Talk:History of early Christianity/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

NPOV compliance

Wikipedia is about verifiable points of view, not truth. Much of this article is well-cited, indicating good research. In some cases however the text itself is wrtten as if there is one truth, one set of universally agreed-upon facts about early Christianity. This is not the case. There are many people, including notable historians, for example, who question whether Jesus' original followers thought he was the messiah. Maybe they did. Some people sure believe they did. My point is simple: just identify whose view is being presented. I have made some changes in this regard which I hope will be respected, i hope others will edit with this in mind. Today there is a consensus among Christians about some elements of Christian history. I have no objection at all to that view being include,d prominently, in this article - as long as it is identified as such. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for whatever I did wrong. All I am aware of doing is restoring, with a seemingly reliable source to support it, a statement that was deleted without first trying a "citation needed" tag. I am no expert on the question, but I thought that the author of the book I quoted must be. He is a lecturer in Comparative Religion at the University of Manchester and the minister of a synagogue in that city and, as well as the book quoted, he wrote two other books on Jewish history. Perhaps someone who holds the opposite view can be cited, if his view is controversial. Lima (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I put the citations in an earlier sentence. lima, I am NOT objecting to the source you are using, or to the view you are adding! I have no objection at all! I am just saying that the view has to be presnted as a view and not as a universally held fact, that is all. Among historians there is no certainty about who Jesus was or what his original followers believed. There are a range of views. You added one, and it is a notable one. My only point is that it is one among many and should be presented as such. i wasn't criticizing the view you added. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Accusation of organization/website promotion

I don't see it, all I see are good faith edits. The massive revision proposed by Kraftlos [1] seems unjustified, I'm reverting it. 75.14.219.163 (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I think what happened is that Kraftlos deleted an external link but did it in such a way that it removed everything that had been added in the meantime. I believe it was intended as a good faith edit, but clumsily done. He or she removed the same link from a number of other pages in the same way. --Rbreen (talk) 18:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there some external link that should be deleted from this article? If so, let's delete it. Without removing lots of good faith edits. 75.14.219.163 (talk) 19:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just trying to remove the external link. A user has been adding links to their web sites and I was doing a quick reversal on 15 or so articles. I must have restored a much earlier version by acident. --Kraftlos (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

SR's edits

I made some changes to the article. An anonymous user made many more changes. Kraftlos reverted all changes. I restored my changes, which the anonymous user reverted. To be clear: anonymous user, your conflict is with Kraftlos, not me. Kraftlos: do not revert my edits without an explanation.

I have restored my edits without changing the rest of the text with the only exception of correcting misinformation about Jews, specifically, Christianity emerged in the context of first century Judaism but NOT the Tannaim (as was linked); also, Rabbinic Judaism did not begin to develop until the third century, after the period under discussion. Finally, Hillel and SHamai were Pharisees, not critics of the Pharisees.

One final thing: I did not remove this line but unless someone can provide a verifiable source, I will: "The revolution turned against the Jewish Christians and some were killed." This refers to Bar Kochba's revolution. What is the verifiable source for this? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You made a lot of changes to the article, so I'll make some also, with comments. 75.14.219.163 (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry I deleted James the Just, it was unintentional and I am glad you restored it.

But you have made other changes which are false. There is no evidence that Masada was notable at the time. The key event was the destruction of the Temple, according to all historians. The Bar Kochba revolt was important too, and should be included, but not in the same sentence because it occured sixty years later and a lot happened in those sixty years. Finally, you keep confusing Rabbinic Judaism for first and second century Judaism. Rabbinic Judaism only begins to develop in the third century, a hundred years after this time period. What remained after the destruction of the Temple were Pharisees and Christians, not Rabbinic Jews and Christians. I do not understand your use of Hillel and Shammai, two Pharisees who lived before the destruction of the Temple. Do not misrepresent Jewish history. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

1. A lot of Zealots died at Masada, the Zealots were a "fourth sect" of late second temple Judaism that did not survive. 2. Yes, Bar Kochba is important, the fact that it occured sixty years later shows that not everything changed during the first revolt, in fact the Roman-Jewish Wars occured over a given time period, they were not a one time event. 3. OK, let's define Rabbinic Judaism as 3rd century. All historians consider the fall of the Temple as the end of Phariseeism. What do we call Judaism between Phariseeism and Rabbinicism? I propose Early Rabbinic Judaism, what term do you propose? 4. Hillel and Shammai and the debate between the two schools lasted well past the actual men and is significant in showing that certain aspects of Phariseeism were rejected even by Early Rabbinic Judaism. 75.14.219.163 (talk) 19:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is titled "Early Christianity", not Masada, not Zealots, not debates among the Pharasees or among Rabbinical Jews. The fall of the temple is certainly not the end of Phariseeism as that sect was not especially tied to the temple. It was the end of the Saducees. It was the "end" of the Pharisees only as much as it now assumed the leading role in the rallying of non-Christian Judaism. But that was a process that took some time so it is absolutely correct to state that Pharisees (and Christians) were the only groups left after 70 AD. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The Roman-Jewish Wars were the end of Phariseeism. 75.14.219.163 (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No! Str1977 ^(talk) 08:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is not an article on Jews except insofar as early Christians were Jews, so the context of first and second century Judaism needs to be accurate. It is true that there is a transitional period after the fall of the Temple, Jacob Neusner among others have written extensively on this; I added a sentence to signal the transition which I hope you accpet as a compromise between myself and the anonus. As to Hillel and Shammai, I still do not understand your statement. What does it mean to say "Rabbinic Judaism" rejected elements of "Pharisaic Judaism?" This suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of Rabbinic Judaism. Whereas the Church moved over the centuries more and more in the direction of doctrinal uniformity, Rabbinic Judaism perpetuated the Pharisees' tradition of debate and dissension. Teaching of the house of Shammai were often not accepted by the sages as normative - yet these teachings are included in the Talmud. The point is that Rabbinic Judaism includes minority views and interpretations and legal rulings, it does not declare them heretical, it does not reject them. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Please, Slrubenstein, we need not make such distinctions. I absolutely agree with your take on Phariseeism and Rabbinical Judaism but please don't use Christianity as a contrast. In Christian tradition, various writings not entirely accepted or by writers (Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian even Augustine) later condemned (Tertullian, Origen) are included as well. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

A number of Shammai's views are rejected. Not declared heretical, simply rejected as false conclusions. There is a significant difference between the Pharisees and Rabbinic Judaism. Doctrines of the Pharisees resulted in the Roman-Jewish Wars. The Rabbis made debate internal and rejected the positions of the Zealots. The Rabbis survived. 75.14.219.163 (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That's splitting hairs. If you declare a certain view to be wrong you are essentially calling it "material heresy". Doctrines of the Pharisees did not result in the First Jewish War. Some Pharisees (e.g. Josephus) participated but so did other groups, including Saducees (who were opposed to starting the war) and Essenes. But it was no Pharisean war. The leading Pharisee, Jochanan ben Zakai, sneaked out of Jerusalem at the time. At the end of the war, only the Pharisees (and the Christians) survived with the Zealots, Saducees and Essenes being destroyed or left without a cause or centre. Yes, Pharisees participated in the Second Jewish war and Akiba even declared Bar Kochba the Messiah and payed dearly for it but is there any basis for the claim that "Doctrines of the Pharisees" led to it and where these doctrines later reputiated? Str1977 ^(talk) 08:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

(Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, Zealots, Proselytes) -> Roman-Jewish Wars -> Early Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity. 75.14.219.163 (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

What doctrines of the Pharisees resulted in the war with the Romans? The Pharisees rejected the Zealots. Some may have sympathized with Zealots but they were opposed in general to the war of 67-70. This is another confusion you introduce when you combine the 67 war with the Bar Kochba rebellion - the latter was indeed supported by key elements of the Tannaim. The former was not.

