Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:09, 13 November 2006

Ebionites received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Archives

Previous discussions can be found at:

• /Archive 1
• /Archive 2
• /Neo-Ebionite
• /Neo-Ebionite 2

Towards Featured Article status

Before we push the article to Peer review - a step that should always be taken before the Featured Articles Candidacy step - , we need to 1) preserve a neutral point of view ; and 2) extensively provided references for every paragraph in this article following Misplaced Pages:Citing sources guidelines. --Loremaster 14:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

About See also

According to a Misplaced Pages rule of thumb: 1) if something is in See also, try to incorporate it into main body 2) if something is in main body, it should not be in See also and therefore 3) good articles have no See also sections. --Loremaster 01:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC) Shalom Loremaster,

Articals explaining offical Misplaced Pages policy have "see also" sections.NazireneMystic 00:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I know. However, I have a spoken to Misplaced Pages administrators about this issue and I've confirmed that this rule of thumb is an unofficial policy that is highly recommended. --Loremaster 02:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Toward Peer Review

I am now satisfied with the 12:03, 10 September 2006 version of the article. --Loremaster 17:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I am also satisfied with the 12:03, 10 September 2006 version of the article. I will initiate the peer review process. Thanks Loremaster, for your efforts to make this article into a candidate for featured article status. Ovadyah 18:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Loremaster 19:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I will continue to make some minor edits to the article but nothing that will change it's structure or core content. --Loremaster 17:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Ebionites

I have just made a series of suggestions here Slrubenstein | Talk 20:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --Loremaster 21:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Loremaster I suggest we reserve this page for disussions relating to peer review and follow-up work resulting from the peer review. I suggest moving the last two sections discussing editorial changes made prior to the peer review to Archive 2. I would move the rant about changes to the archived pages to Archive 1, where it can be combined with all the other POV material. Ovadyah 02:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Done. --Loremaster 02:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Its interesting that actual discussion about changes to the artical you call rants. then archiving it by moving it to a different section only makes for confusion. Do smoke screens and confusion work in your favor?NazireneMystic 00:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether they are rants or not, I only archive discussions that have ended and disputes have been resolved. Anyone can easily find and read the archives so my acts cannot be interpreted as some attempt to limit your freedom of speech. --Loremaster 16:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The peer review has been archived. It contains several ideas we can use to improve the Ebionites article. --Loremaster 14:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Slrubenstein's suggestions

This is an important article but clearly it needs work. I have three general comments.

1. A definition or account of what the Ebionites believed should be in the first paragraph. Later in the text we find this: "All these Christian sources agree that Ebionites denied the divinity of Jesus, the doctrine of the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, and the death of Jesus as an atonement for the Original Sin. Ebionites seemed to have emphasized the humanity of Jesus as the mortal son of Mary and Joseph who became the Messiah as "prophet like Moses" when he was anointed with the "holy spirit" at his baptism. Sources also suggest that Ebionites believed all Jews and Gentiles must observe Mosaic Law; but it must be understood through the Sermon on the Mount's expounding of the Law by Jesus." I think an abbreviated version of this should be the second sentence. I am not sure that the vows of poverty needs to be in the first paragraph.

Loremaster, let's consider Slrub's first suggestion. Basically, he's arguing for an abstract of Ebionite beliefs. Can you craft this in one sentence for the lead paragraph? I think the vow of poverty material should stay as is in a third sentence. Ovadyah 02:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Craft it and I will improve it if necessary. --Loremaster 19:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Loremaster, I made the suggested improvements to the lead paragraph. Here are the references to back up the changes:

Catholic Encyclopedia

They 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. Some Ebionites accept, but others reject, the virginal birth of Christ, though all reject His pre-existence and His Divinity. Those who accepted the virginal birth seem to have had more exalted views concerning Christ and, besides observing the Sabbath, to have kept the Sunday as a memorial of His Resurrection. The milder sort of Ebionites were probably fewer and less important than their stricter brethren, because the denial of the virgin birth was commonly attributed to all.

Jewish Encyclopedia

They believed in the Messianic character of Jesus, but denied his divinity and supernatural origin; observed all the Jewish rites, such as circumcision and the seventh-day Sabbath; and used a gospel according to Matthew written in Hebrew or Aramaic, while rejecting the writings of Paul as those of an apostate.

Robert Van Voorst "Ascents of James"

As the AJ has a form of pre-existence christology and shows no evidence of adoptionism or an ideal of poverty, its community probably should not be considered Ebionite.

