Talk:Ebionites/Dispute Archive

This is an archive of past discussions about Ebionites. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

RFC Archive

The disputed section on Spiritual Ebionites was placed on Talk:Ebionites/Neo-Ebionite by the RFC editor. The talk sections relevant to the dispute have been moved to the same page. An abstract of the resolution of the dispute is shown below. Ovadyah 20:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Alecmconroy, let's bring this issue to closure before we fill another talk page. The spiritual ebionite folks have had plenty of opportunity to make their case for notability, and you have stated repeatedly that they don't meet Wiki's requirements. Despite Michael's best editorial efforts to find a compromise, the notability problem remains. I think we should move the current abstract on the spiritual ebionites to the second talk page along with all the related talk sections. Let them create a new page per Michael's suggestion, and if they survive the VfD process, they can link back to this article. Michael and I can work together to clean up the remaining material. What do you think? Ovadyah 04:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Based on what I've seen here, I support the removal of the SE group from this page. I'd also support on the deletion of an article devoted exclusively to them-- so, I don't exactly support the creation of a page devoted to them, but if that's the direction ya'll want to take, I understand it's a way to be very extra careful about that decision to remove that material. --Alecmconroy 07:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Alec, thanks for your perspective. I'll proceed with the changes outlined above. Ovadyah 14:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Shalom OvadYah and Alecmconroy,

Its interesting the talk page was edited as well but then if it remained as was any non biased reasonable person would see the Spiritual Ebionite section was removed buy a selfserving POV after when each notibility issue you brought up was indeed shown to exist and you then would shift to another to support your point of view.

The story of real Ebionites were erased from history buy simular POV'S as those that dominate this artical today. The Spirit of Constantines correctors are alive in well. The modern Ebionite movement potrayed in the Wikipedia artical is mearly a Jehovah's witnesses verson of the Jews for Jesus movement. NazireneMystic 23:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Your need to vent your frustration is understandable, but everything has been preserved on the Talk:Ebionites/Neo-Ebionite page. The sections were moved over in the same order and nothing has been altered. This talk page was becoming cluttered with sermonettes and rambling rants (like yours) which discourage discussion of other topics relevant to the article. Please direct any further rants to that page. Ovadyah 02:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

As it stands now very little of the Ebionite artical is relevant to Ebionites. I do not see how any of my post or thoes of like minded people discouraged discussion. On the contrary we sparked discussion but removing matrial different then the articals offical POV indeed discourages discussion. 205.188.116.198 02:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll set up a Further Rants section on the Neo-Ebionites page to preserve your comments. Incidently, I noticed your anonymous IP has been cited repeatedly by Wiki for acts of vandalism, so I guess we are back to sometimes malicious self-serving POV. Ovadyah 03:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

OvadYah,Maybe you are unaware of wiki's AOL problems? If you are go read up on it. The funny thing about this is in the future when buried staches of Ebionite scriptures are found YOU will not allow them in your ebionite artical because it will seem like they come from a "malicious self-serving POV" 205.188.116.198 03:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. I'll read up on it. It's not my Ebionite article. I had almost no hand in creating it. I was just trying to conduct a fair hearing for a dispute of neutrality. I didn't even know who you folks were at the beginning. It's not the content of your words that bothers me, it's the way they are delivered. Look at some contentious talk pages like the Nazarene page and you can get a better sense of what editorial style works and what doesn't. I don't want this page to also degenerate into an ideological battleground where religious sects shoot arrows at each other. That is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. Ovadyah 14:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I won't be responding to individual posts from now on regarding the RFC. I consider the matter to be closed. I will periodically sweep comments regarding the spiritual ebionites and the RFC process to the Neo-Ebionites page under "Further Comments". Thanks for participating. Ovadyah 14:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

How can the matter be closed! nothing was resolved and that is why what was on the talk page was archived away. if it remained here the choice to keep the modern ebionites in the artical and reject the spiritual ebionite would be laughable to anyone reading it.NazireneMystic 18:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ebionite Jewish Community

Ovadyah: you seem to have a POV that your Ebionite Jewish Community is notable, contrary to popular opinion amongst the editors here. I looked at the 'evidence' you have gathered to support your group's claim of notability and find them less compelling than the other groups you are so eager to delete mention of. I consider your position to be self serving and request that senior editors disallow Ovadyah from reinserting this unwarranted Wiki promotion of his group. Aliothrick 15:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, it's not my group. I have known about the EJC for years, but I am not a member. The "popular opinion" of the editors you refer to must be the people from your group that have been around for the last two weeks. I had no hand at all in creating the Modern Ebionites section, other than some small revisions I made in the last few days. That section was created over a long period of time and NPOV'd by several senior editors. I explained all that on the talk page. As for the 'evidence' I gathered, that too was collected over a period of time, and it all links back to references that you can verify for yourself. As I stated previously, I was trying to mediate a dispute of neutrality that had been summarily deleted (just like you deleted the EJC section). The senior editors you refer to created the Modern Ebionites section to begin with, and they are in a far better position than you to assess it's objectivity. Ovadyah 16:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Your Wiki page expresses a bias sympathetic to the EJCs in the manner that one would expect of a member. However, if you wish to clearly disassociate yourself from their POV I can certainly understand your reasoning. Their view that anointing of mind or messiahship is a process of having someone place physical oil on your head is one of the most obsurd positions I have ever heard promoted by any sect. They are in effect saying that Jesus was Messiah because someone oiled his head and we can all be Messiah in just the same way. It is sad that they cannot see that oil is only symbolic for the spiritual anointing. Anyhow, if I am inadvertently acting contrary to procedures please advise me of how to correctly go about raising and having resolved a dispute on the notability of this Jewish Community so that we can focus our efforts on creating a quality encyclopedia article rather than continue this long discussion on an insignificant Jewish group that seems to only be supported here by you. Alternatively, would you like to discuss why you believe this group you disclaim association with is significant enough to warrant inclusion to the exclusion of all other groups that appear by at least some measures to be more notable? Aliothrick 20:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Shalom Rick, I have found, but yet to post in writings atributed to Ebionites that Peter discribes the oil used for anointing and he states it is pressed from the wood of the tree of life so this group that claims to be Ebionite and believes the anointing comes from actual literal oil must think they possess the actual tree of life in the garden of eden. If this is the case and they can show this tree it would be notible indeed. Thier point of view while shared by many is contary to the Ebionite view and this is one quote thats soon to surface in the artical, if need be.NazireneMystic 20:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)NazireneMystic 20:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The intention of my user page is to collect evidence for the notability of all Ebionite groups. Evidence of groups 'tooting their own horn', however, is not considered notable by Wikipedia. I'm trying to report evidence of modern movements, not judge what is 'truth'. If you think a particular group's beliefs and practices are obsurd, you are certainly entitled to your views. Such views, however, have no place on Wikipedia. Your job here is to report the facts as accurately as you can, not indulge in religious commentary. To help you get started, I'll place a Dispute of Neutrality label on the EJC section. Ovadyah 21:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Shalom OvadYah, Its not my intention to claim a religous belief is obsurd but to show by quoting the sources its obsurd to think of them as anything more to do with the notible Ebionites then a shared name. I for one believe all religions slowly life after life contribute to the growth of souls and are needed. If the Ebionite matieral makes the modern ebionite movement seem different which should go? Writings and witnesses of thier time or the new movement? without the Ebionites of the first few centuries to take a pedigree from the modern jewish Ebionite movement would not be notible at all period. So if these writings have nothing to do with them and thoes that wrote them were the notible Ebionties who the heck is this new group?NazireneMystic 20:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Stop deleting portions of the article without concensus or I will have you blocked. There are procedures that need to be followed on Wiki to resolve disputes. Please follow them. I have created a new section to facilitate discussion. Ovadyah 16:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

OvadYah,It seems the senior editors were quite biased. To accomadate the modern Ebionites hardly any quotes from earlier witnesses can even be listed in the artical. Only a selective few that do not counterdict the new verson of Ebionites mentioned on the artical. If large amounts of quotes regarding Ebionites and quotes from thier Gospel have to give way to accomadate this new movement then maybe the best attempts from these editors were failures?17:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

NM, please log in so I can reply to you as a real person. If you feel that the original editors were biased, you can dispute their neutrality. My guess is that they were unaware of any gnostic groups calling themselves Ebionite at the time that section was written. I wasn't aware of your group myself until two weeks ago. There is evidence of several Ebionite groups, including the EJC, that don't appear to me to be gnostic. That evidence is notable and verifiable because it comes from scholarly publications and diverse hostile sources, not from the groups themselves. You can argue that none of them represent your conception of a "true" Ebionite, but that is not the point. As Alec mentioned, Wikipedia's function is to report, not to decide what is truth.

Quotes from early witnesses should not be used as proof texts other than to describe ancient Ebionites. The pseudo-Clementines are notoriously unreliable in this regard, as I'm sure you are aware, because they have been heavily reworked over the centuries. There is probably a core document, the Kerygmata Petrou, embedded in there somewhere, but extracting it is an uncertain prospect at best. The documents we have before us are clearly anti-Pauline, but that doesn't automatically make them Ebionite. It's more likely that the Nazarene's regarded Peter as their founder than the Ebionites. By all means, continue to discuss it here, but bring your facts to the table from verifiable sources. Ovadyah 19:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

In the Ebionite artical it is said " The most complete of these comes from Epiphanius of Salamis, who wrote his "Panarion" in the fourth century, denouncing 80 heretical sects, among them the Ebionites, described in Panarion 30. In addition to quotations from their gospels, there are also general descriptions of their ideas and point of view."

Untill now hardly any of the Panarion is quoted in fear that, "general descriptions of their ideas and point of view." Might be contrary to the modern POV the artical takes regarding modern Ebionites.

I went ahead and NPVOED the artical by qouting a few things formerly surpressed.

I have hummored you and have not quoted from the Clement writings and will instead stick to what you say is" to describe ancient Ebionites."

I do find this interesting that the editors claim you need scholarly support but text such as the Clement writings have just that and then you dispite the scholarly concensus. This sounds like stupendous first hand rearch! Isee your main funtion is to surpress many scholars and ealry witnesses to support a very narrow point of view you think is true but as you have reminded me" As Alec mentioned, Wikipedia's function is to report, not to decide what is truth. "

You may have misunderstud the earlier quotes regarding the law becuase the law they were justified in is the law when they thought eating meat was abominable. there is not historic reference to sugest the Ebionite didnt follow a spiritualized Esseneic view of the law but thses anti flesh quotes supports just that. To claim they upheld the literal law of torah like is unfounded.