To say that the views of the house of SHammai were rejected means that the Rabbis rejected the views of the Pharisees, is like saying that the Rabbis rejected the views of the Rabbis. Amoraim argued and rejected the views of other Amoraim as much as they rejected the views of Tannaim. The work of the Tannaim and of the Amoraim are both considered parts of Rabbinic Judaism, and the Tannaim included Pharisees. The issue is not the chronology. The issue is that the Pharisees did not "disappear" with the destruction of the Temple any more than Early Christianity "disappeared" and was replaced by Christianity. After the destruction of the Temple, the Pharisees remained. Over the next hundred and fifty years, Pharisaic Judaism transformed into Rabbinic Judaism.

You are trying to push a particular view which is rejected by all mainstream Judaism and by all professional historians of Judaism: that there is no connection between the Pharisees and modern Judaism. All Jews today who identify with Rabbinic Judaism - that includes Orthodoxy, Conservative, and Reform Judaism - see themselves as heirs of the Pharisees. Phariseeic Judaism became Rabbinic Judaism when the destruction of the Temple put an end to the Essenes and Saducees, and when Christianity split off to become its own religion. Early Rabbinic Judaism did not develop out of "Saducees, Pharisees, Essenes, Zealots and Proselytes," it emerged out of the Pharisees. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, the Pharisees did not disappear - in contrast to all the other non-Christian groups. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, "emerged out of the Pharisees". Something historically different. That does not mean that there is no connection, it means only there has been a historical change. Wars bring historical change. The Roman-Jewish Wars were the end of Phariseeism. 75.14.219.163 (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

"The Roman-Jewish Wars were the end of Phariseeism."

Endlessly repearting it doesn't make it true! Str1977 ^(talk) 08:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Good, I think the article makes this clear right now. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Vassyana is being unconstructive again

Ok, what's wrong with this referenced block you deleted?:

Caesarea Maritima (which had been the Roman capital of Iudaea Province since its founding in 6 CE and later of the larger province of Syria Palaestina), became also the centre of Palestinian Christianity. The Great Sanhedrin of Judaism had earlier (before 70) been relocated from Jerusalem to Yavne.

75.15.196.164 (talk) 06:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The reference does not support the majority of claims in the paragraph. The overwhelming majority of sources only present Caesarea Maritima becoming a center of Christian study under Origen (such as this) and similarly do not say that the Sanhedrin moved before the destruction of Jerusalem, but rather note that Rabbi Yochanan established a school in Jamnia prior to the destruction and established a reconstructed Sanhedrin at his school after the destruction of Jerusalem. What was included in the article contradicts the general mainstream of scholarship, making some pretty extreme claims in context, without citing any sources to support those claims. --Vassyana (talk) 06:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how that justifies deleting the entire paragraph. You could have simply corrected the founding of the Sanhedrin to after 70 and requested a ref for the claim of Caesarea being a centre of Palestinian Christianity. Is that too much too ask? To assume good faith and to make a contribution to wikipedia, instead of just block deleting? 75.15.196.164 (talk) 07:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I did not make any statements implying a presumption of bad faith. Removing uncited poor information from an article is as important to ensuring the quality of Wikipedia as adding well-cited information. --Vassyana (talk) 07:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

V is right. In the paragraph V deleted, the cited material is not relevant, and the relevant material is not cited. Leadwind (talk) 04:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Did Paul found any churches himself?

Seems like an interesting topic, came up in the recent editing history. Should it be addressed in this article? 75.15.205.190 (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

In Romans 15 Paul states that he has so far proclaimed the "Gospel" in areas where Christ was already known, and that his ambition was to go to Spain so that he could proclaim the "Gospel" to people who hadn't yet heard of Christ, rather than build on someone else's foundation:

"...from Jerusalem and as far around as Illyricum I have fully proclaimed the good news of Christ. Thus I make it my ambition to proclaim the good news, not where Christ has already been named, so that I do not build on someone else’s foundation... But now, with no further place for me in these regions, I desire, as I have for many years, to come to you when I go to Spain."

"someone else's foundation" = pre-Pauline Churches. For example, even in Cyprus, that church was actually founded by Barnabas. Even near and in Rome, the church existed before Paul's visit there according to Acts 28:13–15 (the Epistle to the Romans doesn't make sense without a pre-existing Roman church). 75.15.199.90 (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably correct, but without an authoritative reference, it is speculation. ClemMcGann (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this sentence currently in the article really plausible?

"Those remaining fully faithful to Halacha became purely Jews, while those adhering to the Christian faith joined with Gentile, Graeco-Roman, Pauline Christianity."

How did this happen? Was there a Grand Inquisitor who forced everyone, both in and outside the Roman Empire, to either choose to follow Jesus (Christianity) or the Torah (Judaism) but not both under penalty of death? 75.15.201.67 (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Restorationism section

Does this section belong at all? If it does, it needs to be rewritten. I wonder also if it is mis-named? It appears to be about a protestant claim, more vigorously advanced in the 19th century, but with a longer history. Making the link to early Christianity within the article might be WP:FRINGE in the absence of references/citations? . --Fremte (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

See the article on Restorationism. 75.14.223.148 (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Adoptionism

Let us stop the personal attacks. Nobody is being disruptive. Please assume good faith. I for my part will take more care in making sure it is easy to verify my references. If you have a problem it is best to work it out on the talk page. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 06:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Compromise Reached?

According to James Edwards, there never was a Gospel of the Ebionites. It appears that he is right for there is no surviving copy, it is not mentioned in any of the early church catalogs, nor does any Church Father mention it. Am I missing anything? - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

At least one Church Father does mention and quote from a Gospel of the Ebionites, I don't recall who that is. For that reason there is a collection of gospel fragments from an alleged gospel by that name. See also Jewish-Christian Gospels and Catholic Encyclopedia: Ebionites. 75.15.203.11 (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify: there are three Jewish-Christian Gospels, these are the Gospel of the Ebionites, the Gospel of the Nazarenes and the Gospel of the Hebrews. Fragments exist from all of these gospels, but not originals. These may or may not be actually the same gospel, some have postulated that these are all derived from an Aramaic Gospel of Matthew or source M in the Four Document Hypothesis. 75.15.203.11 (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You said, "At least one Church Father does mention and quote from a Gospel of the Ebionites, I don't recall who that is." I am not poking fun at you, for that was my reaction. As an old guy, I was sure the [Gospel of the Ebionites] existed and was circulated in the Early Church. Yet when I was verifying the truth of what Edwards said, I could not find the mention of such a gospel from the time of Christ to Jerome. Indeed I found the opposite. Please prove Edwards wrong so I can take his book to the dump! Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

From the previously cited Catholic Encyclopedia article:

Amongst the writings of the Ebionites must be mentioned: Their Gospel. St. Irenæus only states that they used the Gospel of St. Matthew. Eusebius modifies this statement by speaking of the so-called Gospel according to the Hebrews, which was known to Hegesippus (Eusebius, Church History IV.22.8), Origen (Jerome, Illustrious Men 2), and Clem. Alex. (Stromata II.9.45). This, probably, was the slightly modified Aramaic original of St. Matthew, written in Hebrew characters. But St. Epiphanius attributes this to the Nazarenes, while the Ebionites proper only possessed an incomplete, falsified, and truncated copy thereof (Adv. Haer., xxix, 9). It is possibly identical with the Gospel of the Twelve.

75.15.203.11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC).

