considered personal attacks because everything you say is true.  However, none of these insinuations are self-evident truths that speak for themselves; they are merely your opinions.  As I said before to one of your collegues, you are certainly entitled to your views.  Such views, however, have no place on Wikipedia.  I ask you one last time to refer to examples of personal attacks and to refrain from such actions. Ovadyah 13:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: And I particularly resent being compared to an alleged pedophile! Ovadyah 13:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Same can be said for your view that I attacked you. NazireneMystic 23:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: No, it is well within Wiki policy to speedily delete it.  Please refer to the admin's comments on your user page under Deleted pages. Ovadyah 01:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: NazireneMystic, on this talk page, I'm only interested in discussing improvements to the Ebionites article. --Loremaster 16:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that spirit, I suggest we move the last two sections under the Dispute Resolution and AfD sections in Neo-Ebionite 2. Ovadyah 16:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: In reality lets not move it anywere since it has to do with A prosses that eleimated an artical that was linked to this artical and during the prosses editors with agendas willing offered false information to reach a concludion favorable to them. So this has to do with the current article and is far removed from the RFC. Your idea is in keeping with your Modus Operandi of moving anything against your POV off the ebionite talk page and into a section it doesn't even belong in. NazireneMystic 22:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: meatpuppets

message: The Ebionites and Ebionite Jewish Community articles and talk pages may be bugged with some kind of Trojan Horse.  My user talk page is affected as well.  It looks like some kind of redirect, judging by the warning messages I am seeing.  I'm having WP:AN/I look into it.  I wonder who has an interest in the Ebionites and EJC articles and my talk page combined with the technical expertise to do such a thing? Ovadyah 21:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like your computer got some issue-- I'm very, very, very skeptical that anyone could hack Wikipedia.   I'm able to view these pages without problems. --Alecmconroy 22:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I only saw it happen on one computer, so you may be right.  Still, it's funny that only those pages were affected.  I could view them.  What was new was a warning that the page may not be safe.  I'll keep monitoring and testing. Ovadyah 02:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bugged? 

message: Hi, I seem to have lost control of my NazireneMystic account. I changed a passward and forgot it but then I tried to get a new one send to my registered Email it never showed up and now I would have to wait a day to try again so I made up this one.
In the history section this sentence is totaly POV and should be removed as it has no justification "whether or not his claims are accurate" That could be placed in front of every source in the artical. who in the world edited that sentence in? LOL 
Since we are going as far as list one scholars wild therory the Clement writings are Gnostic Christian  I believe to attempt to present a NPOV I will add the ideas Hans Joachim Schoeps presents in his reviewed work:   
"Aus fruhchristlicher Zeit: Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen " were he states the Clementine materals nearest parallels are to be found in the book of "Jubilees" and "Ehoch". His entire work is not on line but I found a nugget or to here http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-9231%28195203%2971%3A1%3C58%3AAFZRU%3E2.0.CO%3B2-N&size=LARGE 
Since we know this materal is very populous among the dead sea scroll fragments.SpiritualEbionite 09:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Darkness??? LOL Putting histrionics aside, I have no problem with your removal of the disclaimer sentence about Epiphanius. However, it was the addition of Shlomo Pines' opinion which made the article NPOV so adding Schoeps' opinion supposedly to counter Pine's is unnecessary. --Loremaster 17:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: My deletion of the Schoeps sentence was premature. Now that I've fixed it, it can stay in the article but not for the reasons you bring up. --Loremaster 20:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: SE POV

message: Only someone wanting to hide Wikipedialawyering and the real root of the incivility involved in working on this artical would be activly reverting ongoing discussion of the Ebionite artical into four seperate archives as to place things people say in obscure places and out of order with the time line and topic they were first posted in. I am not saying names and and in no way attacking anyone. 
Just for the record this edit first appeared on the ebionite talk page long after the Spiritual Ebionites that were mis-named neo-Ebionites section was removed from the artical. That the spiritual Ebionite section was removed and susposed resolved was the reason given to seperate it from the main archive But ongoing discussions on the Ebionite artical that present problems to the POV dominating the artical are still presently being revverted to mis-maned neo-Ebionte section. The truth has nothing to hide so why have so many highly regarded Wikipedia Admins that have been eyeing this artical not taken action regarding these practices?SpiritualEbionite 23:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Simper Fidelis

message: I recently heard from a source that Shemayah Phillips was hacked and had a hard drive wiped out on one of his computers, resulting in considerable damage to his business.  Clearly, there is a malevolent individual or group out there with advanced computer knowledge that won't hesitate to use it for destructive purposes.  I don't know if this attack is related to the previous funny business I observed on these pages, but I would advise everyone working on the article to set up a double firewall to guard against similar mischief. Ovadyah 20:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe some of the sand he has his head stuck in fell onto his keyboard? The only people that have ingaged in funny bussiness during this artical are supporting himNazireneMystic 20:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More Buggery