What makes Ebionites notible is that they claim to be the first direct followers of Yeshua. Since Modern Ebionites mentioned in this artical clearly do not hold to these Ideas I do not see how thier mention in the artical is relevent.

They only took a name to give them Pedigree. They could be notable as calling themselves Modern Ebionite jewish communities and maybe they can start an "Modern Ebionite" artical or something of that nature but to surpress the Reporting of most evidence atributed to Ebionites in order to support someones verson of what a true Ebionite is doesnt sound very Wikipedia to me NazireneMystic 20:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

NM, please stick to discussing how specific quotes from the Church Fathers gives us information about the historical Ebionites rather than using them to further a religious agenda. Remember, Epiphaneus is speaking two centuries after Hippolytus, so it is possible that he is describing a different group using the same name. Your purpose seems to be to establish "authenticity" for your group. Such efforts are useful for blogging, but they have no place in an encyclopedia. Ovadyah 21:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

OvadYah, You seem to be tring to determining the truth here instead of reporting to give POV to atrical. such things are useful for blogging but have no place in wikipedia.NazireneMystic 19:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It is known the Essene thought of themselves as extremely Torah observent but it is well known they did not eat flesh or have anything to do with temple ritual so thier understanding of the law was one of spirit and not the literal word. If you place the reporting together you do not come up with counterdictions but the nature of the law they were justified by. When the gentile church complained the Ebionite said they needed to follow the law there is no reason to assume it was literal written rituals some speculate they followed.

If you only go by reportings as is what wikipedia is susposted to do and not deside truth its clear the greeks were objecting to following the spiritual law. anything else is POV but I dont mind even some point of view but not to the point were most of what is known can not be reported to support the verson of what some think is a true Ebionite.205.188.116.198 20:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I, Loremaster, one of the main contributors to the Ebionites article, created the Modern Ebionites section and wrote its content, in which I only mentioned the Ebionite Jewish Community since I wasn't aware of any other group at the time. If there are other modern Ebionite groups that meet a degree of notability that Wikipedia considers sufficient I have no problem with them being mentioned in this section. --Loremaster 14:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Shalom Loremaster, I kind of pictured something like that happened and on the talk page I see early on Mr.Phillips came and made some "factual changes" could these changes without any oposing view had changed the direction of the artical? I intend to pull up more quoted from the matieral in the artical untill readers start to think the only group mentioned in the artical dont seem relevent to the Ebionites or the spiritual section is restored. NazireneMystic 19:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Although I do recall Mr. Phillips editing the Ebionites article, his contributions did not contradict any facts about the ancient Ebionites that I am aware of.

2. Although I may not have a problem with Spiritual Ebionites having a sub-section within the Modern Ebionites section, creating an entire new section (or article) for a small sect within an already marginal religious movement would not be appropriate according to Wikipedia standards.

3. No offense but if you are going to contribute to the Ebionites and Talk:Ebionites pages, I recommend that you not only follow the new guidelines posted at the top of this page but that you spell-check your comments in order for everyone to understand you better.

--Loremaster 20:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Shalom Loremaster, were have I not followed the guidlines? I will do the best I can with my spelling.NazireneMystic 20:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

NazireneMystic, as a righteous person, could you answer the following questions:

Are you a Spiritual Ebionite?

Are you a member of the Ebionite Restoration Movement?

Are you Allan Cronshaw?

Are you a close associate of Cronshaw?

If the mention of the Ebionite Jewish Community is deleted from the article, will you stop trying to add the mention of Spiritual Ebionites in this article.

--Loremaster 20:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Shalom Loremaster, I support the spiritual Ebionites. I am not Allan Cronshaw. My main goal here is to NPOV this artical. I understand you feel it was already NPOVED but the modern Ebionite section without a spititual counterpart to counter balance it made this artical bias against the historical Ebionites. In time quoting from writings scholars support as being pro Ebionite would make that more clear.Im fine with the artical as it is now with the modern Ebionite community section taken down. I dont believe anyone from the spiritual Ebionites wanted to use wikipedia as a promotion thing or soap box but rather didnt want Ebionites misrepresented. I feel its about as NPOV now as can be expectedNazireneMystic 00:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Greetings Loremaster. Welcome to the party. The article looks much better now. I think you did the right thing by removing all the Modern Ebionites material. I would have removed the disputed EJC section of the article to this section of the talk page first, but that's ok. I'm looking forward to peer review. ;-) Ovadyah 12:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Historical Ebionites

I created a new section so we don't mix up the discussions of ancient and modern Ebionites. You are off to a good start, NM. Keep in mind that some of what you just quoted from Epiphaneus directly contradicts the earlier writings of Hippolytus on Ebionite's obedience to the Law, so it's fair to say this material is less certain. Ovadyah 19:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You cant mix up discussions about Modern and ancient Ebionites unless you do something like try to include them in the same artical. lol

The Ebionites are notible because of thier place in history and the convinant eradication of them. Ebionites are not the same as The modern jewish Ebionite movement so to avoid confussion lets remove them from the artical and if they are notible then thier Modern Jewish Ebionite community artical stand on its own I do agree thoe that its important to not confuss the Ebionites and the modern jewish communities calling themselves Ebionites. NazireneMystic 21:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The section on Modern Ebionites or the EJC should not be removed unless the editors have reached a consensus. Consensus does not mean an agreement between you and your friends. It must reflect the consensus of the editors who had input into the article and the wider Wiki community. Personally, I think the section adds value to the article and should be retained. I have marked the section as Disputed. Let's continue to discuss it. If a consensus can't be reached, it can be left in dispute with reasons why on the talk page. Ovadyah 22:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

If they are can not pass the extreme notibilty standards the Spiritual Ebionites were held to the the only reason to include them is to promote your POINT OF VIEW.NazireneMystic 23:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Unresolved dispute

The spiritual Ebionite section was never resolved!

Considering what I have only begone to pull up short quotes from the writings the Ebionite artical already says has scholary support elimenating the spiritual Ebionites who are in agreement with them but keeping the modern Ebionite section in the artical that seem to hold to one or two little fragments of that is considered Ebionite to support thier point of view and discard the rest is unfounded.

Is it a notability issue? We covered thoes bases and then we were archived to pretend the case was resolved. The space shuttle program is notible but guess what? Its not in the Ebionite artical because its not relevent to the "Ebionites" and after all thats what this artical is about. Its not about modern ebionites or space shuttles. actualy the modern Ebionite section cast a very biased POV toward the entire artical, Historical witnesses, and writings that scholars support as Ebionite in origin.

If the Ebionite artical is going to include thoes today that claim to be ebionites and disregard the rest of the artical that has also been deemed Ebionite related how can you then not include a group that is in agreement with them? Ive noticed the Essene artical has groups mentioned that are no more notible then Allan Cronshaw's group. but they are not archived for not being notible. Guess I will have to pull up more stuff from the Ebionite related writings untill the artical just looks plain silly with the modern section in it. NazireneMystic 18:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

After reading Alecmconroy's comments on the Neo-Ebionites page, I have come to the conclusion that the Modern Ebionites should be deleted to resolve the neutrality dispute once and for all. --Loremaster 21:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I've now included a mention of so-called modern Ebionites at the end of the History section of the article. --Loremaster 21:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank-you Loremaster for resolving what is the greatest concern of many of us in regards to Ebionites being misrepresented by the content of the Modern Ebionite section. In reading your comments regarding the context of the original inclusion of this section I understand why it was done. Ebionites of the Gnostic pursuasion see being an Ebionite as a state of mind that is poor to the ways of this world. From this perspective a worldly Jewish sect does not represent a break from the ways of this world, and in fact stands for the opposite. Their physical worship makes them "rich ones" to the ways of the world and 'poor ones' to the ways of the spirit. As most people today that associate themselves as being Ebionites are sympathetic to the Gnostic position I am sure that the removal of the EJC section will temper discussion and allow all editors to work to make the article what it should be. Aliothrick 05:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Research Reasons for Inclusion of Ebionites and Talmidim

Dear Wikipedia Community:

If I may, I'd like to add my perspective to the discussion regarding "Ebionite" and, by way of this current discussion, give my assessment about the removal of the "Talmidi" page about a year ago.

I am a scholar in religious studies and I specialize in comparing ancient and modern religions, with emphasis on Jewish, Jewish Christian and Christian mystical/gnostic ideas and movements. Researchers do not assess the value of an idea, movement or community with regard to whether it is "notable." That is a difficult word to define and unhelpful for research. If an idea, movement or community exists, whether ancient or modern, and has produced or produces literature and has an audience, it is a valid topic for academic attention.

I personally find it unhelpful for research for others who may have opinions on a topic or who may disagree about the content of others' religious beliefs, but who are not researchers in this field (and thus cannot imagine the benefit of a variety of information to academics) to determine the validity of a topic and to control access to it (in this case, for general information on the topic of "Ebionite" through Wikipedia now, and a year ago on the topic of "Talmidi"). I used Wikipedia for both topics (Ebionite and Talmidi) to contact members of these communities for research purposes. By using "notable" as the defining characteristic for inclusion, but failing to define exactly what "notable" means, indicates that a "neutral point of view" has not been preserved in the discussion.

My request is that the Ebionite page be edited to include all the varieities of Ebionitism that are being developed in the modern era, and that the Talmidi page be restored for the same reason.

Warmly, Helen C. Harrison PhD Candidate University of California Riverside

Mrs Harrison,

The Wikipedia community tends to take any request more seriously when they are posted by a person who has logged in in order to contribute to a culture of accountability.
Although Wikipedia does not have an official policy on notability, it does provide a helpful essay on the subject which can be read on the Wikipedia:Notability page.
Although an academic project can choose to extensively record all varieities of a religion, however marginal or insignificant they may be, an online encyclopedia cannot afford to do so due to philosophical and technical constraints. Please remember that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is not a collection of source documents or trivia, a dictionary, a soapbox, a newspaper, vanity publisher, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or a web directory.
Therefore, although I am opposed to any editing of the Ebionites article to mention all varieities of modern Ebionitism, I would support adding a link to a new article which would list all notable "non-Christian followers of Jesus".

--Loremaster 22:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Soon-to-be-Dr. Harrison, thanks for your thoughts. First off, you should get an account and join wikipedia if you haven't already-- we always need skilled researchers.