I took the statement about the last and greatest of the prophets from your earlier version of the article. Ovadyah 19:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

2.

I think this article needs to be conceived as one of a series of articles on non-Pauline early Christianity e.g. along with the so-called gnostics, Nazarenes, etc. So I suggest an overview article on 2nd century Christianity i.e. Christianity before Pauline :Christianity emerged as the clear dominant form of Christianity (I am no expert, I know the Council of Jerusalem is important and the Nicean councils would provide an outer limit, or whenever most people agree the NT was effectively canonized). Such an article would provide a brief description of each variant of Christianity, and I would encourage editors to coordinate their work on developing corresponding articles for each movement (like Ebionites) so that each one has a similar organization, they are all linked to one another, and a clear portrait of heterogeneous and heterodox early Christianity emerges.

I think Slrub's second suggestion about the need for an umbrella article has much to recommend it. However, it is beyond the scope of the current article. Let's table this one for a future project. Ovadyah 19:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Good work. --Loremaster 21:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Loremaster, thanks for your helpful edits. The lead paragraph looks great! Ovadyah 00:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

3.

I know one problem with the discussion of most early non-Pauline is that the primary sources were written by opponents of these movements. I think every article in this series therefore should have three components (1) a summary of what people like Irenaeus and Tertullian wrote about the movement, (2) a discussion of how historians have used these texts to better understand the early Catholic Church - i.e. make the point that before interpreting what these sources reveal about groups like the Ebionites, historians first try to figure out what they reveal about early Catholic orthodoxy and struggles among early Christians (e.g. Elaine Pagels argues that one thing that made the Gnostic Gospels so threatening to Irenaeus and others was not just the theological claims about Jesus, but the threat to the authority of the bishops which is what early Church fathers were struggling to establish), (3) finally a more detailed presentations of how historians have tried to reconstuct what the Ebionites (and other groups) really believed and practiced, and why. One strength of this article is that it names major scholars researching this area. The problem is these scholars are named in the second paragraph. I think the introduction is too early to name specific scholars (instead, the second paragraph should just summarize what it is these scholars are asking or arguing over). The good news is that this list provides a starting point for a more detailed section that really draws on these sources to spell out (a) what they all agree about (b) what most agree about and (c) what many of them are still arguing about or unsure of.

I don't have the energy to take this one on tonight. Loremaster, what do you recommend we do in response to Slrub's last comment? Ovadyah 01:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I've followed Alec's last suggestion regarding the naming of sholars in the second paragraph of the lead (which should be expanded). As for the rest of his great suggestions, I will be too busy in the next weeks to follow them. --Loremaster 20:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

POV

Since Scholars have such different views of the source of thier writings from one claiming they are Gnostic christian in an attempt to make them sound wrongfuly atributed to Ebionite and anothers that claim they came directly from jewish thought that already existed at the time, to try to follow that editors sugestion would clearly be tring to deside truth rather then lay out a factual artical when the facts themselves are highly debated "NazireneMystic"

NM, scholars agree on certain basic facts about the Ebionites, even if you don't. These could be captured in a sentence in the lead paragraph. In any case, we have an obligation to address the comments of the reviewers. Ovadyah 02:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The request i put in yesterday for my password just arrived AOL is just wonderful.

A Scholar who thinks the universal mindset shown in the Clementine writings come directly from Hebrew foundations that preexisted them in the form of Enoch and Jubilees or one who states Ebionite's believed the literal Torah had been falsified would have a totally different idea of Ebionite beliefs then a scholar that formed their opinion based on a medieval Muslims account of a group that had no authentic ties to Ebionites or claimed to be Ebionites.

Ironically the very short intro paragraph your looking for already exist in a few different forms in the early Christian witnesses but you call all these Gnostic Christian POV. Even the earliest of them all state Ebionites Believed He became the Messiah/Christ at baptism because he forfilled the law and THEY to become the Messiah/Christ when they forfill the law.

