Talk:Montanism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Portal:Christianity
 Christianity Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Charismatic Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Pentecostalism, the Charismatic movement and its relatives and offshoots on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)


Contents

[edit] ATTENTION

Per this request...STOP IT! Batman2005 00:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

That link no longer works, as WP:AN has been archived. See here instead. Also, more discussion on this issue can be found here. AnnH ♫ 08:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed

Below excerped removed -belongs on Wikisource, or edited down to the points. -==SV 18:52, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

An effort having been made to convert Marcella to Montanism, Jerome here summarizes for her its leading doctrines, which he contrasts with those of the Church. Written at Rome in AD 385

1. As regards the passages brought together from the gospel of John with which a certain votary of Montanus has assailed you, passages in which our Saviour promises that He will go to the Father, and that He will send the Paraclete -- as regards these, the Acts of the Apostles inform us both for what time the promises were made, and at what time they were actually fulfilled. Ten days had elapsed, we are told, from the Lord's ascension and fifty from His resurrection, when the Holy Spirit came down, and the tongues of the believers were cloven, so that each spoke every language. Then it was that, when certain persons of those who as yet believed not declared that the disciples were drunk with new wine, Peter standing in the midst of the apostles, and of all the concourse said: "Ye men of Judaea and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you and hearken to my words: for these are not drunken as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. But this is that which was spoken of by the prophet Joel. And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: and on my servants, and on my handmaidens will pour out ... of my spirit."
2. If, then, the apostle Peter, upon whom the Lord has founded the Church, has expressly said that the prophecy and promise of the Lord were then and there fulfilled, how can we claim another fulfilment for ourselves? if the Montanists reply that Philip's four daughters prophesied at a later date, and that a prophet is mentioned named Agabus, and that in the partition of the spirit, prophets are spoken of as well as apostles, teachers and others, and that Paul himself prophesied many things concerning heresies still future, and the end of the world; we tell them that we do not so much reject prophecy--for this is attested by the passion of the Lord--as refuse to receive prophets whose utterances fail to accord with the Scriptures old and new.
3. In the first place we differ from the Montanists regarding the rule of faith. We distinguish the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as three persons, but unite them as one substance. They, on the other hand, following the doctrine of Sabellius, force the Trinity into the narrow limits of a single personality. We, while we do not encourage them, yet allow second marriages, since Paul bids the younger widows to marry. They suppose a repetition of marriage a sin so awful that he who has committed it is to be regarded as an adulterer. We, according to the apostolic tradition (in which the whole world is at one with us), fast through one Lent yearly; whereas they keep three in the year as though three saviours had suffered. I do not mean, of course, that it is unlawful to fast at other times through the year--always excepting Pentecost -- only that while in Lent it is a duty of obligation, at other seasons it is a matter of choice. With us, again, the bishops occupy the place of the apostles, but with them a bishop ranks not first but third. For while they put first the patriarchs of Pepusa in Phrygia, and place next to these the ministers called stewards, the bishops are relegated to the third or almost the lowest rank. No doubt their object is to make their religion more pretentious by putting that last which we put first. Again they close the doors of the Church to almost every fault, whilst we read daily, "I desire the repentance of a sinner rather than his death," and "Shall they fall and not arise, saith the Lord," and once more "Return ye backsliding children and I will heal your backslidings." Their strictness does not prevent them from themselves committing grave sins, far from it; but there is this difference between us and them, that, whereas they in their self-righteousness blush to confess their faults, we do penance for ours, and so more readily gain pardon for them.
4. I pass over their sacraments of sin, made up as they are said to be, of sucking children subjected to a triumphant martyrdom. I prefer, I say, not to credit these; accusations of blood-shedding may well be false. But I must confute the open blasphemy of men who say that God first determined in the Old Testament to save the world by Moses and the prophets, but that finding Himself unable to fulfil His purpose He took to Himself a body of the Virgin, and preaching' under the form of the Son in Christ, underwent death for our salvation. Moreover that, when by these two steps He was unable to save the world, He last of all descended by the Holy Spirit upon Montanus and those demented women Prisca and Maximilia; and that thus the mutilated and emasculate Montanus possessed a fulness of knowledge such as was never claimed by Paul; for he was content to say, "We know in part, and we prophesy in part," and again, "Now we see through a glass darkly."
These are statements which require no refutation. To expose the infidelity of the Montanists is to triumph over it. Nor is it necessary that in so short a letter as this I should overthrow the several absurdities which they bring forward. You are well acquainted with the Scriptures; and, as I take it, you have written, not because you have been disturbed by their cavils, but only to learn my opinion about them.[1]

[edit] Power

The linked word power in this article went to a disambiguation page. I am not sure of the meaning of the word in this article, so I have removed the link. Someone who knows may wish to replace the link and make it direct to an appropriate page. Example: [[Power (sociology)|power]] -SCEhardt 18:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pointless edit war