In response to your concerns-- it's important to understand that "notable" is not really a value judgement-- it's not saying something is inherently unworthy of study. A tribe of 30 people in Brazil can be notable if they have been sufficiently studied and examined. See Wikipedia:Notability for a discussion and a definition.

"Notable" is more concerned with a very pragmatic admission that Wikipedia just doesn't have enough solid information right now to cover something properly. Wikipedia exists to summarize secondary sources-- we're a "review of literature" or a "journal review" or a "summary of summaries", so to speak.

So, consider the Allan Cronshaw group. There aren't any newspaper reports, there aren't any sociological studies I can turn to. There aren't any magazine articles or published books on the group. We don't have any data to work with. All we have are Cronshaw's own writings on his webpage, and we could never hope to understand or convey them better than he could. In short, we just don't have anything to work with.

This isn't to say that his ideas aren't worthy of study-- they certainly may be. It's just to say that right now, any article we had on the subject would be completely one-sided because right now, there IS only one side: no one else has really studied Cronshaw's writings.

Now, if Wikipedia was the only thing on the internet, we'd be presented with a tough decision. In that case, maybe we would want to have a section of Wikipedia where we put up a disclaimer saying "This article represents the opinions of one person, and we don't have a lot of information on them, but we thought you might want to read about them". If there was no internet but WIkipedia, we'd have to either choose to include information that hasn't been peer-reviewed or published by a reliable source or we'd have to choose to suppress that information totally. Fortunately, however, we get to have our cake and eat it too-- we don't have to include information from self-published non-peer-reviewed sources, but anyone at all who wants to read about Cronshaw's views has the opportunity to read all about them, and we trust he can communicate them better than we ever could. When there's only one source on a topic, Wikipedia has nothing to add, and we should just send people right to the expert and let them hear it from the horse's mouth. Since there aren't any reliabe published sources on these groups, we can't do our job of "summarizing multiple sources" on this issue-- all we could do is get in the way.

To use an academic analogy-- suppose you decide to write an article reviewing all the relevant literature over the past 25 years that is related to a specific topic. Sounds like a great idea. But suppose there _IS_ only one article on the subject-- you just can't write a review. You're better off just giving people a re-print.

Nothing here is a comment on the worth of Cronshaw (or anyone else's ideas). They may be worthy of much study. We just don't have enough to work with for Wikipedia to add anything right now-- that's better left to people who are experts in doing original research-- people like theologists, sociologists, journalists, etc. Then, when there's some material for us to work with, Wikipedia can summarize though sources and make a nice article on the issue.

Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you stay and help out! :)

--Alecmconroy 22:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ms. Harrison, thanks for stopping by. You may remember that I was one of those Talmidim, so I know what it's like to be VfD'd out of existence. "Notability" is wielded as a weapon on Wikipedia to crush minority views. That's why I created a user page to document evidence of modern Ebionite movements. I would be honored if you would contribute to the effort. I will try my best to bring other academics to the peer review that have done published research on the Ebionites. Ovadyah 03:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The proceedings leading up to the VfD can be found here: Talmidaism. Ovadyah 03:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

POV

Shalom Alecmonroy, does relevence to the artical have anything to do with weather its in an artical? If it even compairs to notibility then the Modern neo ebionites supported by the Talmidim biased OvadYah is about as relevent to an Ebionite artical as tring to add a Talmidim link to wiki's artical on "Sabbatai Zevi" that he was enlightened by following the literal letter of the law, or pouring oil on his head. On that note considering the nature of the law the writings that give Ebionite prospective show, an internal link to the Sabbatai Zevi is much more notible in general and far more revevent to the law the Ebionites followed then the links now provided. The Talmidim wiki Editor with a POV so far holds the spiritual Ebionites to the same contempt as his brothern did to Sabbatai Zevi. The Ebionites did not live apart from the Jews for being literaly following the surface text of any book, In fact they wrote the scriptures many try to use against them today.NazireneMystic 19:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not even sure who Sabbatai Zevi is. Your grammar is so poor that I can't understand what you are trying to say. I'll have to read up on it. Be back soon! Ovadyah 01:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I'm back. Just from scanning the article, it seems to be about a Jewish rabbi with messianic pretentions that was excommunicated. 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? Ovadyah 01:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Shalom OvadaYah,Any true Ebionite would be ,as you call it, Excommunicated from that group, its truly a blessing.We dont Loathe the misinformed man and could care less about his community if he wasnt listed in the past in Ebionite artical when he only has the name Ebionite in common with the Notible Ebionites of the past and you kept deleting any mention of the spiritual Ebionites as just a POV. That in itself is a very strong anti-Ebionite point of view.As far as loathing goes it seems your group has written almost a page of its site about Allan Cronshaw's Little group that you say is not notable. Just follow the link and scroll down till you see the heading condeming gnostism,click on the heading. The writer seems to not be discerning enough to understand what it is Simon Magnus was promoting and lumps all spiritual concepts into Gnostism. [Ovadyas group. That alone is worth taking note about. Anyway as I said before, a few times now, in the end, if the modern Jewish community thing is part of the Ebionite Artical and the spiritual Ebionites are not included you will have to surpress almost all the writings in the artical that are currently thought to be NPOV, or deside what select few quote are offical truth and not pov in order keep it from looking flat out ignorant. I will keep quoting from the writings and it will become hard to explain how a susposed NPOV would want to surpress writings that show the notable Ebionite's point of view just to make the artical's featured group seem somewhat relevent to the artical. This artical will be the laughing stock of WikipediaNazireneMystic 05:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be flattered or insulted that you linked my name to the Ebionite group. As I already explained, I have known SP for many years, but I am not a member of his group. The same could be said for Allan Cronshaw. So what? What's your point? Ovadyah 23:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

My point is the same as I started with. I want to see the artical NPOVED. When I first ran across this artical and saw its one sidedness and on the talk page you were deleting edits to the artical on diet even when editors backed thier position the artical was a totaal wreck and mainly an Ad for your group. I felt its my duty to counter that misinformation which happened but you fought to keep the artical very biased. The reason first given for the RFC was only to NPOV the spiritual Ebionite section. Then the notibility issue was brought up and even thoe we adressed the issues reality didnt matter to the RFC and we were archived. once it was asked that your Group be held to the same crazy standard thats when the your group was taken down, both were given religous stubs and the press to peer review was started. If you motives were as clear from the start as they are now your POV would had been harder to empose. Your extreme support of that religous group lead you to say crazy things to attack us. I have show them to be very misleading. I never hid that im part of allans group and even had the RFC ask me to let him join the group to check it out and the entire time only want the artical NPOVED. With given the notibiliy issue and artical content early witnesses and many modern scholars would have to be surpressed to include your group without ours. From early on we said It would be great if no groups were memtioned.152.163.101.14 17:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I am confussed by the above statment. How long have you known Allan Cronshaw and Mr. Phillips? 152.163.101.14 17:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Shalom OvadYah,

I am sure you will gather a cabal of like minded people to crush other views. Unless the people you invite to the peer review can have writings that many already say show the Ebionite point of view surpressed so your group of neo-ebionites seem relevent we will be back to the same situation as before the peer review. Can peer review do such a thing as surpress quotes from writings that are commonly thought to show Ebionite thought? That sure would be a handy tool for a irelevent group that only share the name Ebionite but in every other aspect of live view the entie would totaly different. Then again readers with any understanding at all that can see the Ebionite views are nowere in the artical so your modern community doesnt seem out of place will see the artical as silly.NazireneMystic 17:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said early on in the now archived pages in time to keep the modern Ebionite section you will have to take out all the writings about the Ebionites to support that irelevent group. Already some statements have not been allowed. Once the clear point was emerging that your group was not even relevent to the notible Ebionites no time was wasted to start peer review POV.LOL64.12.116.5 17:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Please follow the talk page guidelines posted at the top of this page. --Loremaster 17:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Shalom Loremaster, Tell me how the guidlines read to you. NazireneMystic 17:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and avoid engaging in personal attacks against OvadYah. In others words, be nice. --Loremaster 14:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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. it can be found by going to the FAQpage and look for the heading "how are Ebionites governed?" 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[in his little world]. 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)NazireneMystic 18:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm pretty sure a paqid is a clerk or secretary. If SP wants to think of himself as president of his own group, that's fine with me too. Why would this even matter, except to provide another excuse to spew bile all over these talk pages? Ovadyah 23:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

How is exposing a deceptful attack spewing bile? If I didnt adress what you say we would be ran over as fast as the early attempts from others to include NPOV statments in the Ebionite artical. 152.163.101.14 17:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Shalom, I understand some people were wondering why the talk page suddenly became archived and one editor said it was to remove person attacks off the talk page but in reallity it was because I posted the above comment in Loremaster's talk page. Once it was clear I was indeed presuming good faith and the deceptive nature of some editors was shown Loremaster desided to archive the issue away.NazireneMystic 18:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC) OvadYah's extreme POV!, OvadYah I have found some statements of yours quite telling. This is taken from your talk page "The books of Prof. Hyam Maccoby are considered to be foundational reading for Ebionites." and you say you dont promote the EC group?? Since you have already claimed out of ignorance on these talk pages that the witnesses stating the Ebionite didnt eat meat and blasphemed much of the law saying""christ has revevled this to me""... counterdicted earlier claims and now you even add from your discussion page .... "The EC does not think the Gospel of the Hebrews or the Clementine literature provide any more reliable insights into the ancient Ebionites than the New Testament. The pseudo-Clementines are heavily overlayed with gnostic stuff from later centuries. There is a core document in there somewhere of the Kerygmata Petrou, but it's hard to reconstruct it. That makes it easy for someone to come along and just pick and choose what they want. I think the Gospel of the Ebionites was probably written in Rome by Theodotus the Cobbler, but I can't prove it. His group had a very similar low christology to the Ebionites, but they were Gentiles and probably didn't follow Jewish law." This seems like stupendous first hand research!!!! Tell me since you think Gnostic belief means to think there is more then one God how are these writings in your terms Gnostic?you realy dont know what Ebionites are or what Gnostic meant to thoes that coined the term. High five to you! So let me get this right, in order for your EC group to be featured in the artical without a proper spiritual counterpart in Allan Cronshaw's group Wikipedia must toss aside most all shcolars, most all Ebionite related Scriptues, most all Historical Witnesses, and hold Your surpreme Leader the great speaker of truth and desider of what is Ebionite just so your group will seem some what relevent to the artical instead of reporting as Alchem has said Wikipedia is susposed to do? Listen up Wikipedia Editors, Like I have now Many times said allowing this ignorance to stand as susposed NPOV will make you look Ignorant in the long run. I can provide early sources that state Jesus was adopted at baptism which of course means IN THE EC's point of view that someone poured oil on his head or as we contend:"(Origen, quoted by Schliemann). Yeshua/Jesus, they asserted, "was justified by fulfilling the Law. He was the Christ of God, since not one of the rest of mankind had observed the Law completely. Had any one else fulfilled the commandments of the Law, he would have been the Christ." Hence "when Ebionites thus fulfill the law, they are able to become Christs, for they assert that our Lord Himself was a man in like sense with all humanity." (Hippolytus, Refut. Omn. Haer. vii. 34). WE deal with these types of fragmented points of view every day weather it be Jewish, Christian, muslim, newage, old age, humanist..... the same ignorance still stands today as it did in Yeshua's time, as it should be, so you might seek truth within yourself and stop following manmade doctorines. Good luck and kind regards with your Peer Review PartyNazireneMystic 07:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

08:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC) BTW,Hyam Maccoby Was A Talimid scholar, ask the next Talimid rabbi you meet what they think of jesus and you will see the filter he was using, hardly a NPOV but this is the person that invented the EC'S religion.NazireneMystic

Modern Ebionites

The following text was previously a section in the article:

In 1985, Shemayah Phillips founded a movement that would eventually grow into the online Ebionite Jewish Community by 1995. This movement claims to be the legitimate descendant in teaching and practice of the original Ebionites.

The Ebionite Jewish Community promotes Yahwism, the recognition of Jesus as a Jewish prophet (rather than as a Messiah as he is portrayed in Christian writing), and claims that Christianity is not a biblically-based religion. Ebionites actively campaign against missionary work done by Christian groups, and encourages a return to a Tanakh-reliant approach to Judaism amongst messianic Jews, Hebrew Christians, Gentile Christians and others.

Modern Ebionites are not gnostic, or dualist, but strictly monotheistic. Ebionites believe that monotheism disallows a belief in a "Satan" that competes with God. Modern Ebionitism emphasizes the social justice aspect of the Tanakh, and Yahwism as a socio-economic as well as a religious idea. They also reject membership for those involved in occupations deemed to be "exploitive."

Loremaster, I moved the original Modern Ebionites section to the talk page just to keep things consistent. Some scholars that have published research on the Ebionites are familiar with the EJC, and I want to bring this point up during peer review. Ovadyah 23:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with this. By the way, it would be extremely helpful if you could name these scholars and their work. --Loremaster 13:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

James Tabor is one that comes to mind. I know he sent Shemayah an autographed copy of his recent book, "The Jesus Dynasty: The Hidden History of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity" (April 2006). Ovadyah 15:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The question is whether or not Tabor (or any other scholar) has written a peer-reviewed academic essay on the modern Ebionites? Simply being aware that they exist or sending them a copy of a book on ancient Ebionites is obviously not enough. --Loremaster 17:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I ran across a link to a graduate thesis that debunks a lot of this pseudo-Clementine business:

A CRITICAL INVESTIGATION OF EPIPHANIUS' KNOWLEDGE OF THE EBIONITES: A TRANSLATION AND CRITICAL DISCUSSION OF 'PANARION' 30.* GLENN ALAN KOCH, /University of Pennsylvania/ <http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/query.cgi?field_1=lname&value_1=KOCH&field_2=fname&value_2=GLENN%20ALAN&advanced=1> Date: 1976 Ovadyah 15:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there a Consensus among Scholars supporting that artical that point of view? Do living Scholars out over ride the dead?NazireneMystic 21:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

No Messiah claim?

Historicly ALL references to the Ebionites claimed they accepted him as Messiah but this new group being promoted does not claim he was. In this section they try to dance around this and say not as potrayed in christian writing but indeed they do not accept him as a Messiah in any way. On the sites FAQ section Was Jesus Messiah its clear Jesus is potrayed as a failed Messiah. This section is not relevent to the Ebionite artical in any way. Read the FAQ it is clear they are not only sayings he was not Messiah as the christians potray him but that he plain wasnt and failed, In fact they call Jesus Messianic . Guess they think Jesus thought a messiah was comming. They proudly pronounce thier belief in Jesus's failed attempt.NazireneMystic 13:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Although you may be right, is James Tabor right or wrong when he says that ancient Ebionites held the following view:

Jesus as the Prophet like Moses, or True Teacher (but not to be confused with YHVH God of Israel), who will anoint his Messiahs on his right and left hand when he is revealed in power following his rejection and death. These two figures, the Davidic Nasi (Prince of the Yachad) and Priest, will rule with him in the Kingdom of God.

--Loremaster 14:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an interesting question, this group calls spiritual concepts such as reincarnation, mystic visions, inner kingdoms..."Gnostic stuff" from the greeks.The above statment can not mean a literal kingdom on this earth as the two Messiahs are ruling in gods kingdom with the prophet after his rejection and DEATH. LOL The only way they could rule "WITH HIM" in Gods Kingdom after his "DEATH "is eather the inner spiritual kingdom OR a forced reading could mean the Prophet reincarnates. The modern group rejects both things as Gnostic stuff from the greeks. The above question you pose makes the case for spiritual Ebionites and supports the historic witness.

This is an important issue because not only should the group in question be held to the same contempt regarding notibility as the Spiritual Ebionites were and now archived asTalk:Ebionites/Neo-Ebionite but they should be relevant to the views of the notible Ebionites of the past.64.12.117.14 15:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)NazireneMystic 15:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think your bias is leading you to jump to conclusions. The statement could easily be interpreted to mean that Jesus would be "revealed in power" when, whether it be 40 days or 2000 years later, he returns to fulfill the rest of Messianic prophecy by anointing his two Messiahs who would rule with in the kingdom of God on Earth. --Loremaster 18:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

So you think the Ebionites view was simular to the christan view and the god-man jesus is returning? Remember the Ebionites also believed anyone that follows the law completey can also become the Christ/Messiah. I think your reading of that is more forced then mine.NazireneMystic 19:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. Jesus does not have to a be a "god-man" in order to return anymore than Elijah needs to be. Also, no one is disputing that Jesus could have become the Messiah. However, it seems that Ebionites believed that he was the Prophet like Moses, who is one of three messianic figures. --Loremaster 13:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Deletion from archived Pages!

Listen up Wikipedia Editors. I have read the archive section will be used in part of the peer review. OvadYah restored the so called Modern ebionite section and listed reasons way he found it relevent to the peer review and I restored the spiritual section as it was in the artical also and gave simular reasons. Then OvadYah deleted the spiritual section and said its archived and cant be unarchived till theres a concensus among the editiors. Is this true?? anyway why would it matter? Im not tring to restore it to the artical or the artical talk page. Im only tring to resotre it to an ARCHIVED page and the very spot that others are prepairing for peer review. Anyone with the ability to reason should read the edit history of the archived talk page and read what I restored compaired to the modern section that was also restored. The spiritual section was to be used to show articals written by Allan and linked to in the Spiritual section have even been used and reprinted by P.H.D.ed Scholars. If the Spiritual ebionites are going to peer review with our mouths taped and hands tied how is that not POV? You should carfuly be looking at whos doing these things.NazireneMystic 20:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Ultimately, it doesn't matter to me where and how sections have been archived as long as they can be easily found. Please stop obsessing over this. --Loremaster 14:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Over stepping biased RFC

The RFC was only for disputed NPOV in the spiritual Ebionite section and not for its notibility! Were did you people come from?NazireneMystic 10:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter the initial reason an RFC was started. Other objections can be raised in process and become the main reason. --Loremaster 14:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Academic sources for modern Ebionites

Can someone please post here a list of all published research on modern Ebionites? --Loremaster 13:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Would Religous Scholars with P.H.D. status reprinting articals your group wrote be notible? NazireneMystic 21:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they would be. --Loremaster 14:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Quoted from the website reluctant-messenger.com-"Dr. Stephen W. Boston, creator of www.reluctant-messenger.com, holds a Comparative Religion Ph.D., Biblical Studies M.A., and was a computer engineer for a major utility corporation prior to devoting efforts to spiritual research. He teaches The World Great Religions at a state university" This is a link to the artical [[Biblical-Corruption by Allan Cronshaw]]NazireneMystic 23:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

NazireneMystic, I think I misunderstood your question.

1. Please do not confuse the reliability of sources with the notability of a group.

2. Although an article (written by a member of a religious group), which is quoted extensively or reprinted by a scholar in an essay or book, might be a reliable source for a Wikipedia article, a scholar simply reprinting this article on his personal website would not.

3. Boston seriously undermines his claim to objectivity and his credibility when he introduces an article by saying "I didn't write the Biblical Corruption Article but I reprinted it (with permission) because it was done so well. I believe the non-trinity view of Allan Cronshaw is correct. I also believe Christ is/was YHWH and KRISHNA and Melchezidek - in other words the spirit that incarnated Jesus Christ has incarnated more than once."

4. Therefore, the Biblical Corruption article is not a reliable source. It's original research by Cronshaw that would be used by one of his associates, you, to support claims about him, the ancient Ebionites and/or modern spiritual Ebionites in a new section or article. This is unacceptable.

--Loremaster 00:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

HaHa, This is unbelieveable. My question was simple, short,and clear. So was your answer and I delievered as promised. We are not the ones with notibility problems nor are we short of matieral to back our position. All Ebionite related writings witness to us. But your point of view is that the other group need not show any notibility as was the case before we showed up. Not only that but they need not reflect the Ebionite matieral. That P.H.D.lost your respect because he doesnt support your point of view.NazireneMystic 02:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

No offense but your comments and questions are rarely clear. As I said before, you are confusing reliability of sources and the notability of a group. Please take the time to read the Wikipedia:Reliable sources page. Although the Biblical Corruption article may be have written by a self-described modern Ebionite, the article does not mention ancient or modern Ebionites. The only thing this article demonstrates is that a scholar of questionable objectivity endorses Cronshaw's revisionist interpretation of the Bible and opinion of Jesus. Nothing more, nothing less. --Loremaster 13:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The toes have strong POV odor :)

You did very nice edits on Ebionites, but I strongly advise you to create your own page at Ebionite Restoration Movement where you will tread on fewer toes. Just click on the redlinked article and start writing / cut and pasting. You might still have problems with your writing style (I do advise you to read the preceeding links about Wikipedia writing style etc). When you are happy with the Ebionite Restoration Movement article we can link to it from the Ebionite page. --Michael C. Price talk 19:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nazirene"

Dispute Resolution

I've created the following two articles and mentioned them in the See also section of the Ebionites article:

Ebionite Jewish Community
Ebionite Restoration Movement

I suggest people who have a vested interest in these articles surviving a speedy deletion attempt or a full article for deletion debate not only watch over them but also improve and expand them. --Loremaster 14:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I also suggest that people move any debate about these two religious groups to their respective talk pages.