Having a paragraph start off claiming all the early Christian sources agree.... and then leaving out that they ALL claimed Ebionites believed THEY TO become Messiah/ Christ's when they forfill the law is kind of silly to anyone who has read them. That part of what all the sources agree with is currently only being withheld to appease you Ovadyah NazireneMystic 03:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

What is silly is your idea that becoming a Christ is somehow a unique characteristic of the historical Ebionites (and by extension your group). This supposed great revelation, called theosis, is common to Eastern Orthodox Christian denominations. They regard salvation as a journey (perfection in the way) rather than a condition, as is more typical in Western denominations. It is of minimal relevance from an Ebionite perspective, but highly relevant to certain Christian groups. Ovadyah 05:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Loremaster,

You do not own this artical and should explain yourself before moving edits of mine into a section called POV. My comments were directly related to this section. BTW isnt Slrubenstein a POV that Ovadyah went shopping for? I remember seeing this on his contribution page. No wonder his sugestion was to try to force a POV while the scholars are so divided.

Ovadyah's replay I do agree is POV and his pretending that Ebionite thought has nothing to do with spiritual revelation is pure silly. All the Hebrew prophets were not only seeking the "small still voice" of the true prophet the clementine writings spoke of but like Danial they didnt eat meat. Like Jeremiah they said Noone ever commanded the animal sacrifices.

Scholars have stated the mind set shown in the Clementine writings was founded apart from the church or temple but in the writings of hebrews and copies of these writings were later discovered in the Dead sea scrolls. A certain early christian witness that has been nailed to the cross in the main artical by a vandalous POV also agrees with the clementine writings. On top of this a reincarnating soul that evolves to perfection over a number of lives is accepted doctorine among many sect of jews still today so Ovadyah's reply was realy just a rant because he can not give one GOOD reason to surpress the fact all the early christian witnesses claim " They to become Christ/Messiah's when they to forfill the law." This agrees with the clementine writings which scholars agree reflect Ebionite views... of which Scholars claim are founded in pre christian, Jewish writings. You have some thinking to do before you write your short paragraph.NazireneMystic 16:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

NM, it's interesting that you spend your time trolling on my contribution page. For your information, Rubenstein is a PhD scholar with extensive knowledge of early Christianity and Judaism. This should be obvious, even to you, from a cursory examination of his many contributions on Misplaced Pages. He is quite simply, one of the best reviewers we have on this subject. Ovadyah 19:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

NazireneMystic, I have never acted like I own the Ebionite article or its talk page. However, I have a right to edit them as I see fit as long as I respect Misplaced Pages guidelines. For the record, I didn't move your comments in a section called POV but feel free to rename it. --Loremaster 21:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Lore and Ovad-- just for the record, don't feel like you have to convince all parties of the direction the article needs to go. Between you, SLRubenstein, and myself, I'd say you've got a pretty good mandate to try to improve in the directions suggested by the peer review. By all means, keep discussing the issue if you feel it helpful, but after a certain point, some discussion may just degrade into incivility, rather than being productive. --Alecmconroy 22:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --Loremaster 00:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Alec, thanks for your perspective, as always. Ovadyah 00:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

More Buggery

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)

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)

artical butchery,ongoing vandalism and wikilawyering

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, Misplaced Pages , 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. 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Loremaster"

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)

What incivilty have you engaged in so far to promote a Artical POV that supports your group?

Well when Allan wrote a a section on Spiritual Ebionite in the same matter of fact mannor that the suspose EJC section was written in you called for a RFC on the grounds the spiritual section was POV however it was in the same style of your presidents group. Then the RFC raised the issue of notibility but in every case after we showed we met the standard he would set forth more so then your group both sections were droped ,subs were made of each, and You not only acted as a meatpuppet but invited a high ranking admin that total ignored the facts and even published a lie to support his vote, You and Alechemy did the same thing. None from our camp stooped as low as to bring a bised vote into your groups articals of deletion review let along invite people and lie about the facts. Do you remember this? First let me get a few facts from my talk page then we can look into the articals of deletion log on the Ebionite Restoration Movement, hows that?

Keep in mind alchemy had joined our group for about two days and knows first hand at any time about 400 people are memebers and a large core regularly contribute to the discussions

Here I will show evidence of notibility.

1) An entire page from a religous site actualy calling Allan by name and condeming us.The writer seems to not be discerning enough to understand what Peter contended with Simon Maguns over and links any spiritual concepts to him. religous group You can't make this stuff up.

2) P.H.D'ed religous scholars reprinting Allan's articals.Artical by Allan Cronshaw

3) While records of the time show civil disobedence by Ebionites and early Christians no evidence shows it was done in the name of the Jewish state or the name of religion, Just as Yeshua said the truth will set you free, living thruth in your life will set you apart from the rest of the people on earth. The type of disobedence was not nationalist,socialist or communistic but rather aposing ignorance just as the Yeshua did, Based on truth. Different times,same spirit. fighting ignorance This is a link to court papers of a constitutional challange and evidence of endemic criminal corruption in the N.Y. court system.