Basically, historians assume the Ebionites used a gospel, and that gospel is refered to as the Gospel of the Ebionites. It is no longer extant, but at least one Church Father quoted from the gospel used by the Ebionites, hence the existance of "gospel fragments". These are recorded in W. Schneemelcher's New Testament Apocrypha (which is the standard library reference text). 75.15.203.11 (talk) 18:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Overkill, but here's the entry from Schneemelcher:

Gospel of the Ebionites Fragments:

1. In the Gospel that is in general use amongst them, which is called according to Matthew, which however is not whole (and) complete but forged and mutilated - they call it the Hebrew Gospel - it is reported: There appeared a certain man named Jesus of about thirty years of age, (1) who chose us. (2) And when he came to Capernaum, (3) he entered into the house of Simon (4) whose surname was Peter, (5) and opened his mouth and said: As I passed along the Lake of Tiberias, (6) I chose John and James the sons of Zebedee, and Simon and Andrew and Thaddaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the Isca- riot, (7) and thee, Matthew, I called as thou didst sit at the receipt of custom, and thou didst follow me. (8) You therefore I will to be twelve apostles for a testimony unto Israel. (9) (Epiphanius, Haer. 30.13,2f.) ==1. Lk3:23. 2. Lk6:13. 3. Mk1:21;Lk4:31. 4. Mk1:29;Lk4:38. 5. Mt4:18. 6. Mk1: ==16;Mt4:18. 7. Mt10:2-4 ||. 8. Mt9:9. 9. Mt10:2,6;Mk3:14;Lk6:13;Barnabas8:3.

2. And: It came to pass that John was baptizing (1); and there went out to him Pharisees and were baptized, (2) and all Jerusalem. (3) And John had a garment of camel's hair and a leathern girdle about his loins, and his food, as it saith, was wild honey, (4) the taste of which was like that of manna, as a cake dipped in oil. (5) Thus they were resolved to pervert the word of truth into a lie and to put a cake in the place of locusts. (ibid. 30.13,4f)

3. And the beginning of their Gospel runs: It came to pass in the days of Herod the king of Judaea, (6) <when Caiaphas was high priest, (7)> that there came <one>, John <by name,> and baptized with the baptism of repentance in the river Jordan. (8) It was said of him that he was of the lineage of Aaron the priest, a son of Zacharias & Elisabeth; (9) & all went out to him. (10) (,6)

4. And after much has been recorded it proceeds: When the people were baptized (11) Jesus also came and was baptized by John. (12) And as he came up from the water, the heavens were opened and he saw the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove that descended (13) and entered into him. And a voice (sounded) from heaven that said: Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased. (14) And again: I have this day begotten thee. (15) And immediately a great light shone round about the place. (16) When John saw this, it saith, he saith unto him: Who art thou, Lord? And again a voice from heaven (rang out) to him: This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased. (17) And then, it saith, John fell down before him and said: I beseech thee, Lord, baptize thou me. But he prevented him and said: Suffer it; for this it is fitting

75.15.203.11 (talk) 18:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but Schneemelcher is not An Early Church Father. Are you starting to see the Problem? Cheers! - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm starting to see the problem. I wish you would pay more attention. Obviously, that Early Church Father is Epiphanius. Schneemelcher is the Wikipedia:Reliable sources. 75.15.203.11 (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

In summary, Schneemelcher records fragments of the Gospel of the Ebionites and your book by Edwards claims it doesn't exist or is just some other gospel or whatever it claims. This does not make the Gospel of the Ebionites an urban myth. Schneemelcher at least is a Wikipedia:Reliable sources. 75.15.203.11 (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Another way to summarize it would be to say that Epiphanius claimed that the Ebionites used a gospel that was different from the gospels that he knew. Scholars refer to this gospel as the "Gospel of the Ebionites" and speculate about what it may have been as it is no longer extant. It may have been a corruption of the gospels Epiphanius knew, or it may have been a unique gospel, or it may have been a version of a Hebrew Gospel, or it may have been the M source in the Four Document Hypothesis, or something else. 75.14.217.42 (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said below, you guys are forcing an old man to spend his Friday at the Seminary library. That is not a bad thing. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I have carefully read your comments and they seem to support Edwards position that the term Gospel of the Ebionites is a "scholarly neologism" and that the term "Gospel of the Ebionites" was not used in the Early Church.

Since Eusebius, in Ecclesiastical History 3:27 states that the Ebionites use only Gospel of the Hebrews and since Epiphanius (See Panarion 30:3) himself writes that the Ebionites "accept Matthew's Gospel, and like the followers of Cerinthus and Merinthus, they use it alone. They call it the Gospel of the Hebrews, for in truth Matthew alone in the New Testament expounded and declared the Gospel in Hebrew using Hebrew script." For the purposes of our article we too should refer to it as the Gospel of the Hebrews. The issue for me is focus. Let us stay on topic. In a few hours I will have another go at Adoptionism. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 07:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The NPOV solution is to mention that modern scholars use the term Gospel of the Ebionites for the gospel that the Ebionites used. There are many scholarly arguments about what the "Gospel of the Ebionites" might have actually been. Gospel of the Hebrews is just one of them, and also a circular argument as the "Gospel of the Hebrews" also does not exist and scholars argue about what it might have actually been. The general topic should be discussed at Jewish-Christian Gospels. 75.15.201.61 (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

How about this for a compromise 1)A footnote 2)When citing Epiphanius use his terminology. And when quoting Schneemelcher we use the ""scholarly neologism"? Thanks for taking the time to explain your concerns. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Something like that is probably reasonable. Just as long as we don't jump to the conclusion that the gospel that the Ebionites used is the "Gospel of the Hebrews". That's only one of several possibilities, not the only possibility. Remember, wikipedia is not a forum for original research or POV pushing. 75.15.201.61 (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

A very related issue is presented at Jewish-Christian Gospels in the introduction, which mentions that some scholars claim there is only one gospel, while other scholars claim there are multiple gospels. You appear to be in the camp of "only one Jewish-Christian gospel", I'm in the camp of "let all scholarly views be represented". 75.15.201.61 (talk) 20:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I am happy with Esoglou's compromise. I hope you can live with it too. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Bart Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture

Why was this citation deleted? - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I am going to restore this source in a few hours. The reason for this is that he goes into the pre New Testament roots of this heresy.

Revisions by Ret.Prof

The spelling "Adoptionism" is today more common than "Adoptianism" (the spelling of the latter echoes that of "Arianism", "Monarchianism", and more modern heresies), but that doesn't mean that the Spanish heresy wasn't adoptionist. The ODCC (which, indeed, explicitly states that both spellings are used) is a reliable source, and may not be excised simply because an editor doesn't like what it says. I have added two other reliable sources that say the same thing and use the spelling "adoptionism".

Epiphanius quoted from the Gospel that the Ebionites used. According to some, but not all, their Gospel was the same as the Gospel known as the "Gospel of the Hebrews". It makes no difference what you call that Gospel: it is still the Gospel that the Ebionites used, their Gospel, and it is precisely because it is their Gospel that the quotation "This day have I begotten you" in it is used to argue that those early Christians were adoptionists. The article is concerned with early Christianity, not with whether adoptionism is true or false. For this reason, statements such as "Important to Adoptionism is ..." have no place in the article. Esoglou (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Some good points. You are forcing me to spend my Friday at the seminary library. That is not a bad thing. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Especially as both spellings are used, per ODCC, can we drop any of disscussion of one spelling vs. the other from the article and citations there-of (in the article itself). I also would like to drop anything that we can drop about the 8th century, since that is not part of Early Christianity. Feel free to include this all on Adoptionism, Gospel of the Ebionites, etc.