Talk:Ebionite Jewish Community
Talk:Ebionite Restoration Movement

The Talk:Ebionites talk page is only for discussing changes to the Ebionites article. --Loremaster 14:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the links to the ERM stub. The consensus of the AfD debate was DELETE. [1] Ovadyah 20:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

AFD on Neo-Ebionites

As discussed back in August, I've gone ahead and nominated Ebionite Jewish Community and Ebionite Restoration Movement for deletion. --Alecmconroy 21:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Understandable. --Loremaster 01:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

While the Ebionite Jewish Community article has survived a deletion debate, the Ebionite Restoration Movement article has been deleted. --Loremaster 14:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Imagine that. --152.163.100.8

LOTS of changes with the archived section!

I see someones been busy editing the archived section. If your POV is shown during edit debates on the talk pages it must be easer to get it across after people quite adressing it. I even seeem to be missing replys I made back then.At least one I cant find, Glad my Good Faith wasnt abusedNazireneMystic 20:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Non-sense. 1) Ovadyah added his comments to an archived discussion after I told him that it would be more appropriate for him to post them there rather than here. 2) No one has intentionaly deleted any of your replies on the archived pages so your memory must be faulty. --Loremaster 17:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I once had a replay to Ovadyah's wordy posting that is now archived of which there is no mention the source was talking about Ebionites.Dont know if anything was intentional ro not.NazireneMystic 22:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Act Bold

Well within the policy to be bold I reinserted the Ebionite restoration movement artical.

I thought they would be judged on thier merit and had no part in the prosses but after revewing the log the vote was made after Alecmconroy gave misleading information regarding the groups size and this seemed to effect the vote and the reason for deletion.once bringing up the notibility issue that was shown to be a non issue compaired to the ME group.

Once the notibility issue was asked to be judged with fair balance and with equal measures thats how both sections were first removed from the Ebionite artical.lol What could not be shown upfront was sneeked in the back door.NazireneMystic 02:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Imagine that. Let's see where acting "bold" gets you with the Wiki admins. :) Ovadyah 13:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I should be fine according to wikipedia policy but then if at any point both groups were judged evenly it would be impossible to include the one group and not the spiritual Ebionites so I dont expect Wikipedians to start acting in good faith any time soon if everNazireneMystic 15:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

As Ovadyah has suggested elsewhere, despite the deletion of the Ebionite Restoration Movement stub, a more general article about modern Ebionites should be considered with the Ebionite Jewish Community paragraph as a subset. Some suggestions for titles are "Modern Ebionite Movements" or "Ebionite Restoration Movements" or "Ebionism in Modern Times". Hopefully the AfD debate narrows the scope of the article so that we don't have to deal with cranks calling themselves Ebionites. --Loremaster 16:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I said Moonbeams, but cranks will do nicely. :) Ovadyah 17:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Funny according the the cranks artical is seems you have sided with cranks and thats about the only explanation of the deletion outcome. Of which i was the only one involved with this artical that acted in good faith. As far as not many believing what the spiritual ebionites held to be true,historicaly not many did, the Ebionites were not in the fat part of the bell curveNazireneMystic 17:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL Loremaster,

So he plans to make an artical with the same title Allan came up with but he will push a POV to narrow the scope of the artical so we could not be included? At least he is consistant. If you remember I said long ago in the end you will have to do away with the majority of what scholars agree is Ebionite material to keep the artical a billboard for that other group.lol NazireneMystic 20:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The results of acting "bold" are in: the consensus of a second AfD on the restored ERM article was SPEEDY DELETE and PAGE PROTECT. If you attempt to restore the article again, you will find yourself speedily deleted as well. Ovadyah 17:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

NazireneMystic, on this talk page, I'm only interested in discussing improvements to the Ebionites article. --Loremaster 16:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Since the ERM stub has been deleted twice now by community consensus, I suggest we remove mention of it from the article until Wikipedia reverses it's position on this group. Ovadyah 16:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

meatpuppets

While I, in "good faith" let what I thought would be unbiased editors to the deletion prossess without it seems Ovadyah and Alecmconroy were active meatpuppets in the discussion to delete the Ebionite Restoration Movement artical.

Both of them from the archived talk pages clearly know around 400 people are in our main fourm at any given time. We have around 6 other groups also.

The main one alone has more menbers the the other group. Alecmconroy , in the role of meatpuppet that the group had one or 2 members!

Ovadyah memtioned the mis- named neo-ebionite archives but failed to mention after we showed that our group was more notible in every aspect brought out in the prosses to exclude us then we both became subs and removed from the artical.

Another voter claimed outside of Allan's sites there in no memtion of the group at all. On my talk page I clearly have one site that takes almost a whole page attacking Allan, another site were a P.H.D.ed religous scholar reprints an artical Allan has written, and still another site were Were modern spiritual Ebionite writings are listed side by side with famous Christian and Jewish Mystics.

By contrast the evidence Ovadyah claims to be showing his group doesnt even mention them by name and does not show the writers of the articals he links to even know the name of the group or its plaiq I.E. President I.E.King.

Only the reference that used the past wikipedia "Ebionite" artical back when the artical was mainly a billboard for the EJC mentions the group but that realy dones mean anything since it was obtained from Wikipedia.NazireneMystic 16:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Enough is enough. I have placed the second formal warning to refrain from personal attacks on NazireneMystic's user page. Ovadyah 18:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ovadyah,

Funny I didnt attack you but only showed what happened. If I was in error please show me how. If reality seems like apersonal attack on you I cant help you there. Feel free to report all you wantNazireneMystic 19:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

NazireneMystic, please follow the talk page guidelines listed at the top of this page. --Loremaster 18:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Most reasonable people would consider being called deceitful or ignorant or diabolical or a meatpuppet to be a personal attack on their character. If this concept is still not clear to you, I can arrange to have an admin explain it more clearly. Ovadyah 23:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ovadyah,

Any reasonable person could not determin if being called deceitful, ignorant or diabolical or a meatpuppet is a personal attack untill it was looked into to see if this is so, it would be ignorant to do otherwise. Were the charges against Foley a personal attack? They surely would be if it were not true but in light of the evidence even his own party is not calling it a personal attack. NazireneMystic 17:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Your argument seems to be that none of the things you allege about me can be considered personal attacks because everything you say is true. However, none of these insinuations are self-evident truths that speak for themselves; they are merely your opinions. As I said before to one of your collegues, you are certainly entitled to your views. Such views, however, have no place on Wikipedia. I ask you one last time to refer to examples of personal attacks and to refrain from such actions. Ovadyah 13:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

And I particularly resent being compared to an alleged pedophile! Ovadyah 13:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Same can be said for your view that I attacked you. NazireneMystic 23:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

LoreMaster,

Why should I be the only editor involved in this artical that is held to Wikipedia standards? Do you know the Ignorance I have had to put up with to this point? How about just the last day? After I followed Policy and restored the artical "boldly even", and that it was linked to the main ebionite artical it would be against wiki policy to speedily delete it. Our ever Honorable friend reported my justified undeletion as vandalism and then yet another briliant wikipedian honored the wooo "report" and went as far to tell me not to undelete the artical again. Siteing someone for not following wikipedia policy involved in this artical is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway NazireneMystic 19:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it is well within Wiki policy to speedily delete it. Please refer to the admin's comments on your user page under Deleted pages. Ovadyah 01:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

NazireneMystic, on this talk page, I'm only interested in discussing improvements to the Ebionites article. --Loremaster 16:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

In that spirit, I suggest we move the last two sections under the Dispute Resolution and AfD sections in Neo-Ebionite 2. Ovadyah 16:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

In reality lets not move it anywere since it has to do with A prosses that eleimated an artical that was linked to this artical and during the prosses editors with agendas willing offered false information to reach a concludion favorable to them. So this has to do with the current article and is far removed from the RFC. Your idea is in keeping with your Modus Operandi of moving anything against your POV off the ebionite talk page and into a section it doesn't even belong in. NazireneMystic 22:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Published lies to support POV

In the Ebionite article there is a wonderful amount of early Christian works listed that have general support as describing Ebionite beliefs and then in the next section "history" we find this paragraph:

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. Ebionites seemed to have emphasized the humanity of Jesus as the mortal son of Mary and Joseph who became the messianic "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 the Law of Moses; but it must be understood through Jesus' expounding of the Law, which he taught during his Sermon on the Mount. Therefore, of the books of the New Testament Ebionites only accepted an Aramaic version of the Gospel of Matthew, referred to as the Gospel of the Hebrews, as additional scripture. This version of Matthew, critics reported, omitted the first two chapters (on the nativity of Jesus), and started with the baptism of Jesus by John.

After carefully reading these Christian sources I fail to find these Christian sources agreeing that:

....who became the messianic "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 the Law of Moses; but it must be understood through Jesus' expounding of the Law, which he taught during his Sermon on the Mount. Therefore, of the books of the New Testament Ebionites only accepted an Aramaic version of the Gospel of Matthew, referred to as the Gospel of the Hebrews, as additional scripture. This version of Matthew, critics reported, omitted the first two chapters (on the nativity of Jesus), and started with the baptism of Jesus by John....

In Reality no matter how bad of a personal attack it may seem. 1) the sources agree he was the Christ of God because no one else ever completely forfilled the law. 2) the reports of Ebionites beliefs regarding scripture was that their Gospel itself fully represented the whole of their faith. [I can get the quote if you but Im sure you have seen it and besides in the past actual quotes were deemed POV.lol ] 3) They believed the kanakh had falsehoods written into it and while they didn't need it they did not condom the Jews who were stuck on its literal words anymore then they condemned the Greeks who they claimed already corrupted the Gospel they had given them.

