Talk:Against Heresies (Irenaeus)

message: (inserted for structure. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 15:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The trouble is, there are two early Christian documents called "Against Heresies", so I guess that article has to be a disambig. – Quadell (talk) (random) 11:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, didn't know that. So it shall remain, then. :) --babbage 03:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is eccentric, IMHO, to title this page "On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis." The standard title in English is "Against Heresies," or we should use the Latin Aduersus Haereses. Moreover, what is the reasoning behind translating elenchon as "Detection" rather than "Refutation," which is the definition found in LSJ? Chrysologus (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: (random heading)

message: :Now, if an evangelising mission considered to be "orthodox" were to be described as an "oratorial campaign", wouldn't there be a self-righteous cry of— what is that term? oh yes— "POV"! Could a neutral term be found? --Wetman (talk) 10:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pro-gnostic, but "oratorial campaign" doesn't seem negative to me. It's a bit unwieldy, though, so a better phrase would be welcome. Be my guest. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: oratorial campaign

message: Do we actually know how much of Irenaeus'es theology that is like the modern christian one? Did he f.ex. accept the concept of aeons? Said: Rursus (☻) 18:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot find any passage indicating that he was trinitarian... Said: Rursus (☻) 19:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Irenaeus'es theology?

message: About the article of course:
:1. What was Irenaei title on the book? That requires clarification, because gnosticism is not just any "heresy", it is a group of similar teachings, whether with a common source, as Irenaus claims, or not,
:2. There is an issue claiming original research and unverifiable claims, could anyone please pinpoint specific points in the text that makes those statements, preferrably by writing  after the sentences?
:3. One problem with the article might be that the factual content is not referred to enough before refering to secondary analyses. What is factual content must be evolved better, and what is secondary analyses and theories must be cited better. 
Otherwise I don't have knowledge enough to perceive what is plain fact and what is wild speculation in this article. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 15:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: General questions

message: As far as I know Lossky has not done any work on Adversus haereses, or St. Irenaeus. Lossky was a 20th C. Russian Orthodox theologian.
-RNajdek  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RNajdek (talk • contribs) 22:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can see you're right. He's gone.  Scolaire (talk) 07:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is Vladimir Lossky in the 'See Also' Section? 

message: I just did a Google search for Adversus Haereses, and found the article named such. It's basically a stub, and refers to this article. I don't see why they should be two different articles.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.113.96.85 (talk) 14:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. If there are no objections in the next few days, I'll do the merger when I have time. Montgolfière (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

text: Done. Montgolfière (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger with the article "Adversus Haereses"