Talk:Proto-orthodox Christianity

message: I'm going to edit this page because I think the definition provided is incorrect. If someone is curious or disagrees, please look at the version prior to my edit. However, based on reading two of Ehrman's books and listening to his Teaching Company lectures I think that proto-orthodox is distinct from Marcionism, Ebionism, or gnostic groups, and I think that should be emphasized in the definition provided. --Jackson 05:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You were correct, Jackson. The definition was incorrect and anon above was full of it.--Ari89 (talk) 18:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: The article and the article's title capitalize "orthodox" inconsistently, which is more correct? Bryan 04:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lower case is correct, it's referring to orthodoxy, not the Orthodox Church. 75.15.201.67 (talk) 18:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalization

message: Who else besides Ehrman uses this term? How standard is it? Are there other definitions?  DGG (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's becoming common. The Orthodox Church calls these people (Ignatius, Irenaeus, Athanasius ...) orthodox, the Roman Catholic Church calls them catholic, they are often called Church Fathers but that can include some who are less than orthodox (for example Origen). Proto-orthodox is a good, neutral, term. 75.15.201.67 (talk) 18:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: For your information, both groups would call them orthodox and catholic, since that is what they both claim to be. The "Catholic Church" and the "Orthodox Church" are just the common names they and others use to refer to the two separate communions. --73.143.110.74 (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: question

message: I do not see anything in the article to distinguish "proto-orthodox" as a concept. If you replaced every instance of "proto-orthodox" in the article with "early orthodox", the article would read fine, and relate rather well-known statements about the early church which a modern scholar or a scholar hundreds of years ago would agree with.  What does the concept "proto-orthodox" bring beyond simply identifying the faction of early Christianity which has always been denoted as orthodox?  Tpellman (talk) 04:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see merge discussion below. Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaningful definition? 

message: The paragraph "In the canonical gospels, Jesus is characterized as a Jewish faith healer who ministered ..." has me puzzled.  It seems to state that the "proto-orthodox" took this view of Jesus, it appears under a heading which implies the claim.  If the statement is made as a rebuttal of the "proto-orthodox" position this should be clearly indicated.  It will then be open to question whether or not it is justified. Jpacobb (talk) 23:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That whole section must be written by someone who has chosen to completely disregard the four canonical Gospel texts.  That Jesus is seen as majorly a faith-healer is more of a hearsay-style opinion, rather than a conclusion drawn from the only extensive records we have, namely the Gospels.  Those texts are no less authoritative of the historicity of their content than any other text of the period for any other topic.  And, those Gospel texts portray Jesus as a messianic figure who set himself apart from his contemporaries (including other messianic claimants) within which healing was only one facet of his ministry.  The entire thrust of the Gospels is the dawning of the judeo-christian messianic age in ways which no one expected: the small beginning of the remaking of all things, of which "faith-healing" is one, perhaps even only symbolic, part of an entire world embarking on the journey of being set to rights, culminating in the (eschatological) Resurrection.  For this was the hope of the martyrs from Augustus to Diocletian.  It is specifically that messianic claim which was the basis of proto-Orthodox faith and council reasoning, and their conclusions. 99.22.228.93 (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is a Faith-healing Jesus proto-orthodoxy? 

message: Okay, so the article claims that Proto-orthodox Christianity (POC) solidified the NT canon, but then later also claims that the Epistle of Barnabas was especially important to them. Isn't that like saying, "Early United States citizens held true to the Bill of Rights and especially the Congressional Apportionment Amendment? There's no attempt to connect it to the rest, even. --Akhenaten0 (talk) 20:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Codex Sinaiticus (330–360) contains the Epistle of Barnabas. The question is what canon was original; most of it is also canon today, but not in its entirety. And the decision over canon might have been taken later, but the process of solidification could have started at that time. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 11:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epistle of Barnabas 

message: This is bordering WP:FRINGE and apologetics or reflection of a WP:POV, but hardy encyclopedical enough for a standalone article with concerns to Wikipedia:Notability or WP:NPOV. Better merge with Early Christianity. Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Early Christianity]]