If you would rather focus on getting it right, I don't mind summarizing for you. I am not trying to sound threating-- I just know I can help more there than I can in the issue of if or how the "Gospel of the Ebionites" exsited or not. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 03:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Carlaude, I totally agree. This article is too long. We must try to regain our focus. The ODCC is not about adoptionism in the Early Church. It is too broad for our purposes. The Spanish heresy was adoptionist but from a much later time. Adolf Harnack at the end of the 19th century. I believe we must focus on Adoptionism from Jewish Christianity to the Nic.Creed. I will have another go at this in a few hours. Feel free to modify or revert. I won't take offense. A bit of back and forth is a good thing and we will eventually get a version that we can all agree upon. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 06:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I must disagree with the remark about the ODCC article, which is about all the meanings of adoptionism/adoptianism. The only part that concerns us here is what it says about the early Church: "Through the influence of A. Harnack's Dogmengeschichte the term (usually spelt 'Adoptionism') has also been frequently applied to the heretical stream in early Greek theology which regarded Christ as a man gifted with Divine powers. This view, first represented by the Ebionites, was later developed by the Monarchians, e.g. Theodotus and Paul of Samosata. Theodore of Mopsuestia, Nestorius, and the Antiochene School in general also tend to what may be called, in a rather loose sense, an Adoptionist Christianity." I have shown that I fully agree that in this article we should only report on the views held by groups in early Christianity, without arguing for or against the correctness of their views. Esoglou (talk) 08:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Brit, ODCC, Catholic Encyclopedia, etc are not wrong, it is that they are not right for this article because the are too broad in scope. This is not an article about Adoptionism, but about Adoptionism in the Early Church and why the Church came to formally reject it at by the First Council of Nicaea (325) - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Among the many topics addressed by the ODCC and the Encyclopaedia Britannica, with information worth noting because of the prestige of these sources, is early-Christian adoptionism, what this section of the article is about. I hope nobody thought I propose excluding other sources: I merely hold that these important summaries of the subject should not be ignored as if non-existent. Esoglou (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free to add ODCC & Brit. back to the article in regards to the Early Church. However please note that the Catholic encyclopedia is no longer an acceptable Wiki-Ref. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

If I remember right, the Catholic Encyclopedia doesn't speak at all of early-Christian adoptionism, a notion introduced by Harnack only shortly before. While the Catholic Encyclopedia is surely acceptable with regard to the only pre-Harnack meaning of the term "adoptionism", I omitted all mention of it when speaking above of the early-Christian variety. I wonder why there should be any "adding back" of the authoritative sources that speak of that variety.

I see now that you have already altered the article. I must study what you have written, but I am immediately struck by your reversion to "Important to Adoptionism is ...", about which I wrote above. Do you mean "Important to belief in Adoptionism" (i.e. to present-day belief in the Adoptionism)? Or perhaps "Important to present-day understanding of early-Christian Adoptionism"? The second meaning doesn't really fit your words, and the first seems to me to be taking sides. Esoglou (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Good Point. I will rework the wording - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Great job Esoglou. I am happy with your wording. That is all for now. Thanks for both the good work and good attitude. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Changes by Carlaude/Esoglou

Just a word to explain my alterations of Carlaude's changes:

Thanks for your help. All my work was reverted before I completed. This is what I was trying to do. Ret.Prof (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

1. I don't think we can say that the Adoptionists held that Jesus became God the Son, a Trinitarian concept. RetProf's "divine" was better, but required disambiguation by reference to divinity, a concept that, according to the article on it, is also applied (even if loosely or indeed wrongly) to human beings. Ans: Keep 'divinity' and 'Son of God' per Ed Hindson & Ergun Caner - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
2. Nor do I think it appropriate to say that the Gospel used by the Ebionites is "of uncertain identification", since its use by the Ebionites is itself an identification. Ans: Agreed, Some scholars refer to this work as the 'Gospel of the Ebionites', but this is a "scholarly neologism" and should be avoided as it is confusing to lay people. See the Jewish-Christian Gospels for a full discussion of this problem.- Ret.Prof (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
3. I don't understand "From Epiphanius' of this gospel's account of the baptism of Jesus, it said the voice from heaven declared ..." I have therefore altered it. Ans: Agreed - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
4. Nor do I understand "and some see this phrase as the gospel supporting the Adoptionist doctrine", since I think a gospel/Gospel would be more than a phrase. Ans: Agreed - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
5. Nor again do I understand how the phrase "this day have I begotten you" as used in the Letter to the Hebrews can be said to be one that "presents Jesus as the [[God the Son|Son]] through whom the universe was made": it seems to me that it is not that phrase, but the Letter to the Hebrews itself, in another part, that does the presenting. I have therefore changed that back, restoring also the statement that the Letter to the Hebrews is another early Christian text, so as to avoid the impression that it is brought in merely as an anti-adoptionist argument. I thought it best also to exclude the unnecessary and perhaps misleading wikilink to the Trinitarian concept of "God the Son". Ans: Agreed - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
6. As an aside, I use "Gospel" to refer to a book, "gospel" to a teaching, good news. I have noticed that this seems to be the usage also of at least two of the recently published books to which links are given in the Adoptionism section of the article, but perhaps other books follow Carlaude's usage. I will not try to impose my usage on Wikipedia. Esoglou (talk) 09:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC) Ans: Agreed - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

1. I thought "God the Son" was, or could be, a Trinitarian and a nonTrinitarian concept, depending on what you thought it meant. But that's fine. Ans: Agreed - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
2. I thought this was the whole point of you or he calling it only "the used gospel/Gospel by the Ebionites" and not the Gospel of the Ebionites. Ans: Disagree Some scholars refer to this work as the 'Gospel of the Ebionites', but this is a "scholarly neologism" and should be avoided as it is confusing to lay people. See the Jewish-Christian Gospels for a full discussion of this problem.
3. This seems to repeat the quote-- "Today I have begotten you"-- more than needed.::#. It should have said "From Epiphanius' quotations of this gospel's account of the baptism of Jesus"-- left out a word. Ans: Epiphanius is quoting from the 'Gospel of the Hebrews" which is the only gospel that the Ebionites use. The term 'Gospel of the Ebionites', is a "scholarly neologism" and should be avoided as it is confusing to lay people. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
4. The Gospel of Joe would be a document, but a "Gospel" (that is capitalized and yet is not a part of a proper name) is a thelogy or a message-- as Paul uses it in 2 Corinthians 11:4. A "gospel" (not capitalized) could be a document (or maybe a thelogy). Context would need to indicate which. (I think some faithful may use "Gospel" to mean a canonical Gospel as in "after the Gospel reading today..." but IMHO this is a Christian thing and not a normal rule of English-- like the capitaliztion of pronouns that refer to God.) Hence "gospel's account of the baptism of Jesus" means a quote of a doument-- a phrase. Does that make my text more clear to you? Ans: Agreed - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
5. The phrase used in the Letter to the Hebrews is not said by anyone (I know of) to "presents Jesus as the God the Son" The phrase is used in the Letter to the Hebrews and Letter to the Hebrews also presents Jesus as the God the Son-- hence the one part cites Hebrews 1:5 and 5:5 and the other cites Hebrews 1:2. The comment is an example of how the phrase can be used and yet not have Adoptionism in mind. Ans: Agreed, but really, really confusing! - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)^{Carlaude:Talk} 12:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding about my difficulty regarding the link to the God the Son article, which does seem to take a Trinitarian view. It was RetProf who had difficulty in accepting that what he was then calling the Gospel of the Hebrews (in reality the one quoted by Epiphanius) could also be called the Gospel of the Ebionites. I knew that there was some explanation of the unintelligibility of the phrase with the missing word, but I failed to think of what word to put where. I have indicated that I am not insisting on any particular norm about Gospel/gospel. The text that I had to revise did say that the phrases presents ...: as we both agree, it is not the phrase but Heb 1:2 that presents Jesus as ... Esoglou (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Ans: Disagree. It was not Ret.Prof but Epiphanius who refers to the 'Gospel of the Hebrews'. The 'Gospel of the Ebionites', is a "scholarly neologism" and should be avoided as it is confusing to lay people.- Ret.Prof (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)'

