Talk:Paulicianism

message: In the Doctrines section, it is noted that "The outward administration of the sacraments of the Lord's Supper and baptism they rejected." The authority for this statement is from reference 25: "Moon, J. H (1902). Water baptism, a pagan and Jewish rite, but not Christian." J.H. Moon was a Quaker (did not accept water baptism) and in reading his book he seems to take liberties when interpreting which ancient/past groups may have also rejected baptism. However, I did not trace all of his references. My opinion is that this is not an authoritative or sufficiently objective reference and that the above quoted sentence be removed unless the author of that sentence could quote a more objective or ancient Paulician source. Thoughts?   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlambros (talk • contribs) 17:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Quaker's View of Baptism

message: Preposterous! You simply can't be a Gnostic and an adoptionist, the former rejects the humanity of Christ the Latter rejects the divinity of Christ. The former affirms the divinity of Christ the latter affirms that Christ is a creature.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.197 (talk) 13:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Adoptionist Gnostics!

message: There have been many heresies along the history of Christianity, but the most threatening by far in de Middle Ages was that of the Paulicians. The Paulicians had their roots in Armenia, were they mixed Christianity with the dualist religion of Mani, which was deeply rooted in the Gnosis. 
http://www.religionstatistics.net/histen4.htm
:Gnosis is one thing, Gnostics yet another. The movements labeled as "gnosticist" generally have no connection towards each other, so that "gnostic" is a mere label of disgust from trinitarist christians, applied to any movement that 1. is more dualist than the ordinary dualism of trinitarist themselves (ourselves, me trying to be a little forgiving and self-critical), 2. has a different set of doctrines than the salvation-by-lifting-sins discourse of Jesus'es crucifiction. It's better to claim that the Paulicians where deeply influenced by the extinct religion of Manicheism. They did (do?) certainly have gnosis, but being a former gnostic, I say: gnosis and salvation is the same thing, only differently manifested in diverse personality type... Said: Rursus ☻ 16:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm wrong. http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Paulicians says that the Paulicians condemned Mani. Mixing in Manicheism is not correct, obviously. Said: Rursus ☻ 17:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm wrong, wrong, wrong again. 1911encyclopedia.org shouldn't be used. It's another "wikipedia". Wikipedia don't cite itself, and shouldn't cite other wiki-lookalike-pedias, only primary or secondary sources are up to the quality needed. Said: Rursus ☻ 17:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Gnostics

message: Somebody blanked the talk page.  I have restored. -- SECisek 05:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: TheLayman, violence against the article won't help resolve anything. Cited sources will. And PLEASE learn to sign your notes on the talk page! --Alvestrand 20:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And as said before, sign by writing ~~~~. When answering a comment, indent by beginning your added comment with one or more :s to control edit level. I indented twice by :: in order to signal that I'm answering and supporting the statement of Alvestrand. Simple edit instructions can be read lowermost on the webpage when you're editing. Said: Rursus ☻ 17:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I was referring to this edit. Possibly a keyboard navigation error. --Alvestrand 04:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk page