4)If you understand why the Ebionites did not expect Jesus to return and rule the world and still call him Messiah after his death you understand the kingdom is purely spirital in nature. This site has spiritual Ebionite writings along side famous christian and jewish mystics like Max Heindel and Yonassan Gershom. Ebionite writings.

Articals for deletion log for Ebionite restoration movement complete with to meatpuppets and one admin that may had been duped by Ovadyah

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Ebionite Restoration Movement

Non-notable subject Alecmconroy 21:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: This seems to be a very small religious group. After an extensive discussion, the content was removed from the "Ebionite" article for lack of notability, and was transferred to its own page, with the understanding that after a period of time, an AFD nomination would be made to see if the content merits inclusion in the encyclopedia. After about a month, I haven't seen anything that convinces me that the group is sufficiently notable. --Alecmconroy 21:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but Merge. As the creator of this article, I think it should be merged with the Ebionite Jewish Community article into a new article about new religious movements claiming to be followers of Jesus. --Loremaster 23:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - It may be a distinct religious movement, but the article does not make this clear. If it did I would vote to keep. JASpencer 07:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and merge the Ebionite Jewish Community article (also up for deletion) into this one. IZAK 06:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete small religious group of no demonstrated importance.--Peta 04:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Bobet 10:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I should mention-- when I say this is a "very small religious group", our best guess is we're talking 1-2 members total, such that this article borders on being a vanity page. --Alecmconroy 11:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn group, WP:V. Eusebeus 16:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Eusebeus. Pan Dan 20:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Alec made the case for lack of notability very well during an RFC with extensive discussion. Ovadyah 21:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless clear evidence of group being a real "movement" large enough to verify notability is introduced. Me and my brother haven't but the "Alpha Centaurians for Jesus" page in here yet, and we have two people, two cats and a dog with delusions of grandeur. Badbilltucker 21:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Existence not verifiable outside of a webpage of the alleged group. Jayjg 00:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

is it worth your wikipedian reputations to ingage in this type of incivility?

In light of my facts found through simple searches can any of you explain yourselves? Can you justify an artical in wikipedia on the EJC when you lawyered us out of an artical? Go look at Ovadyah talk page at his mountian high house of cards evidence. I dont see any of the people in the articals he is linked to even know of his President or his group. There are a few sites mirrored from past versons of the wikipedian articals that were a soapbox for that group but other then that not much at all. I should mention in all fairness one site I did find called called Ovadyah 's president a X-Baptist preacher. Is this all the notibility that was required?

Artical POV

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)

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)

NazireneMystic, although I've 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 Misplaced Pages. --Loremaster 19:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

LoreMaster,

Feel free to gice what ever you want a try but manybe you should take the advise I left another Editor on my page when he accused me of attacking him. What is it you are claiming insulted you? If it was me saying you placed my edit in a section that was different then I posted in then please refure to DIFF 12:19, 12 November 2006 . Of course this has already been denied by you but there it is.

If it was refuring to being lead like a dog by Yah I dont have the time to dig through the archived pages to find our chat about science and how you prove modern sicence in that the thoughts of the experimentor can change the outcome of the Experiment after which you agreed you cant tell when you write in a POV mannor. You will also find in the archived past a list of Keith's sugestions that you seemed happy to apply untill Yah LEAD you in the direction of his POV. I dont think you can help it much and realy have been the most level headed Wikipedian ive meet that has been active in this artical while I have been hear whoever thats not saying much. One think slubinstine's comments is that a strong point of the artical names many big names as sources. Its a shame that Yah opening paragraph is at odds with at least Three of the listed Scholars however its writen in a mannor that would make the reader think all these sources agree to that POV paragraph. I have also joined the EJC online community. Its very interesting. Not that numbers mater to me like they seemed to matter to the meat puppets in the deletion hearings which can been seen at diff: 21:19, 12 November 2006 but this group is rather small.The EJC wikipedian artical as well as thier web site claim his movement GREW into this online community. Well with 50 members I would hate to see its size before this explosive growth. The only peron that can post messages appears to be the plaiq / King/ Desider of all things. Yah has turned out to be be like the wizard of OZZ with all his susposed evidence but only you pull back the curtian theres just a little man pulling a bunch of levers.NazireneMystic 20:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Old requests for peer review