Changes by RetProf/Carlaude

• Please avoid adding or re-adding spaces before reference notes in the text. Ans: Agreed - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
• Adoptionism was an issue for the Early Church, but we cannot say it was an "important issue" unless a book today says so and we cite it. I think it had a number of larger issues in this time-- that is before 325 AD. Ans: Agreed - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
• Saying both that he was born a human and saying he was born of Mary and Joseph is not needed. Adoptionism was about Jesus being born human. To the degree this also implies be was born of Mary and Joseph is the same degree it does not need to be said because it is already implied. Ans: Disagree Clarity is needed. The Adoptionism heresy rejects that Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. They believe that Jesus was born of the sexual union of Joseph and Mary. Nasty but true. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think it is really questionable that their is any sort of divinity to Jesus that would be "in line with... radical monotheism of Judaism." Please cite or leave this out. Ans: Agreed - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
• The text says at the momment "a phrase echoing Psalm 2:7.. an echo of Psalm 2:7" Not needed! Ans: Agreed - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
• We also do not need to repeat the "Today I have begotten you" quote over and over-- at least not unless we are quoting a different version of it. Ans: Agreed "Today I have begotten you" need be only said once. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
• This is all unneeded: "Jesus came up from the water, Heaven was opened, and He saw the Holy Spirit descend in the form of a dove and enter into Him. And a voice from Heaven said, 'You are my beloved Son; with You I am well pleased.'... Immediately a great light shone around the place"Ans: Agreed "Today I have begotten you" need be only said once. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
• I have explained all my changes (I think) please tell me if you disagree before just reverting them all. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 12:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• Because-- in addition to the above isses-- even all the "%22" and "%22" were restored-- so I am just going to revert it all to my version and ask you please work with me from there. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 12:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC) Ans: Disagree, If you had let me finish my editing you would have seen most of what you had written would have been included. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Carlaude's version:

“ An early form of Adoptionism, the doctrine that Jesus became the divine by adoption, held that Jesus was born human only and became divine, by adoption at his baptism, being chosen because of his sinless devotion to the will of God. The first representatives of this view were the Ebionites. They understood Jesus as Messiah and Son of God in terms of the anointing at his baptism.

Some scholars view the non-canonical Gospel of the Ebionites, now lost, but quoted by Epiphanius of Salamis' document the Panarion as the first to be written, and believe Adoptionist theology may predate the New Testament. Others, on the contrary, consider that "it clearly presupposes the canonical Gospels". The Ebionites' gospel document was attributed by them to Matthew, and was also called Hebrew, but Epiphanius saw it as a corrupt and mutilated version of the Gospel of Matthew. Some also suppose it to be the Gospel of the Hebrews, a work also lost and of uncertain identification. From Epiphanius' quotes of this gospel's account of the baptism of Jesus, the voice from heaven declared: "This day have I begotten you", a phrase echoing Psalm 2:7, which some see as the gospel document supporting the Adoptionist doctrine. The phrase is also used twice in the canonical Epistle to the Hebrews, but the author of Hebrews instead presents Jesus as the Son through whom the universe was made.

The Adoptionist view was later developed by adherents of the form of Monarchianism that is represented by Theodotus of Byzantium and Paul of Samosata.

Adoptionism clearly conflicted with the claim, as in the Gospel of John, that Jesus is the eternal Logos, and it was declared a heresy at the end of the second century. It was formally rejected by the First Council of Nicaea (325), which wrote the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity and identified Jesus as eternally begotten.

”

Notes

• "now lost, but quoted by Epiphanius" could seem self-contradictory, unless it is made clear that Epiphanius does not quote the document, but only parts of it, which of course are therefore not lost.
• "Others, on the contrary, consider that it ..." With the insertion of the phrase about Adoptionist theology, "it" now refers to that theology, not to the Gospel that Epiphanius quoted.
• "and was also called Hebrew" - have you not noticed that I provided the requested clarification?
• "a phrase ... which some see as the gospel document supporting the Adoptionist doctrine" - I hope you do not consider it a mere quibble if I say that a phrase is not a document; more important is the fact that this phrase is not the only part of Epiphanius's excerpts from the Ebionites' Gospel on which is based the idea that they had Adoptionist ideas: at least one other consideration given in RetProf's ill-presented first attempt was excised by you and I have preferred not to revive it while the discussion continues in this disorganized state.
• "From Epiphanius' quotes of this gospel's account of the baptism of Jesus, the voice from heaven declares ..." Surely an unclear expression: "the voice from heaven from Epiphanius's quotes"? What was wrong with my copyedit, which you have rejected: "This gospel's account of the baptism of Jesus, as quoted by Epiphanius, says that the voice from heaven declared"?
• Would it not be useful to give the reader some indication of the grounds on which the phrase "This day have I begotten you" (which, as I have said, is not a "gospel document") is interpreted as "supporting the Adoptionist doctrine"? Esoglou (talk) 14:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Being Polite is Important

I read your concerns and was addressing them one at a time. I was making sure everything had a proper Ref, NPOV & focus . . . when everything disappeared. Please restore it, let me finish, read my work carefully and then feel to revert what you do not like. A bit of back and forth is OK, but let us be respectful to one another. Happy Editing - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me know when you are ready then, and please also address my comments. I was not seeking to remove refs, NPOV, or politeness. Maybe your process would have been clear if you had posted on talk first and then posted the changes you saw as needed on the article page.

Note, that I made more chages per Esoglou above.^{Carlaude:Talk} 12:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I must disavow responsibiliy for Carlaude's changes. Carlaude has actually rejected a large part of my suggestions (see above). RetProf, I think Carlaude's suggestion with regard to the procedure for you to follow is a good one . Today you radically changed the text, casting aside much (most, even?) of what yesterday you accepted as good work, saying you were happy with it. What we need, I think, is an agreed base on which to build, proposing amendments to it, deletions or additions, before actually putting changes into the article text. As I see it, there are three candidates for that base:

1. Carlaude's text, which is at present in the article;
2. The text that you approved yesterday, which can be found here;
3. My revision of today, which can be found here.

Surely, at least two out of the three of us can agree on which of these texts to use as the base to work on. I certainly will accept anything, even outside these three candidates, that you two agree on. I hope that each of you, RetProf and Carlaude, will also accept as a base text whatever the other two agree on for that purpose. What do you both think? Esoglou (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Go for it Esoglou. I like #3 - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Final Cut

Sometimes editors of good faith find themselves in gridlock. I propose to give you "final cut" as a way out. What I mean by this is:

1. I will finish the editing I started earlier. ( once I get over my snit )
2. I will promise to make no more edits for a period of two weeks.
3. You revise what I have written in good faith explaining in detail why you felt the changes were needed.

Most of your above comments I agreed with. I hope you will keep the section readable for newcomers and focus on "early" Christianity. Does this sound like a reasonable compromise? - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Please don't do so until you have given consideration to my suggestion immediately above. Esoglou (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Ret.Prof-- Esoglou's suggestion immediately above sounds good to me. That said-- unless you two agree on one first-- I plan to look at your (Prof's) version and Esoglou's version and then agree to begin with whichever of the two looks like a better staring point. I will agree to wait, however, for Prof to present a complete-to-him version to look at. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 16:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

If Esoglou would rather just agree to begin with mine before Prof's version is ready (which I don't really expect), I will still look at Prof's version during his two weeks off. Cheers. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 16:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Go for it Esoglou - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Please excuse my obtuseness. I don't understand what I should go for. Nor do I understand the reference to RetProf's "two weeks off". Perhaps something that came up in the discussion between you two. Now that I am sure that my suggestion has been noticed, I have thought I could await reactions from both. Carlaude has reacted, proposing his own version as the base text. I don't know RetProf's view on it. He may well wish to at least post his own new version first. I would certainly not object to him doing so. But, to judge by what I saw of his provisional changes, I do not think it would win the support of either Carlaude or me for the choice of the base text. So I await RetProf's comment, before or after his posting of his own preferred version. But if he wants to post it first, I think we should immediately afterwards make our choice of the base text, Esoglou (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Now, at last, I have seen the reference to two weeks. If we agree to a base text, I don't think we should hold RetProf to his offer to make no edits for two weeks. I would indeed be very happy if the discussion were limited to judt Carlaude and me, but would it be fair? I don't mind much which text is chosen for base text: any one would be helpful.