Of the above #2 and #3 have to deal with the first paragraph in the history section as well as the second one because James Tabor is in agreement with the early Christian writings regarding those topics. The second paragraph seems to be hinting that Tabor is in argument with the Christian sources when in fact he is not. Inserting "argues" instead of "agrees" is deceptive regardless of how much it seems to isolate the Christian witness and supports a certain POV.

After reading the history section of the Ebionite article I see at some point an editor reverted an edit that correctly states what the Christian sources said and noted that he was removing Gnostic Christian POV. So while you list the sources because most people would expect to see them the POV dominating this article will not allow what the sources actually state if they disagree with the articles featured group. this type of thinking seems to fit the description of cranks suffering from "discognitive dissonance" regarding the facts set before them.NazireneMystic 22:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Despite the fact that I am strongly irritated by your inability to spell and your perssonal attacks, you are right about only one thing: Not all Christian sources are in agreement. So I will correct this mistake. That being said, you still seem unable to understand that a "messianic prophet like Moses" is the "Messiah/Christ of God". --Loremaster 23:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Here are two quotations from Shlomo Pines manuscript, The Jewish Christians Of The Early Centuries Of Christianity According To A New Source, Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities II, No. 13 (1966) that shed light on the Ebionites:

The doctrines of Epiphanius' Ebionites are held to approximate to those of the Jewish Christian portions of the Pseudo-Clementines. Thus, they are said to believe in one true prophet appearing in various shapes and forms throughout history, to delete texts occurring in the Old Testament as being false, to reject bloody sacrifices and to consider that their abolition and the prohibition of the eating of meat were part of Jesus' mission. None of these teachings, which deviate from those of the less speculatively inclined Jewish Christians who seem to have been, in the main, content to practice traditional Jewish piety, are professed by the original authors of our texts. As has already been noted, they considered that Jesus approved of the observance of the Jewish sacrifices. In a passage concerning Mani (which is translated below, see Excursus I) they mention that this heresiarch quoted passages from the Gospels which prohibit sacrifices and the eating of meat; but they clearly considered that these passages were not authentic.

There are issues concerning both Epiphanius catch-phrase "Ebionites" for differing messianic groups, and also the Pseudo-Clementines, which contain several strata of development, are late, and represent not Ebionite, but rather an Elkasite tradition. See, G. Strecker's introduction to Kerymata Petrou, in New Testament Apocrypha, Edgar Hennecke, W. Schneemelcher, Vol. 2, pp. 102-111; cp. pp. 532-5. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965). Also both the Pseudo-Clementines and Kerygmata are largely Greeks works, i.e., in a language which Abd al-Jabbar's messianics disdained in favor of Hebrew.

Loremaster, that Abd al Jabbar's Messianics did not call themselves Ebionites and Jabbar himself didnt make the connection at bset it could be noted that Pines has a different view of Ebionites but to pick one view over the other to deside truth and narrow the scope of the artical doesnt sound very wikipedian to meNazireneMystic 20:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for informal mediation

Loremaster, after going through the second AfD and all that followed, I am now convinced this can only end one way. I have asked Jayjg to help out. Ovadyah 02:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

After reviewing the procedures required for mediation, I'm not sure this is the best course of action. Formal mediation requires that all parties be willing participants, and we don't have that situation here. Informal mediation may still be possible. The core problem is incivility, which Wikipedia defines as behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress. Ovadyah 21:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Ovadyah, perhaps I can help in bringing a sense of calm to the exchange between NazireneMystic and the others here. I think one aspect that has contributed to the charged atmosphere is the sense that as soon as anyone that is not of the Jewish Ebionite mindset that you endorse contributes to the article their contribution is quickly deleted and charged with trespassing on your turf. If we can come to some understanding about how to contribute in a respectful manner the Truths we know and can back up with citations without being treated as terrorists then I think we can build a reasonable article without the stress you are feeling. You must come to accept though that not all Ebionites subscribe to Jewish ideas. Even from the beginning, respectfully, the Ebionites were Hebrew but they were closer to what is represented in scripture as Israelites rather than Jews. The important thing is that we collectively work together to represent an objective article on the Ebionites that is sufficiently complete to give the readers an understanding of the diverse schools of thought on Ebionites so that they can seek within themselves the Truth of the matter. Are we able to find a way forward as children of YHVH without the need of putting ourselves before the judgment of men? If so I believe NazireneMystic would be agreeable to liaising with me offline so that we are able to forward a predetermined consensus. --EbioniteOfTheWay 13:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind offer to mediate and help to calm things down. As I said before during the RFC, it's not so much the content of the words that bothers me, it's the way they are delivered. You could do us all a great service by acting as a liaison to communicate your group's ideas for improving the article in a calm and rational manner.

Keep in mind that we are trying to report the beliefs and practices of the historical Ebionites to the best of our understanding, not to judge what is "Truth". In many cases, there will be legitimate differences of opinion between scholars. All of these views should be represented in the article, as long as they can be found in appropriate sources such as published journals and books. If I may use your words, my having to "come to accept ... that not all Ebionites subscribe to Jewish ideas" has nothing to do with it. The problem, as I see it, arises from modern groups trying to retroject their beliefs and practices onto the historical Ebionites as a way to establish "authenticity". The way forward is to stop making changes to the article with this underlying motivation.

Since the editorial process has been so contentious, I have been content to present published research on the talk page and let Loremaster decide on the appropriate changes to the article. I see no reason to change this practice. If we can reach a consensus on the talk page after reviewing the evidence, that's great. If we can't reach one because scholars themselves are divided, then we note the differences in the article. As long as we can proceed in this manner, there should be few problems.

Finally, a few words about myself may ease some of your mistrust over my motives. I was a member of the Talmidi Jewish community. This is well known to Loremaster, Jayjg, and other senior editors and admins that have worked on this article. I tried to defend against the deletion of the Talmidi page last year without success, to my sorrow. So please believe me when I say that I understand the frustration you are feeling. I am now a free-agent, so to speak. I have known SP for years, but so does everyone else that's been an Ebionite for awhile, so please stop saying that I am some kind of secret agent for the EJC. That said, I look forward to working with you to improve the article. Ovadyah 16:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for you for expressing a willingness to move forward on this. Our view on the historical Ebionites is somewhat affected by the memory several of us have of our previous lives in the historical Ebionite communities. Our recall from these lives gives us an understanding that is in agreement with many of the accounts of the Ebionites from those that were permitted in our communities such as Origin, but it often puts us at odds with what 'scholars' determine when looking at history with their colored glasses. However, as we are aware that witness of historical events is not permitted on Wiki we will attempt to limit what we contribute to those things that can be proved in the present.

If Loremaster is happy to have edit suggestions posted on the talk pages then I will liaise with others about some of the things I would like to see added and see if they have any other suggestions. I will then compile a list of changes.

Probably the greatest difficulty for us in this environment is the truth in the statement of Peter in the Homilies: “Hence, O beloved Clement", proclaims Peter, “if you would know the things pertaining to God, you have to learn them from Him alone, because He alone knows the truth. For if any one else knows anything, he has received it from Him or from His disciples”. While all that we say can be proven by turning to the True Prophet within each of us we generally avoid telling people to believe this because a scholar says it is so. It is at the very root of Ebionite thought to not be concerned with the teachings of scholars or any other man, knowing that there is only one source of true knowledge. However, in guiding people to the One we can and do use supporting 'facts' that support the truth and likewise use supporting 'facts' to refute untruth. In this way we can live to the spiritual ideal of being an Ebionite, poor to the ways and thinking of this world, while contributing in an acceptable way to the Wiki knowledge of what being an Ebionite is. I emphasis what being an Ebionite is because I do not believe this article is limited in scope to scholarly views on the history of the Ebionite mindset when this is still alive today through the grace of the Laws. I am not trying to be contentious here but it might be good to clarify scope from the outset. Do articles on subjects such as Christianity limit their content only to the historical aspects of Christianity? I am sure that all people that are living today calling themselves Ebionites believe they are living at one with the principles of the early Ebionites. There is evidence that the Ebionite is not a historical religious movement but rather a mindset that is as alive today as it was at any time. Would it be appropriate for us to start with putting together some information supporting a definition of scope we can place on the talk page to serve as a framework for future work?

To reciprocate with some words about myself. I have not been a member of any religion, at least not in this life, and I have been an Ebionite living in TheWay of Yeshua, and the anointed prophets for some time. I look forward to working with you. --EbioniteOfTheWay 06:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Loremaster, think about a short-list of editors that are knowledgeable about this topic that you can accept for third-party commentary if it comes to that. Please bring your suggestions to my talk page. Ovadyah 00:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you refering to Wikipedia users or academic scholars? --Loremaster 23:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I contacted several prominent scholars in the field but got no takers. There are a few Wiki users who are quite knowledgeable about early Judaism and Christianity. Ovadyah 01:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Core problem is incivility

I agree incivility is a big problem but its root is in the fact you delete any edits that do not support your group and promote your narrow point of view. In times past one scholar listed in the article has come here and posted suggestion of which it would be hard to find any remaining evidence of by reading the main Ebionite article even after he contributed to the talk page LoreMaster first received them well. Then the incivility thats marred the history of this article showed its face again. How can mediation work when such a dominating point of view surpessess any evidence that is contrary?

Who do you think Loremaster should invite to mediation that will agree that while scholars disagree on the issue the article should be written in a manor to discount those against Ovadyah's point of view? Would that not be deciding truth? That doesn't sound very Wikipedia like. The Fact is there is evidence pointed in more then one direction.

Some of the scholars you like so much use the Dead Sea Scrolls to support some of their theories but a few scholars that worked on the scrolls came away with different prospective. One when as far as to say that the John's gospel, long thought to be the most "Hellenistic," could no longer be looked at that way and its framework could be found directly on Palestinian soil.

If we are going to explore different early Christian witnesses will we be able to mention in the artical that regardless if they were second century accounts or fourth century accounts they all say he became the Christ/messiah by being the first to totally forfill the law and when they "Ebionites" also Forfill the law they to become Christ/Messiah's or will this as in the past be deemed Gnostic Christian POV. Will you shop for people with a certain POV like during the peer review and who claimed that there is no evidence of The spiritual Ebionite existence outside of its own group when my talk page shows otherwise?

