Talk:Ebionites

This article has an unclear citation style

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

No primary sources

Here we have an article about a "group of Christians" that are devoid of any primary sources. I notice one contributor is obsessed with the "bloodline theory of Jesus Christ" as found in the book "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" even though it had nothing to do with Pierre Plantard and the Priory of Sion, and Plantard distanced himself from the nonsense in late 1982 on a French radio programme. Also Plantard actively criticised the book from 1989 onwards. The subject matter has been dead in France for ages. Plantard was a spent force in 1989 when his latest manifestation of the Priory of Sion was responsible for the final demise of Pierre Plantard, who died in 2000. It's only the British people that ever became obsessed with "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail". Plantard himself had no interest in the "Jesus Bloodline" from the get-go because he was an old-fashioned French Roman Catholic, as can be gleaned from his works and writings. Octavius88 (talk) 07:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

As the Wikipedia article on the Ebionites clearly states in the introduction section: "Since historical records by the Ebionites are scarce, fragmentary and disputed, much of what is known or conjectured about them derives from the polemics of their Gentile Christian opponents, specifically the Church Fathers." This fact has never prevented numerous respected secular and religious encyclopedias of having entries on the subject of Ebionites.

As I suggested 4 years ago, the Ebionites article has an unclear citation style. We should all focus on improving it, which means, among other things, making proper use of primary sources (the Church Fathers and the Jewish-Christian gospels) when and where needed.

That being said, you are the one who is obsessed with flogging a dead horse since no one here currently believes in the Priory of Sion myth of Pierre Plantard nor the conspiracy theories of the authors of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. I've been watching over the Priory of Sion article for years to ensure, among other things, that readers know that the Priory of Sion has been thoroughly debunked as a hoax.

However, what you seem to fail to understand is that the uncontroversial notion that James the Just is the biological brother (or half-brother) of Jesus is NOT related to unfounded speculation of a Jesus bloodline from Mary Magdalene. (For the record, I personally think that Jesus didn't father any biological children due to a vow of celibacy because of his belief that marriage would cease to exist in the Kingdom of God on Earth, and his alleged promotion of eunuchs as role models.)

Bottom line: Please avoid engaging in unprovoked and absurd personal attacks against contributors to the Ebionites article. --Loremaster (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

FYI: You'll be happy to know that the mention of ″relatives of Jesus″ (which could be misinterpreted as promoting the hypothesis of Jesus bloodline from Mary Magdalene) has now been deleted from the Ebionites article. --Loremaster (talk) 09:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Robert Eisenman

Fringe. His works on The Dead Sea Scrolls are rightfully rejected. He is a Muslim by faith. Octavius88 (talk) 07:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I hope you are not suggesting that someone's Muslim faith automatically prevents him or her from doing good scholarship on Christianity... That being said, although I'm not a fan of Robert Eisenman's works, we cannot deny or suppress the fact that he is among the few modern scholars who have written on the subject of Ebionites. Furthermore, we do not discuss the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Ebionites article.

--Loremaster (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)