RetProf's offer was, as I interpret it, conditional on acceptance of his text as what I later called a base text. Would it be fair to make him hold off for two weeks even in those circumstances? He would have to repeat his offer in calmer mood before I would really take it seriously. Esoglou (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I like your base text #3 above. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there is no reason for Prof to wait two weeks. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 04:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreement Reached?

We use Esoglou's base and make small carefully explained changes. Ret.Prof (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

1. "Jesus was fully human, born of a sexual union between Joseph and Mary" Shows why this heresy was so offensive to Catholics. It says the Blessed Virgin wasn't! Therefore it is important to a full understanding. - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, a lot of historians don't think Joseph was the genetic father of the historical Jesus. The Jesus Seminar's "Acts of Jesus" puts it this way: "His mother's name was Mary, and he had a human father whose name may not have been Joseph." See also Jane Schaberg's "The Illegitimacy of Jesus ".

http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/book-sum/illegit.html

http://www.slate.com/id/2132639/ 75.15.204.73 (talk) 03:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You are not wrong. You are simply not right. Your statement "Actually, a lot of historians don't think Joseph was the genetic father of the historical Jesus. The Jesus Seminar's Acts of Jesus puts it this way: His mother's name was Mary, and he had a human father whose name may not have been Joseph."... May very well be correct but the Christians of the Early Church knew little of genetics. - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

born of... Joseph and Mary?

• As I said above, (or rather ment to say) saying that he was born of Mary and Joseph is not needed. Adoptionism was about Jesus being born human. To the degree this also implies be was born of Mary and Joseph is the same degree it does not need to be said because it is already implied. And you said

• Disagree... They believe that Jesus was born of the sexual union of Joseph and Mary.

Actually it was Bart D. Ehrman who said that Adoptionists believe Jesus was born of the sexual union of Joseph and Mary. As much as I respect your POV and can see how term "Sexual Union" is upsetting, you need Wikipedia:Reliable sources to support your POV. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• While I am sure they did believe that Jesus was born of the sexual union of Joseph and Mary, as it could hardly be otherwise (not withstanding Mr. 75.15.204.73) there are many other things they beileve that we also do not mention.
• For example-- I find even in much longer articles than this section on Adoptionism no mention of this point on Mary and Joseph . See the New World Encyclopedia article on Adoptionism and the CE link below.

<<<<<New World Encyclopedia is a good source for Good Will edits>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ret.Prof (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Second, It is not really obvious than the 2nd century church was as concerned with the Virgin Mary as the RCC is today-- in fact I suspect the opposite. But even if I did beileve that the 2nd century church was more or as much concerned with the Virgin Mary-- it would be WP:OR to say so, or to say that that is why the church found Adoptionism so objectionable. Now by the 8th century-- that is a different matter and it may all be the case by then-- but that would not apply here-- and even the long Catholic Encyclopedia article on Adoptionism does not say a word about Mary or Joseph-- and that article even begins with the 8th century Adoptionism.
• If you find a WP:RS that tells the "being born of Mary and Joseph" was the part that the proto-orthodox church saw as so offensive-- even back in the 2nd century-- then I will agree that we have reason to include it. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 04:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)"

I agree with Carlaude on this point. "Born of a sexual union between Joseph and Mary" is, in the first place, phrased much too strongly: it would be sufficient to say "born of Joseph and Mary". Carlaude is quite right in calling for a reliable source that says what is here attributed to the early Adoptionists, and it would have to be a source that makes the statement in the same unnecessarily strong form. Is it necessary to say anything even about "born of Joseph and Mary"? That would be peripheral regarding Adoptionism. Theoretically God the Son could have become incarnate in a human being conceived in the normal way. Or, to put the opposite case, someone conceived virginally could have been a mere human being and would have been "adopted" only later. So the manner of the conception of Jesus is only peripheral with regard to Adoptionism.

I have another serious objection to RetProf's proposal, against his proposed change to "Jesus was fully human". That statement is perfectly "orthodox": the "orthodox" call Jesus true God and true man; fully human and fully divine. In no way does that statement distinguish Adoptionists. What distinguishes them is the idea that Jesus was born merely human, not also divine.

(Unfortunately, I will be away from home for most of today, and again tomorrow, and may be unable to respond as soon as I would wish to observations made here.) Esoglou (talk) 08:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Prof-- you are not making "small carefully explained changes." You are reverting when consenous is against you-- and without explaining. Your citations do not belay my objections since I already conceeded the fact that they did believe that Jesus was born of the sexual union of Joseph and Mary. I can go into more detail when I get a chance later, but I hope you will go ahead and self-revert now-- since you (rightly) emphasize WP:AGF, etc. but are not IMHO acting as polite as you could. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 12:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, RetProf. You only need one other editor's support to have a majority (out of the three actively engaged) for making a change; but you have not won anyone's support. The article is not the property of any single one of us to change at will. The proper course would be to try to win someone's support on the Talk page before altering the article. Esoglou (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Guys. Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. I have been watching the battle of Greed vs Compassion in the USA. Being Canadian, it is hard to understand how people could support denying sick people health care??

Points of view

Anyway I have carefully read your comments. My views are as follows:

• Consensus based on POV is not binding.
• Bart D. Ehrman is a reliable source. (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources). Therefore "sexual union" should not have been deleted. Simply saying you don't like it or it is not necessary, is not an acceptable reason to delete sourced material.
• Your comment about being "fully human" is very good and I will have think that through!
• Hey Guys, telling another editor he can't edit without your OK is out of line. I will continue to make small improvements and you can continue to delete them until you think I get something right.
• Finally, I think what this article needs most is Good Will. WE can disagree without being disagreeable.

Now back to the Cable News. The Yanks make good TV viewing. Cheers. Ret.Prof (talk) 22:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

RetProf, we need your good will. Please don't try to force your view on the article. Present your case here, before changing the text. Unilateral change based on one person's POV is not binding. You have not answered the objection that birth of Jesus from Joseph is irrelevant to Adoptionism, as not being what Adoptionism is about, since an Adoptionist could hold that, even if virginally conceived, Jesus would have been merely human and have been "adopted" by God later. You have not answered the serious objection that Adoptionists could have accepted that the father could have been a man other than Joseph. Ehrman's view is not unquestioned: so why have you not thought of proposing "Ehrman says that ..." instead of presenting it as the accepted view among experts? Why do you refuse to make your proposals here on the Talk page? Why did you treat Carlaude's questioning of points in the base text as a mere "addition" to your own remarks? More important, why have you then ignored his points and failed to respond to them? Please cooperate. I must restore Carlaude's remarks to below yours, since they were made after yours and deserve attention as much as yours. Esoglou (talk) 08:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that Carlaude had made his proposals, such as that certain parts of the base text be deleted, on the Talk page here, and has had the courtesy to wait for reaction by others - he is still awaiting yours - before making any changes in the text of the article. That is a good example to follow. Esoglou (talk) 08:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Prof, (althought if really you think this is a principle of Wikipedia, you should cite it rather than state it as your view)-- let's just say for argument's sake that we agree on this "Consensus based on POV is not binding.", we would still need to a process or the like for determining what is POV, or based on based on POV, and that process would still need to involve consensus and other Wikipedia principles.
• On your 2nd point...

1 If your justification is just to take "saying you don't like it or it is not necessary, is not an acceptable reason to delete sourced material" as a trueism or principle of Wikipedia, then you should cite that also. If not then it is just your POV.