message: The article seems very odd to me, because in the beginning the Paulicians existed from 4th to 12th century, and then they're lost. But at the end of the article they reappear. First of all: most encyclopedic sources outside WP claims the same: in the 12th century or so, they're lost to history. Then they popup again in the early 19ths. Most of those sources allege connections with cathars, which seems farfetched in the extreme, considering the 4th independent emergence of cathars, and the bogomils and so the french cathars, who by automaticity are connected with the bogomils. This seems to much speculation to my taste. It seems like the history writing, not we ourselves, provides us with prejudicies and invented stories, trying to explain and falsely connect the eternally reoccurring but possibly unrelated emergences of "heresies". Maybe what we can see is the shadow of the church itself, not any historical continuity of heresies. Now trying to be practical: What sources can we trust? (Opinions only – we cannot know the truth so opinion will have to do). I propose modern texts based on anthropological studies are OK. More? Said: Rursus ☻ 17:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Certain modern Christians (mostly Baptists, see Landmark Baptist - for one) support a fanciful narritave that connects a series of ancient and mideveal people and sects in an to attempt to claim that any number of modern Christian sects have ancient histories that stretch back to the time of the apostles. It runs something along the lines of St Paul to Novationists to Donatists to Paulicianists to Claudius of Turin to Petrobucians to Henricians to Cathars to Waldenses to Wycliff and Huss to Anabaptists to Modern Baptists. That skips quite a bit, but you get the picture. It was pushed hard in the 19th century and is pure fiction. It does not even stand up to even the slightest examination and the only pieces of "evidence" that ever backed it up whotsoever were found to be Victorian era forgeries. I cleared most of this nonsense out of Wikipedia quietly two years ago, but never got around to this article. The Waldensian article is one of the few I monitor, as there are legit modern Waldensians and they have made it clear they do not support this belief about their sect's origin. I worry less about the Cathars, Paulicianists, etc. as they are confined to the history books. Please, any attempt to work on this article would be a good thing. -- Secisek (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehehe! Yes, like the The Templar Revelation inspiring The Da Vinci Code: originally a mythomanic concoct believed to be true by the fringe around the mythoman. I know that some fringe religious groups have d*rn'd hard to understand the ultimate meaning of "thou shallst not bear false witness", but that flaw is due to their reality check (or lack of thereof), it's a handicap and not generally a moral flaw. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 08:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Some thoughts on the "issues"

message: "Paulicians (Armenian: Պավլիկյաններ, also remembered as Pavlikians or Paulikianoi[1]) were a Gnostic and quasi Manichaean Christian group which flourished between 650 and 872 in Anatolia, Armenia and the Eastern Themes of the Byzantine Empire."
Anatolia is a new geographical name. Please,use the right name for the right time! E.S.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.182.20 (talk) 01:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Anatolia?!

message: "The adherents of the sect fled, with the Armenian Paul at their head, to Episparis." Episparis is a kind of insect. Anyone knows the modern name of that place? 89.137.254.89 (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Episparis

message: The term "sect" used throughout the article is a misnomer that was used by its opponentes. WP should not use the biased partizan lingo of the opponentes. Paulicianism was a movement of dissenters who organized a separate Church, not a separate "Sect", and the article should use the appropriate terminology. Any objections to call it "Church" in the context of the article? Terminologically, "sect" is a "clique", and  "clique" is an exclusive circle of people with a common purpose, not a religious movement, and not an organized separate Church  Barefact (talk) 05:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sect" is a misnomer 

message: By whom was this article created? Talk about Massacre of Paulicians.
Add this, by Edward Gibbon:
‎"The feeble Michael the fifth and Rigid Leo the Armenian were foremost in the race of persecution but the prize must doubtless be judged to the sanguinary devotion of Theodora, who restored the images to the Oriental church. Her inquisitors explored the cities and mountains... and flatterers of empress had affirmed that they could murder 100 000 Paulicians - by sword, gibbets or flames."
http://books.google.com/books?id=46kWAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA70&lpg=PA70&dq=edward+gibbon+award+given+to+theodora+inquisitors&source=bl&ots=RkBU6PFeMd&sig=FTOBC159RnWTAf2Kjr7X8PSxkpA&hl=en&ei=2aqQTozaCYGLsgLxyYG5AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
-- --Otherguylb (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture but no info? 

message: See discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard/Archive 10#Is Paulicianism a fair article?. There are some neutrality issues, but these are somewhat minor and no re-write is required. Oiyarbepsy (talk)   — Preceding undated comment added 08:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article does not need a rewrite 

message: Substituted at 02:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: The adherents of the sect fled, with Paul at their head.
Not Paul the Apostle, and not Paul of Samosata (3rd century). No other Paul is mentioned elsewhere in the article. Who is this Paul? Koro Neil (talk) 11:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unidentified Paul