Talk:Ebionites/Archive 1

message: This page contains the original discussion about the Ebionites article up to the appearance of the Ebionite Restoration Movement group.  To see more discussion about the article, go to Archive 2.  To see the initial discussion and RFC on the ERM group, go to Neo-Ebionite.  To see discussion following the RFC, including AfD deletion of the ERM stub, go to Neo-Ebionite 2. Ovadyah 05:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

message: *Ebionites still exist, they are not extinct. I belong to a group of sects, Talmidi Jews, one sect of which are the Ebionites. We uphold Torah, we follow the teachings of Yeshua`, but reject any notion of his divinity, and we don't believe in the virgin birth. We follow a non-rabbinical interpretation of Torah (we reject the Oral Law), and we consider ourselves Jews. The pinnacle of our faith is the humble, merciful and compassionate practise of religion. .. shmuliq_parzal@operamail.com
 
::Perhaps you could author an article concerning the Talmidi Jews, since they are probably unknown to most people.  A discussion of their origins, founders or leading historical personalities, and specific doctrines would be of interest.  With regard to the Ebionite Talmidis, it would be of interest to know whether there is any documented continuity with the historical Ebionites.  Athanasius 18:09, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: About Modern Ebionites

message: *The following text, still in the opening paragraph, is full of attitude but actually transfers little real information:
:Several modern scholars, including Robert Graves, Joshua Podro, Hyam Maccoby, Hugh Joseph Schoenfield, Benjamin Urrutia, and others, believe that the Ebionites, being led by the relatives of Jesus, probably were more faithful to the original and authentic teachings of Jesus than Paul was.
:Anyone with an interest might easily improve this bit. --Wetman 22:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the recent anonymous insertions are quite similar. Jayjg (talk) 00:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Buried information?

message: Wikipedia has a naming convention, it uses the common English name for things.  In this case, that is Jesus.  Your POV that his real name was "Yehoshua ben Yosef" is noted, but Wikipedia:Naming conventions is a Wikipedia policy that must be followed.  Please get consensus for your changes here before insterting them, thanks. Jayjg (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I came to say more or less what Ben has said.  It seems clear that the name used in the article should be "Jesus". --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 12:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus vs. Yehoshua ben Yosef 

message: The following ¶ is moved from Jesus:
Judging by what the Church Fathers, such as Epiphanius of Salamis wrote about them,"Although they are Jews they have Gospels...", Epiphanius; Frank Williams (tran), The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Book I (Sects 1-46), Brill, 1997, Sect 30, 3, p. 56.   the Ebionites appear to have used a number of sacred texts depicting the life and teachings of Jesus, including a possibly edited version of the Gospel of Matthew missing the first two chapters, and a harmonization of the synoptic gospels known as the Gospel of the Ebionites. They also claimed apostolic succession from James the Just (often referred to as the brother of Jesus), and to a lesser extent sucession from Simon Peter.
I don't have a specific citation, but the source is Bart Ehrman's Lost Christianities. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 03:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ebionite Gospels

message: User 64.107.3.126 and 66.99.2.88 is obviously a 'Christian vegetarian' trying to use the Ebionites article to promote his unsupported views. I am requesting an edit protection to deter him. This has been going on and off for months so he always returns. --Loremaster 17:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. You may repeat your request there, though from what I can tell, the issue seems to have been resolved. -- Ec5618 15:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Understood. However, how do we know this issue has been resolved? --Loremaster 16:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit history doesn't show any unusual spikes of vandalism in recent days. Certainly, the page is vandalised from time to time, but it doesn't appear to be unmanageable. Note that protected pages are considered harmful, which is why protection is generally not a long term solution in these matters. -- Ec5618 17:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there is a reference to the Ebionites being vegetarians. See Bart D. Ehrman, Lost Christianities, Oxford, 2003, p. 102. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 03:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not involved in this, but I'll just mention that when an article is protected, it is not an endorsement of the protected version. I believe this is mentioned in the tag box, but I'll repeat it here. Protection is an invitation to discuss and resolve the issue, not force one version. --DanielCD 17:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for edit protection 

message: I reverted a load of mainstream Christian POV changes.  There may be some good stuff removed as well (e.g. Gnostic Ebionites), but since it was unsourced it seemed wiser to revert the whole lot.--Michael C Price 19:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sect not Heresy 

message: I have removed the following paragraph from the Catholic encyclopedia, inserted without comment:
:The doctrines of this sect are known from the writings of Church Fathers. One, Irenaeus, thought them to be like those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates.  According to the primary sources, Ebionites denied the Divinity and the virginal birth of Christ; they clung to the observance of the Jewish Law; they regarded St. Paul as an apostate, and used only a Gospel according to St. Matthew (Adv. Haer., I, xxvi, 2; III, xxi, 2; IV, xxxiii, 4; V, i, 3). Their doctrines are similarly described by Hippolytus (Philos., VIII, xxii, X, xviii) and Tertullian (De carne Chr., xiv, 18), but their observance of the Law seems no longer so prominent a feature of their system as in the account given by Irenaeus. 
for a number of reasons.
*duplication with later material (e.g. denying the virgin birth, divinity of Jesus, regarding Paul as an apostate, reliance on Matthew)
*"clung to" seems rather POV
*Cerinthus and Carpocrates were gnostics not Ebionites -- this is covered elsewhere in article.
I've also removed the heresy tag, which is blatant Nicene POV.
I've left the Catholic Encyclopedia link in the external links section.
--Michael C. Price talk 04:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing Catholic POV text