2 I/we do not simply say we don't like it or it is not necessary. The phase creates an unbalanced view of Adoptionism, since it is not a trait they considered as fundamental to their theleogy and it had no enormouse effect on their history (at least in the 2nd - 4th century that is.) This was my point in citing the articles in encyclopedias. The authors hired to write these articles gave no mention at all of this, dispite being longer than this little section on Adoptionism. Non-encyclopedias are books with various other purposes that may lead the authors to say anything they know.

Likewise since this article is already too long-- we have all the more reason to remove it, even if we did find an otherwise plausible reason to keep it. This is also the more so since there is already a Adoptionism article to put such infomation, if need be.

• I agree with Esoglou here.
• See below, and
• If I come across as dissagreeable, please know that is not my intention. I too often come across that way but do not mean ill of it. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 04:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

...other points (on Esoglou's base)

• Esoglou's base text (our starting point)
• Carlaude's base text
• Ret.Prof's base text

A: monotheism

• A Prof (if I recall) & I both saw "which was more in line with the radical monotheism of Judaism" as needing to go. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 12:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

No objection on my part. If RetProf thinks this phrase is important enough to keep, would he please indicate his reasons here. Esoglou (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Quoting from the "Changes by Carlaude/Esoglou" section above...

• I think it is really questionable that their is any sort of divinity to Jesus that would be "in line with... radical monotheism of Judaism." Please cite or leave this out. Ans: Agreed - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

So we can remove this. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 22:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice to see that there is something we all agree on! Esoglou (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

B: Hebrew

• B "and also called "Hebrew" is still unclear to me-- even with the note. Do mean people called it the Gospel to the Hebrews or than Epiphanius claimed it was written in the language of Hebrew? ^{Carlaude:Talk} 12:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Epiphanius quite clearly was not himself making any claim about the language of the Gospel in question: he was clearing indicating a to his mind ridiculous view of the Ebionites. I presume that what he meant is that the Ebionites called it "the Hebrew Gospel", and that this is the very reason that some identify the Ebionites' Gospel with the "Gospel of the Hebrews" mentioned in other sources. Would it be Original Research to put this interpretation in the article? If we cannot put this interpretation in, what other interpretation dan we put in? Perhaps then the only thing to do is to quote the exact words of Epiphanius as in the English translation I have given a link to, without providing any interpretation. Unfortunately, I have no access to what Epiphanius actually wrote, in Greek, which, just possibly, might help to clarify the meaning. Esoglou (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Due to the outside-Wikipedia issues I am choosing not to follow this issue carefuly, but...

Anything that can be said can be said clearly. Until you two agree to somthing better, please either drop this entirely, or say somthing about the Gospel to the Hebrews. If you two can not agree on one of those two choices then we need to at least comment it out, so someone can go back to it later if need be. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 22:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Should we wait for RP to get over his – to use his own term rather than another – "time out"? Would it be too much to wait till the end of this month? I thought that would be a good idea, but his latest intervention, which might seem to indicate a fixed intention to ignore all proposals by anyone else, have made me doubt whether it would be of any use. I still think we should wait at least a day or two more.

For my part, I see little advantage in including this part. But since RP seemed to want to insist so much on the identification of the Ebionites' book with the Gospel of the Hebrews, I thought he might like to keep this reference, which perhaps is the only basis for supposing their Gospel to be the Gospel of the Hebrews, which is mentioned in other sources. Esoglou (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Did he say he was taking a time out? or just stop editing/talking? What was the "latest intervention"?

I don't really want to wait a week on this. Let's just comment it out <!-- like this --> and make note here that anyone can raise it again when they choose. I can live with waiting at least a day or two. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 05:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood RP's "I often turn the other cheek and take a time out" (emphasis mine). By "latest intervention" (his latest edit), I meant "Hey Dudes, no need to talk like that. You are getting your way. Now have fun." I may have misinterpreted this too. If I were the only editor involved with him, I'd give him even more than a week to recover his good humour. But in the present case, let's just give him one more day, until tomorrow Friday. If he still puts forward no considerations on the question, we can perhaps, after further reflection by ourselves, then remove the reference, not just comment it out. Esoglou (talk) 08:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

C: thee

• C What is the need to translate the gospel's account quote of the voice as "This day have I begotten thee"? None of the ancient writers used English, and using "thee" for "you" in English today not is normal practice, even for references to God. Neither Greek nor Hebrew nor Aramaic has a different form of the second-person personal pronoun used to indicate the Divine-- as "thee" once was in English-- so there seems to be no point, and may even be missleading. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 12:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course, you don't mean that we should report this phrase in the original Greek (to which I have no access). The words given are those of the translation of the Panarion to which a link is given in the article. Surely that is the proper translation to give in the article. That translation did use "thee". In fact it took the whole phrase, "thee" and inversion of the verb included, from the KJV. There is no ground for thinking that "thou/thee/thine" indicates divinity of the addressee. This was/is just the way to address a single person, while "you/your" referred to several people together. The idea that "thou/thee/thy" indicates divinity is only a recent mistaken notion, which arose because of its continued archaic use in some prayers addressed to God. You will find that notion supported in no reputable work of reference. Or look up any Bible that uses that form for addressing God, and you find that in that Bible the same form is used when a single human being (just one) is addressed. Esoglou (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC).

For the purposes of this quote, I don't really care what it thee used to mean, only that it is archaic English.

Why would "thee" surely be is "the proper translation to give in the article"? Has there been no translations of it made since the 18th century? ^{Carlaude:Talk} 22:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you know of any other English translation of the Panarion? Unless there is another, we should stick to what we do have, a translation made in the late twentieth century, not in the eighteenth century. I still think that "the proper translation to give in the article" is the one to which the article gives a link. Not because of its use of "thee" in this quotation, but, if you wish, in spite of its use of "thee". Anyway, I see no fault in its choice of the "thee" form in a Biblical or quasi-Biblical context. Esoglou (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

D: Psalm 2:7

• D The text still reads "phrase echoing Psalm 2:7... phrase (an echo of Psalm 2:7)" ^{Carlaude:Talk} 12:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it is useful to keep this phrase. The words of the Psalm are clearly the source of the phrase that the New Testament uses in a way that to may mind shows that the earliest Christians habitually applied it to Jesus. The use of the phrase in Acts 13:33 (which expressly quotes the Psalm) has been used to argue that the moment when God "adopted" Jesus (and made him the Messiah) was at his resurrection, which would contradict RetProf's view that the Adoptionists held that the adoption was at his baptism. I am not in favour of introducing this complication of the question. Esoglou (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

We can leave this detail to the Adoptionism article.

Quoting from the "Changes by RetProf/Carlaude" section above...

• The text says at the momment "a phrase echoing Psalm 2:7.. an echo of Psalm 2:7" Not needed! Ans: Agreed - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

How about a change to this: ^{Carlaude:Talk} 22:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

“ This gospel's account of the baptism of Jesus, as quoted by Epiphanius, says that the voice from heaven declared: "This day have I begotten you", a phrase echoing Psalm 2:7, and some see this phrase as supporting the doctrine that it was at his baptism ("this day") that Jesus became God's (adopted) son. These words from Psalm 2 are also used twice in the canonical Epistle to the Hebrews, which on the contrary presents Jesus as the Son "through whom (God) made the universe." ”

This seems excellent to me, and in view of the remark by RP that you quote I think you may change the base text accordingly without objection by him. Esoglou (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

E: Logos

• E I don't understan the purpose of puting the word Logos in double quotes. If it is for being a foreign word then it should be in a itlics, and as such, put in pairs of single quotes. If it is because you are quoting someone's use of it, then it should read so as to indicate who. As of now, the text implys a number of people have used the word. Even if you were quoting John, they seems unneeded for a just a single word; it is (or would be) clear without any quotes. On top of that, when we "quote" an ancient author we translate it into English first-- and while some may claim that Logos is now also an English word, I am sure that few if any English translations of John use Logos to translate Logos. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 12:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to removing the quotes around "Logos". Does RP think it important to keep them? I have no objection to either keeping the word "Logos" with its wikilink, or to changing to "the Word" with a reference to John 1:1. I suspect that the reason RP inserted "Logos" and will want to keep it is because the article thus linked to speaks of the use of the term "Logos" by Heraclitus and others, as well as by John. How about [[Logos|Word]], with or without the reference to John 1:1, as a compromise? Esoglou (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Glad you agree on quote marks.