Wikilawyering can turn any resolution process against its intentions so as long as evidence is going to be surpressed or attacked for the reasons already mentioned by both you and Loremaster:

"As Ovadyah has suggested elsewhere, despite the deletion of the Ebionite Restoration Movement stub, a more general article about modern Ebionites should be considered with the Ebionite Jewish Community paragraph as a subset. Some suggestions for titles are "Modern Ebionite Movements" or "Ebionite Restoration Movements" or "Ebionism in Modern Times". Hopefully the AfD debate narrows the scope of the article so that we don't have to deal with cranks calling themselves Ebionites. --Loremaster 16:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)"

"Actually, I said Moonbeams, but cranks will do nicely. :) Ovadyah 17:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)"

This is the root of the incivility about this artical. The implcations of an NPOV artical would leave you dealing with people you disagree with.NazireneMystic 20:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I take this outburst to mean that the mediation efforts I ageed to yesterday were not successful. Thanks for trying EbioniteOfTheWay. We will have to find another way. Ovadyah 22:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Loremaster, I was feeling very hopeful yesterday, but I am back to being convinced this can only end one way. Let's discuss. Ovadyah 22:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

OvadYah, since you brought it up I thought we should get to the root of the problem.NazireneMystic 23:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

NazireneMystic, I can't speak for Ovadyah but I wasn't refering to you or your Ebionite Restoration Movement when use the word "cranks". --Loremaster 23:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

LoreMaster, Given the history of the artical and the archived talk pages who else would you be refering to, Keith Akers perhaps? After all he made some susgestions that that were contrary to someones views but you thought were very good. Shortly afterwards someone's POV changed your mind. Of this one scholar that is listed in the actual artical and came to the talk page what if any of his susgestions were used? Who convinced you his ideas were hogwash?NazireneMystic 23:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I was only refering to future groups of cranks who describe themselves as modern ebionites that would want to create a Wikipedia article for their sects or be listed on the Modern Ebionites article Ovadyah proposed we create. Hopefully, a deletion debate would weed them out. That being said, I don't think Akers or your ideas are hogwash. It's simply that all the material I have read on the Ebionites over the years has led me to the provisional conclusion currently expressed in the article. Ovadyah's point of view informed me but did not convince me of anything that I hadn't already concluded. --Loremaster 00:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You dont need to narrow the scope of the artical to deal with future Heretics. If thier views can be supported from the source material and are as notible if not more notible then the featured group just do a peer review,invite editors with POV's,use seperate AFD hearings and while giving the featured group a free pass, deny all evidence of notibility given by thoes you deem to be cranks. Just dont fall into the trap of having equaly look at the credibiliy and relivance of both groups That is what will get you into problems.

*sigh* That's what exactly what we were proposing in not so many words. --Loremaster 20:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you susgesting your personal first hand research of the topic has lead you to actively surpress one point of view of scholar's that have written peerreview papers and books over an other? What credientuals do you and OyadYah have regarding such things? It sounds like you to have done stupendous frist hand reserch!What does Wikipedia think of first hand research? :Loremaster you are openly admiting your firsthand research has lead to your surpression of a NPOV artical regarding the Ebionites. It could not be more clear or more against wikipedia pillars.64.12.116.5 05:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow... Your ability to misinterpret everything people say in order to support your conspiracy theories never ceases to amaze me. There is no original research in the Ebionites article. Nearly every statement in it is supported by the works of scholars mentioned in the References section. I haven't actively suppressed the point of view of any serious scholar. If I did, there wouldn't be an entire paragraph detailing James Tabor's views (some of which you obviously share). --Loremaster 16:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Loremaster, Your first hand research has kept the artical from openly stating what the early christian sources state and many scholars agree these sources discribe Ebionite views. It is the very views of Ebionites that are surpressed in the artical.The 2nd and 4th century witnesses discribing Ebionites all claim when Ebionites also forfill the law they to become christ/messiah. This is very consistant throught out all these sources.

It isn't my research but my editing which keeps the article from openly stating certain claims. The reason is simple: I want the article to be concise and focus on the important rather than trivial claims made about Ebionites in all available sources. Nearly all entries on Ebionites in other encyclopedias never mention the specific claim that you falsely accuse me of intentionally suppressing. Are the editors of these encyclopedias part of the POV conspiracy as well? --Loremaster 20:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, I was also speaking strictly in future tense. The ERM business is in the past, and there is no need to dwell on it. I look forward to collaborating on a Modern Ebionites article as soon as we can finish this one. That said, we are having great difficulty moving forward to address the comments from peer review. I think intervention by a third-party editor (or admin) may be necessary to get things moving again. Ovadyah 01:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sigh - I rest my case. Ovadyah 13:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

If the point of this verbal assault is to bore us to tears so that we leave the article to your devices, I assure you it will not happen. So stop griping and let us get to work. Ovadyah 22:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Loremaster, any thoughts on the ERM reference in the article and third-party intervention? Ovadyah 22:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I have spoken with NazireneMystic and he is happy to let me coordinate discussion as discussed above. I propose we delete this section and start again. I was hoping to move forward with preparing a scoping section to add to the talk page. Is this acceptable to everyone? --EbioniteOfTheWay 01:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The after-effects of this verbal assault cannot be wiped away so easily. In fact, blanking sections of talk pages is considered vandalism by Wikipedia, so it will remain for us to see and remember. Since Loremaster did not respond to my question, I decided to seek out another resource for mediation - Alecmconroy. This should not be taken as a rejection of your mediation efforts. I want more eyes on this page before we go any further - Wiki admin eyes. Ovadyah 02:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

People that have a problem with others being able to see and remember how they acted ,act in ways they shouldnt of, got something to hind like the ERM DELETION prossess? I suspect seeing the comments and vote would do a lot to discredit some wikipedian reputations.NazireneMystic

Alecmconroy has responded to my request to keep an eye on things. I'm fine now with resuming editing the article. LM, let's begin to address the comments from peer review on the main talk page. Ovadyah 01:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Please Don't Fix

Please Don't fix, since the article on both the Ebionites and the Ebionite Jewish Community represents a typical suppression of both historical facts and quotes, and the castration of reference materials because of political pressure. I have begun to use the suppression of the facts as an example of how references resoureces are castrated in order to suppress the Truth which you can review at http://TheThreeLies.com#TrueProphet This is an important lesson for seekers of Truth to recognize, and I can therefore use this article and the main Ebionite article of a prime example of this fact and reality. -- Nazirene --Nazirene 13:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Naz-- I'm sorry you feel like your thoughts are being suppressed-- please understand that it's nothing personal, is in no way related to the content of your belief-- only to the lack of sources. That said-- just because the page on your movement got deleted, that's no reason the effort to improve THIS page shouldn't move forward as per the peer review. --Alecmconroy 14:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Alecmconroy. --Loremaster 21:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply From Nazirene :Greetings Alecmconry: It is not so much my thoughts -- but important spiritual concepts that must be re-established in our present time in order to move beyond man's present spiritual quagmire. In this time of world struggle, it is not enough to simply say: Give peace a chance. Or, why don't we all just get along. In order to have tolorance and peace, it is necessary to manifest higher levels of mind and being, and these higher centers of mind must be nourished with spiritual manna. In the beginning of the above article on The Three Lies http://TheThreeLies.com [2] , I demonstrate that once you move beyond the allegory of the written word, Judaism and Christianity are one and the same. While it is proven that Jesus is the fulfillment of Spiritual Israel, it is also proven that Christianity is a paganization of that Truth. And Islam which was conceived out of the bed-rock of the Ebionites and Gnostic Nestorian Monks who were banished from the Roman Empire, holds the key to understanding the Qur'an. It is important for the people to understand that the Disciples of Jesus who were Ebionites, knew the Truth by virtue of the experiential knowledge received by passing through an inner portal to the Kingdom within which Jesus declared (see http://GateOfEden.com ). And that is why when he was asked when the Kingdom would come upon the earth as carnal Jews and Christians expect, he said that the external Armegeddon will never happen. It is important to understand that Mohammed in the portrayal of the cave in the mountain of Light, allegorically portrayed this same inner journey in TheWay. And that the Journey by night to the Distant Mosque -- in the Mecca that is not of this world -- is this same allegorical presentation that is portrayed in the parable of the prodigal son, or Plato's Cave (see http://DivineStrategery.com#Plato ). Notice also that in the account of Plato, those who escape the illuion of the Cave -- which is the illusion of this world -- are looked upon as madmen. But in our present time the Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hammadi Library are just the beginning, and there is much more yet to come. The problem with resource writings such as Wikipedia and the Britannica, is seen in the fact that it is typically written by linear minded people who only perceive life in a straight line. And the fact that most intuitively polarized people who are able to sense beyond the barrier of what is portrayed as Plato's Cave are for the most part only partially developed, and have great difficulty in portraying their intuitively received impressions in a manner that others will understand, this inability to make linear sense kind of supports the linear vision of life. So it is not your fault as people who are acclamated to this type of pursuit to question the validity of the mystical. And while there are exceptions, even these few have great difficulty expressing themselves in a manner that most linear minded people will understand. I am different, because I was able to initiate mystical experiences where I succeeded in transporting my linear perception out of what is portrayed as Plato's Cave, and I have been able to fully observe this inner reality, and take the knowledge back with me into the body. It has to do with what the Church Father Origen stated that each "soul is... is weakened by the defeats, or strengthened by the victories, of it's previous lifetimes". Also, I knew the esoteric alchemical knowledge of how to condition the physical body-vessel to make it support this inner spiritual knowledge of the Kingdom. Jesus taught that there is One Teacher -- and all his followers were to learn from that One Teacher, in contradistinction to the rabbis and teachers of this world. And this One Teacher was portrayed as the True Prophet within. And this reality is not easily grasped by linear minded people -- regardless of their level of intelligence. And this is why most Mystics will tell you that you have to go beyond the limitations of mind in your pursuit of Truth. And in opposition to this traditional mysticism perspective, I disagree with that position -- stating instead that the body must be prepared in order to manifest those higher area of mind beyond the 10% that is supported by the physical -- and by doing this you will expand the consciousness, and begin to learn from the One Teacher that Jesus taught was the only True Source of Knowledge. And this is the essence of Kabbalah, the core of the teachings of Jesus and TheWay, and what Mohammed attempted to re-establish, before his own writings were corrupted in the same manner as was the Bible. And thus, the present world conflict is being fueled by what will end up as a restoral of the teachings of Jesus and TheWay, and the core of these teachings are the suppressed quotations on the Ebionites. Which means that to accomplish this spiritual end, it will have to be explained why these core teachings are suppressed by most of the reference resources. It is not personal -- and I apologize if you think it is -- just merely part of the portrayal of the facts as to why most reference resources can't be relied upon to portray the concepts of the mystical inner path. --Nazirene

As I've said in the past, I can't debate you on religion or philosophy, so I can't really closely read through all that, but I don't see anything that should preclude Loremaster and Ov from proceeding to work on improving the article in the directions suggested by the peer review. --Alecmconroy 14:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Bugged?