message: Ovadyah I see you butchered the artical quite well along with further vandalsim of the talk page. Does the POV editor you shoped for out weight the scholars I mentioned? While I think its silly, Wikipedia , or at least the religous and political POV's dominating the artical, have set a standard that only scholars with peer reviewed articals written about "Ebionite " by name are source materal. How is pleasing Rubenstein's request out weight the Scholars that meet this requirment? How can Ebionite's been literaly torah observant when they believed it had been falsified? How can you deny Ebionites believed they to become christ/messiah when they forfill the law when Peer reviewed scholars writing about ebionites say the very mind set in clementine writings YOU claim are Gnostic can be traced to earlier Hebrew text? With Scholars contrary to your paragraph listed as sources in the artical you out right lied publishing that all the while not adressing the very jewishness of inner revelation and a prexistant soul that evolves to perfection over many lives. You claim the very lack of such Jewish sources shows the Clementine writings are Gnostic which is funny since many scholars that out weight you say the Clementine writings attack Christian Gnostism.
You realy dont have a clue as to what the scholars were pointing out just as you dont have a clue as to what an Ebionite is.
This is just keeping consistant with your M.O.
From the deceptions  from this talk page like: 
Shalom Loremaster,
This is a big thing to ask that I assume good faith regarding OvadYah. This editor has been quite deceptive during this enite debate. First he was attempting to pass as a NPOV a few archived pages ago but I do not believe this can any longer be hid. Look at the exchange that took place right before you asked me to assume "good faith" were he states:
"I have never heard of Shemayah Phillips claiming for himself more than the title of Paqid, which is basically a secretary or clerk. By contrast, the claims of your leader are exceedingly pretentious, and he was also excommunicated -- from the Ebionite Jewish Community. I guess that's why you folks loathe Shemayah so much huh?
Given this statment what would you understand it to mean? I went to his site and searched for the term "Paqid" it says the term is irrelevent and it realy means "President" not only that but this office of President can be handed down to sucsessors like a Monarchy. This offices makes him the desider of all things Ebionite[in his little world]. This sounds like a type of "Priory of Sion" situation given Yeshua said to not even call another man teacher but all should be taught by the christ I.E. "Anointing",which by the way has nothing to do with oil being poured on your head.
In the above statment he tries to minumize this and then call Allan my "leader". All I can say is ive been in Allans fourms for over 3 years and hes never ordered anyone to do anything.
Then he says Allan was Excommunicated or some nonsence like that. Wouldnt you have to be converted before your excommunicated? If the EC will tell you of "Ebionites proper" if asked regarding someones standing as thier President says at his site then they must have records of the rituals practised at converson like circumsision. I would LOVE to see reconds of that converson. This editor is relating the joining of a online fourm to being converted to thier religion.If you are kicked off the fourm your"Excommunicated". In that sence one of the wikipedia Editors is now a member in autoplasty from our group because one joined and then left. read my talk page and see the person that asked to join, he joinded shortly afterward he asked me to accept him to the fourm and then he left in a few days. If you message him and ask I dought he thinks he ever converted and accepted Allan as a "Leader" I dought he would think he did.LOL However this is the type foolishness directed as us im to take with good faith.
I did assume good faith when I called him ignorant because if these things were knowingly done it would be diobolical.NazireneMystic 22:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if everything you said were true, please remember that the Talk:Ebionites page is to discuss changes to the Ebionites article not to wage a campaign to expose OvadYah's sins. --Loremaster 17:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: artical butchery,ongoing vandalism and wikilawyering

message: We even had one of the scholars listed as source matieral come had give a list of sugestions of which Loremaster said he was happy to have but   Ovadyah  discredited him, Hmmm Maybe he is realy the EJC
king himself? He sure thinks he is the desider of all things Ebionite and leads Loremaster around like a dog.NazireneMystic 21:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please find a sspell ccheck for yourself and use it.  Reading through all this ranting is making me sleepy.  Nitey-nite NM. :) Ovadyah 01:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NazireneMystic, although I've been dismissive of some of your inappropriate comments, I have never said or done anything that warrants me being insulted like this. If you continue, I will try to get you banned from editing Wikipedia. --Loremaster 19:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Whatever. I am no longer wasting time reading your comments. --Loremaster 20:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we are both in agreement that it is pointless to engage in discussions with this user, once he returns from his temporary block for personal attacks. Ovadyah 01:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means continue to publish your POVNazireneMystic 03:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article POV

message: Loremaster, explain yourself for your revert to the artical. You are favoring speculation over your source material. I see wikipedians love to stuff words in other people moughts then the source material doesnt fit thier POV. At least remove the scholar from the list of sources so it doesnt appear he supports the foolishness being published in the Ebionite artical.NazireneMystic 17:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't need to explain myself since I've already stated that I agree with Ovadyah on this specific issue. --Loremaster 17:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Damn! I forgot that I promised not to waste my time reading your insulting rants. Shame on me. Won't do it again. --Loremaster 18:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Placing personal research above cites source material! 

message: It seems Birtanica has expanded the public domain portion of their Ebionite artical. Since the fossilized adition linked to the wikipedia Ebionite artical could not consider discoveries made at later dates this updated version would prove to be a much more accurate resourse to link to. Cheers!
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9031860/Ebionite NazireneMystic 19:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artical update and improvment