The [[Logos|Word]] sounds fine to me, although it is a separate issue.

By the way, I think "the Word" would be better than "Logos" (on the first issue) since "the Word" is (barely) a phrase, but since I still think they are not needed, just a plain old the Word would be better still. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 04:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope RP has no objection. If he has, it would be common courtesy to say so now, rather than try to change things later without discussion by brute force.

(I will be away again tomorrow for most of the day. After that, I must examine the text and see if I myself have any proposals for change to put before you and, hopefully, RP.) Esoglou (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Confusion?

My understanding was that we agreed to use Esoglou's base and make small carefully explained edits conforming to Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

1. My first edit was "Jesus was fully human, born of a sexual union between Joseph and Mary" from Bart D. Ehrman a reliable source. When challenged I backed it up with a second source per Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
2. My second edit is material from John Ross Carter, "Of human bondage and divine grace: a global testimony", Open Court Publishing, 1992, p. 257
3. Material from New World Encyclopedia per Esoglou Carlaude.

Where are we going wrong? Let us relax and enjoy our editing. All the best - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Allowing yourself to make what changes you yourself (alone) think justified is doubtless very relaxing and enjoyable for you. It is not so for others. Please show good will and consideration for others Your opinion of what constitutes a small and carefully explained change is not necessarily a generally accepted opinion. Why don't you do as Carlaude has done and put forward your proposals for discussion here? And why haven't you discussed the proposals that Carlaude has put forward? They have as much right to be given consideration as your proposals have. Do you think that ignoring his proposals shows politeness on your part? Please be more cooperative. Esoglou (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Am I understanding you correctly!? You think our agreement was that we use your base and I am no longer allowed to edit. You don't have to follow Wikipedia:Reliable sources. You guys get first and last cut, but I am allowed to make suggestions, and if I am real real nice you, may one day use one of them? Hey, as a Christian I often turn the other cheek and take a time out. I will assume good faith and see what you guys do with my efforts. Cheers Ret.Prof (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be understanding incorrectly. Edits of the base text that you yourself chose were to be done by you in exactly the same way as by the other editors. You were to have no less power of editing than Carlaude or Esoglou were to have, and no greater. Why haven't you presented proposals, as Carlaude did? Surely, you don't think that only the other two editors involved were to barred from editing the base text directly, while you alone were to have a free hand? Why do you still refuse to give the slightest consideration to Carlaude's proposals. We await an indication from you as to whether you accept any of them, reject any of them (and why), or would like some of them to be modified (and in what way)? Please be so good as to do Carlaude the minimum courtesy of reading his proposals, and you will see that your views have been expressly invited on those proposals. Please do let us know what you think of them. And please present your own proposals in the same way as he has done, so that they too may be discussed by others and if necessary modified and perhaps improved before insertion into the article. In that way Carlaude will have no greater privileges than you, and you will enjoy no greater privileges than Carlaude. That surely seems fair. Please cooperate, . Esoglou (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes; everything Esoglou says.

Also-- while I point out that not eveything that can be reliably sourced ought to, or even can, be put in an article, and that you may also start (in addtion to commenting on my points) by commenting on what you do think your sources say-- I am more bothered by your seeming unwillingness to be agreeable in working togther, as we expected you would, dispite your frequent requests to us to "disagree without acting disagreeable." Cheers. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 21:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey Dudes, no need to talk like that. You are getting your way. Now have fun. Good Luck - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposals by RetProf (by proxy)

Although RP has freely chosen to be inactive, I make bold to put forward at least one of his ideas. It would be much better if he did so himself, explaining the reasons why he thinks they should be included. But unless support appeears for them from RP or someone else, I cannot insist on arguing for their inclusion.

Proposal 1: Insert at the end of the first paragraph:

“ While the canonical books of the New Testament present Jesus as fully human, Adoptionists went further and excluded any miraculous origin for him, seeing him as simply the child of Joseph and Mary, born of them in the normal way. ”

:While the canonical books of the New Testament present Jesus as fully human,<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=vbLK6kn5T-EC&pg=PA18&dq="nothing+if+not+human+here"&cd=1#v=onepage&q="nothing+if+not+human+here"&f=false Bart D. Ehrman, Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code, p. 18]</ref> Adoptionists went further and excluded any [[virgin birth of Jesus|miraculous origin]] for him, seeing him as simply the child of Joseph and Mary, born of them in the normal way.<ref>"These people maintained that Jesus was human in every way – he was born of the sexual union of Joseph and Mary, born the way everyone else is born" (Ehrman, p. 19)</ref>

Esoglou (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

As I have said many times before this article too long. It is much better and easier to limit its growth as we go than to cut out large pieces wholesale, later. Scalpel, rather than axe. (I also wish, BTW, we could somehow agree to cut this whole Adoptionism section to about half the size, or even more, but I only can spend so much time here on such matters.)

I would also change this new part proposed "by RetProf" a bit, before adding it to Adoptionism. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 18:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I am leaving it to RP (or anyone else interested) to speak for this proposal or an amendment of it. Esoglou (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds Good! - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• I accept Proposal 1: Insert at the end of the first paragraph:

“ While the canonical books of the New Testament present Jesus as fully human, Adoptionists went further and excluded any miraculous origin for him, seeing him as simply the child of Joseph and Mary, born of them in the normal way. ”

Ret.Prof (talk) 00:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest we wait a little for further observations by Carlaude and perhaps others before inserting this in the article. Esoglou (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is User:Carlaude using Too long as an excuse to stop all changes to the article?

[2]

[3]

75.0.11.35 (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:SIZE, or even my comments in the above section. Thanks. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 18:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You're just Wikilawyering. First, you added a bunch of general fluff that might be relevant to a preschool article on general Christianity but is largely irrelevant to the topic of Early Christianity and covered in other articles already. Then you added Template:Very long when actually most of the "article size" is taken up in templates and images. Now you use this as an excuse to stop any progress on the article. 75.14.209.9 (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

So citing an entire Wikipedia policy page is Wikilawyering? Was that out of context or somthing? I think you are being a little silly.

Also, templates and images don't take any space; or rather they only take the space equal to number of charaters in the link to that template or image. Thus adding "{{Christianity}}" is just 15 bytes. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 03:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Carlaude has been causing problems. He seems to use any excuse excuse to stop progress on the article. He has reverted all my edits. Now I know that an old guy like me, does not always get it right but it seemed that he was trying to start an edit war. That is why I have stopped editing this article for the time being. - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

where did the lede go?

A lede should summarize the topic; see WP:LEDE. Our lede used to, but it doesn't any more. It's been turned into a definition. Who took away the good lede we had and why? Leadwind (talk) 23:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Look again.

All this material was moved to the history section. The article was (and still is) too long (WP:SIZE).

If left in both places, it would be all a repeat.

Also note that it did not summarize the article— it instead summarized the article: History of early Christianity.

Feel free to actually summarize the article for the lead. ^{şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ} 01:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

So you agree that the lede is currently lacking because it doesn't summarize the article? That's a productive place for us to start. What information would you like to see added to the lede? Leadwind (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is an okay topic— but is a mish-mash of different information. Different people will read it for different information, and this makes an lead, or intro, both harder to do, and a bit less useful. I guess it can still be worth the effort.

I would say the lead should have a sentence, crafted or found, for each section of the article, that summarizes the main point of that section or most important thing to know. ^{şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ} 08:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5