Talk:Ebionites

Islam

Why have opinion of non muslims have been quoted under heading of Islam. it's distortion. editor to address this issueRashid37009 (talk) 06:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, the 'confusion' may have gone way back to at least the 19th century in the USA when nontrinitarians (some were leading lights in academia, banking, industry, and society) were sometimes called 'Mahometans' (in what the 'describers' could have thought would be 'conceptually illuminating' (but which could have been 'taken as a slight' by practicing Muslims, if they had heard it). MaynardClark (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Modern reception

A segment of text was removed: "In a 2007 polemic, a Messianic writer asked whether Christians should imitate the Torah observance and acceptance of rabbinic understanding of "neo-Ebionites", who are defined as those who accept Jesus as Messiah, reject Paul and claim Moses as the only guide for Christians." by User:Lovemankind83 with this text:"Hast nothing to do with the articles subject"

Contact the editor: mail: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Lovemankind83 wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lovemankind83

Should not that topic not be included in the article somehow, somewhere? MaynardClark (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

References

- I agree with User:Lovemankind83 that the removed text is not relevant to the article - it is not a view held by the majority of scholars - WP:UNDUE says, "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all" - and the source is questionable (WP:QUESTIONABLE) as it is a self-published website written by one person with no editorial oversight - Epinoia (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I had asked, "Should not that topic not be included in the article somehow, somewhere?" (nto whether THAT comment ought to be included). MaynardClark (talk) 20:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Non-scholarly, deceitful polemics

The below passage (within subsection Jesus, which is by the way a poor choice for a heading) references works of Hyam Maccoby. His works are widely rejected by modern scholars and considered non-historical polemics against Paul and the early church without reasonable substance. I recommend this whole passage to be removed. To me this sounds like an anachronistic reading of history favouring obscure sources to peddle the highly debatable notion that mainstream trinitarian Christianity is an aberration of the 'real' teachings of Jesus. This deceptive rhetoric usually emphasise the 'Oneness of God' (buzzword) as a central Ebionite dogma but completely ignores teachings that are contradicting established christianity/islam as e.g. the rejection of the virgin birth. It seems to me that this has been written to discredit trinitarian Christianity solely and not the offer an impartial view on the history of Ebionites without presupposition or dogma.

The Ebionites are described as emphasizing the oneness of God and the humanity of Jesus as the biological son of Mary and Joseph, who, by virtue of his righteousness, was chosen by God to be the messianic "prophet like Moses" (foretold in Deuteronomy 18:14–22) when he was anointed with the Holy Spirit at his baptism.[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.94.138 (talk) 10:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Although I do not have a problem with removing the expression "oneness of God" (which is not a buzzword) and supporting this passage with a different source, there are three problems with your request:

1. As long as we do not misrepresent Maccoby's opinion as reflecting the consensus of modern scholars on a particular issue, the fact that a majority of modern scholars reject the opinions of Maccoby is not a legitimate reason for excluding his opinion on a particular issue in this article.

2. Historical Ebionites are primarily known through aggressive polemics against them written by Church Fathers who accuse them of rejecting some fundamental mainstream Christian beliefs. Past contributors of the Wikipedia article on the Ebionites have simply tried to present Ebionite views in an impartial way that is as fair as possible to the Ebionites.

3. Belief in the virgin birth of Jesus does not necessarily support the belief in the Trinity. In other words, not only it is entirely possible for some Ebionites to have believed in the virgin birth of Jesus without believing in the pre-existence of Jesus or the Trinity of God, but this is what some Church Fathers seem to tell us where the actual beliefs of some Ebionites. Furthemore, adoptionism is, by definition, a nontrinitarian theological doctrine and most scholars agree that some if not all Ebionites were adoptionists.

--Loremaster (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Anyway, trinitarianism was invented centuries after the death of Jesus. Jesus did not wander through Israel preaching that he is the second Person of the Holy Trinity, as Bart Ehrman stated. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

This article has an unclear citation style

I suggest that all contributors to the Ebionites article follow the example of the Gospel of the Ebionites article when it comes to notes, citations and sources from now on. So we have a lot of work to do. :) —-Loremaster (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)