The Ebionites and Ebionite Jewish Community articles and talk pages may be bugged with some kind of Trojan Horse. My user talk page is affected as well. It looks like some kind of redirect, judging by the warning messages I am seeing. I'm having WP:AN/I look into it. I wonder who has an interest in the Ebionites and EJC articles and my talk page combined with the technical expertise to do such a thing? Ovadyah 21:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like your computer got some issue-- I'm very, very, very skeptical that anyone could hack Wikipedia. I'm able to view these pages without problems. --Alecmconroy 22:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I only saw it happen on one computer, so you may be right. Still, it's funny that only those pages were affected. I could view them. What was new was a warning that the page may not be safe. I'll keep monitoring and testing. Ovadyah 02:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

SE POV

Hi, I seem to have lost control of my NazireneMystic account. I changed a passward and forgot it but then I tried to get a new one send to my registered Email it never showed up and now I would have to wait a day to try again so I made up this one.

In the history section this sentence is totaly POV and should be removed as it has no justification "whether or not his claims are accurate" That could be placed in front of every source in the artical. who in the world edited that sentence in? LOL

Since we are going as far as list one scholars wild therory the Clement writings are Gnostic Christian I believe to attempt to present a NPOV I will add the ideas Hans Joachim Schoeps presents in his reviewed work: "Aus fruhchristlicher Zeit: Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen " were he states the Clementine materals nearest parallels are to be found in the book of "Jubilees" and "Ehoch". His entire work is not on line but I found a nugget or to here http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-9231%28195203%2971%3A1%3C58%3AAFZRU%3E2.0.CO%3B2-N&size=LARGE

Since we know this materal is very populous among the dead sea scroll fragments.SpiritualEbionite 09:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I just looked over the rest of the artical and it seems since ive been gone a darkness has come over the artical. Someone seems to have nailed "Epiphanius of Salamis" to the cross while ive been away.SpiritualEbionite 09:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Darkness??? LOL Putting histrionics aside, I have no problem with your removal of the disclaimer sentence about Epiphanius. However, it was the addition of Shlomo Pines' opinion which made the article NPOV so adding Schoeps' opinion supposedly to counter Pine's is unnecessary. --Loremaster 17:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Loremaster,

I think you are going have to explain yourself a little better then that. My adition was writen in a NPOV mannor. My " Schoeps " adition did not counter Pines but just gave credit to the clementine writings your current artical is trying to discredit. Schoeps is listed in the sources section . I cant help it if this does not support your point of view and I do not see any reason slant the artical and keep opinons of this scholar supressed in order to keep the artical somewhat in line with the EJC doctorines. A NPOV artical presents the facts,Wikipedia is not an experiment in socialism were a week, unsupported point of view is given creditbiliy by hindering evidence regarding the topic of the artical. Takeing from the pro clementine camp to support your anti clementine view is a form of wikipedian welfare. You do not own this artical. I would call your revert of my NPOV edit vandalism. Instead of a well written artical is seem people here waht to build a house of cards that looks sound from a quick glance but quickly falls apart under careful observationSpiritualEbionite 20:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Adding Pines without giving the pinion of Schoeps does not make the artical NPOV as you contend. Pines brings up the point that the source is not from the Jewish thought but rather from greek thought by calling it Gnostic christian. The unknowing might be lead to believe this. Schoeps clears this misconception up and shows the spiritual concepts come directly from a Hebrew mindset.SpiritualEbionite 20:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

My deletion of the Schoeps sentence was premature. Now that I've fixed it, it can stay in the article but not for the reasons you bring up. --Loremaster 20:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

LoreMaster,

Fair enough. Your edit makes it read better to. I do like the title of the work, I can not pronounce but thought it looked good in the artical.LOLSpiritualEbionite 20:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Simper Fidelis

Only someone wanting to hide Wikipedialawyering and the real root of the incivility involved in working on this artical would be activly reverting ongoing discussion of the Ebionite artical into four seperate archives as to place things people say in obscure places and out of order with the time line and topic they were first posted in. I am not saying names and and in no way attacking anyone. Just for the record this edit first appeared on the ebionite talk page long after the Spiritual Ebionites that were mis-named neo-Ebionites section was removed from the artical. That the spiritual Ebionite section was removed and susposed resolved was the reason given to seperate it from the main archive But ongoing discussions on the Ebionite artical that present problems to the POV dominating the artical are still presently being revverted to mis-maned neo-Ebionte section. The truth has nothing to hide so why have so many highly regarded Wikipedia Admins that have been eyeing this artical not taken action regarding these practices?SpiritualEbionite 23:57, 10 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, Wikipedia , 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[in his little world]. 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/wiki/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[with permition] 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.

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?

Article 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 been 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 Wikipedia. --Loremaster 19:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

LoreMaster,

Feel free to do 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)

Whatever. I am no longer wasting time reading your comments. --Loremaster 20:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we are both in agreement that it is pointless to engage in discussions with this user, once he returns from his temporary block for personal attacks. Ovadyah 01:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

By all means continue to publish your POVNazireneMystic 03:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Placing personal research above cites source material!

Loremaster, explain yourself for your revert to the artical. You are favoring speculation over your source material. I see wikipedians love to stuff words in other people moughts then the source material doesnt fit thier POV. At least remove the scholar from the list of sources so it doesnt appear he supports the foolishness being published in the Ebionite artical.NazireneMystic 17:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't need to explain myself since I've already stated that I agree with Ovadyah on this specific issue. --Loremaster 17:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The only short statment allowed to stand in the artical regarding Schoeps is " The influence of Ebionites is debated. Schoeps argues that their primary influence on mainstream Christianity was to aid in the defeat of gnosticism"

Since the concepts in the clementine writing wikipedians seem to get confused with simon magnus's gnosticism. You seem to favor publishing blantant lies and of course Yah does, that goes with out saying.

I have looked hard to find some of schopes work in public domain but most of it can only be seen buy research groups. This is all I could find and shows the spiritual concepts expressed in the clementine writings are rooted in Hebrew thought. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-9231%28195203%2971%3A1%3C58%3AAFZRU%3E2.0.CO%3B2-N&size=LARGE

In the past sources not being public domain was a reason given on these talk pages to exclude information and has lead editors to include as a link the outdated bitanica artical on Ebionites. In view of recent evidence birtanica a much more accurate discription.

"Most of the features of Ebionite doctrine were anticipated in the teachings of the earlier Qumran sect, as revealed in the Dead Sea Scrolls. They believed in one God and taught that Jesus was the Messiah and was the true "prophet" mentioned in Deuteronomy 18:15. They rejected the Virgin Birth of Jesus, instead holding that he was the natural son of Joseph and Mary. The Ebionites believed Jesus became the Messiah because he obeyed the Jewish Law. They themselves faithfully followed the Law, although they removed what they regarded as interpolations in order to uphold their teachings, which included vegetarianism, holy poverty, ritual ablutions, and the rejection of animal sacrifices. The Ebionites also held Jerusalem in great veneration."

So my question is were in the public domain can I find that Schoeps argues that their primary influence on mainstream Christianity was to aid in the defeat of gnosticism besides here on wikipedia and sites that mirror it?

This artical is full of garbage like this. You have built a true house of cards.NazireneMystic 18:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Damn! I forgot that I promised not to waste my time reading your insulting rants. Shame on me. Won't do it again. --Loremaster 18:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Artical update and improvment

It seems Birtanica has expanded the public domain portion of their Ebionite artical. Since the fossilized adition linked to the wikipedia Ebionite artical could not consider discoveries made at later dates this updated version would prove to be a much more accurate resourse to link to. Cheers! http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9031860/Ebionite NazireneMystic 19:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

POV about editing process

So you can not find anything to support it?

I see you are with the Ebionite Restoration Movement. Are you blocked user NazireneMystic by any chance? Please log in properly and I will respond to you. Ovadyah 02:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Are thoes the only people that think articals should be backed with verifiable references?

you have not given one "Verifiable" citation for gospel of barnabas or the Schoeps reference. Sir I think you should do more research and learn to write a good artical before nominating one.

Please read Wikipedia standards on verifiability. WP:VERIFY The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.

How can any reader Verify any of the information you have given so far?

Logging in only mask your IP adress so I realy do not understand your point.

I have no problem with meeting Wikipedia standards of verifiability. I do have a problem with anonymous IPs dropping by to make comments during a review. It shows a lack of respect for the other editors and the review process itself. Since you refused to confirm or deny that you are blocked user NazireneMystic, I assumed you were a vandal. However, if you are not blocked user NazireneMystic, and your true purpose is to improve the quality of the article, I apologize for calling you a vandal. Ovadyah 14:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I checked and that user is not blocked and was not blocked during my earlier edits. Has that user in the past asked for citations also?

The user in question should still have been blocked by the PA Noticeboard for personal attacks during this time period. Since you are being courteous, it is not an issue. I still stand by my statement that anonymous IPs show a lack of respect for the other editors and the review process itself. Please get a login ID if you don't have one already. :) Ovadyah 16:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You can always recognize NazireneMystic/SpiritualEbionite by the fact that he always uses the word "artical" rather than "article". ;) --Loremaster 17:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Make that NazireneMystic/SpiritualEbionite/Ebionitemysticism. ;) Ovadyah 17:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

RFC Archive

Ebionite Jewish Community

Historical Ebionites

Unresolved dispute

Research Reasons for Inclusion of Ebionites and Talmidim

POV

Modern Ebionites

No Messiah claim?

Archives

Deletion from archived Pages!

Over stepping biased RFC

Academic sources for modern Ebionites

The toes have strong POV odor :)

Dispute Resolution

AFD on Neo-Ebionites

LOTS of changes with the archived section!

Act Bold

meatpuppets

Published lies to support POV

Request for informal mediation

Core problem is incivility

Please Don't Fix

Bugged?

SE POV

Simper Fidelis

More Buggery

artical butchery,ongoing vandalism and wikilawyering

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

Here I will show evidence of notibility.

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

Article POV

Placing personal research above cites source material!

Artical update and improvment

POV about editing process