This has got to be the dumbest edit warring I have ever seen on wikipedia. Whether or not the article can specify that the date was AD. You are obviously quite determined to keep the war up in lieu of leaving the status quo and discussing it out first. I saw your note on my talk page, but perhaps you did not see my reply. It was in the next edit summary where I said: "I don't see why AD cannot be used to clarify for user-friendliness' sake, not everyone is as smart or perceptive as you are"... Yes, it may be "redundant" as you put it... but it is still normal and conventional to use it, for ease on the reader, to specify on the first usage, instead of leaving it blank and making the reader figure it out. Yes, you're right, a smart or clever or educated reader should be able to figure out that, if it is a Christian-like sect, it will be AD and not BC... But, you would be amazed at how many people don't know that much, and actually come here to learn something... I say, keep it in just for clarity sake, there is nothing in the guidelines preventing its first use, in fact it is recommended. Now, why exactly are you so dead-set against having any AD in the article whatsoever, to the point of five reverts? Is there some other reason you want to cut it out that you're not telling us? Does it really bother you that much? Surely, you have figured out that continually reverting only leads to more back-and forth reverting, when this is something that should be discussed here instead, and not on my talk page... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

1st: edit comments are not the way to discuss a matter.
2nd: if you revert to your version, it is not ending the "dumbest edit war on wikipedia".
3rd: you reverted without discussing.
4th: if something is redundant it must be removed. AD is redundant. The convention (check other pages) is to have it removed. Uneducated people will be educated by reading that no AD/BC reference means AD (uneducated people do not write 2006 AD when they refere to current year, do they?)
5th: having different conventions for different pages bothers me alot. Since there is no need for a specification, why adding it?
Next time, first discuss, later revert.--Panairjdde 22:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
The would has quite a collection of second certuries. AD indicates which calender is being used. Aside from that point 2nd centery can refure to VE or BVE is worth considering. An extra couple of letters costs nothing so we might as well use them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geni (talk • contribs).
Wrong. 2nd century (follow the link) always refer to 2nd century AD, never to 2nd century BC. Look at manual of style, Eras section.--Panairjdde 20:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I concur with Geni's point, which is actually not wrong, but quite correct: There ARE lots of calendars, it certainly doesn't hurt to specify AD or BC or AH or whatever, plus it's normal and customary to do so, as it always has been. The MOS says is that it is accepted and allowed, and should not be made such a huge stink over minor things like this. Thanks for your contributions to this article. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
You miss two points: first, you linked 2nd century, so AD/BC is not necessary. Second, in case nothing is written, AD is meant. As per manual of style, which say AD is permitted, but should be not present.--Panairjdde 20:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
MOS is not binding.Geni 00:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe you don't have anything better to do than keep up the edit warring over something this trivial. I advise you to wait until you have a consensus to make an exception to the MOS which says it can be used in the first instance. I am of the opinion that when you're talking about the second century AD, it helps to specify, because it isn't that far off in time from the second century BC. THis must be really important to you. But its really a radical change from the way this article has always been, to decide that from now on everyone has to figure out from the context whether second century means AD or BC. Now its a little different for "third century" and later, because they are farther apart and less likely to be confused. Specifying second century is either AD or BC is only a common courtesy o the reader. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all I notice you wake up and answer me only if I revert your edit. My congratulations with your fairness. Do you think I'll need to revert again to get an answer to this comment? Futhermore, I see you did not answer my points; thank you again for your fairness.
  1. "From now on everyone has to figure out from the context whether second century means AD or BC" is not a "change from the way this article has always been", is the way most (I am not saying all because I cannot check them all) articles are written.
  2. All of the centuries and years in the article are AD, right? Can you say that there is any year or century BC? If not, it is redundant.
  3. The article is about a christian movement, so it must be AD. anyone not understandig this needs also an explanation of what "christian" means.
  4. 2nd century is linked. if anyone hase the problem of unerstanding if it is AD of BC (but why should it be BC if it is a christian movement and is not written BC?) a click on the link will work.
  5. note also that my position is backed by Wikipedia Manual of Style (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Eras): Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Anno Domini/Common Era,...
I'll wait for your answer. I hope it will not take a revert to get it.--Panairjdde 21:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


Actually, it is debateable whether or not they were a truly "Christian" movement. But that's beside the point. I don't follow your point about "most" articles, but when you're talking about the "first century" or "second century" it's much more usual to use AD or BC, because the potential for confusion is much greater. Of course in many cases, including this one, an astute reader will be able to figure it out. But it is still the normal custom to use AD for the first two centuries anyway, at least for the first use. And contradicting what you just said, yes, leaving it out IS a change from the way this article's always been. As for the MOS, please read the rest of the section in its entirety. AD is acceptable, it was here already, we are talking about a time not that distant from 100 BC, it helps to clarify that we mean AD, repetitive edit warring to do away with an acceptable choice that was here already is not taken kindly, etc. etc. Also if you are curious about what "most articles" do withthe Second century AD, just take a look at a few of these (and no going changing them all, just because you have a different understanding of the MOS): look here ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Out of the first ten articles which link to 2nd century and do not refer to BC years, seven do not use AD/BC at all (Clitoris, Codex, Blood libel, Bestiary, Bodhisattva, Apostles' Creed, Aelianus Tacticus), three used only AD (Celts and human sacrifice, Batavians, Alexander of Aphrodisias). It looks like your position (when you're talking about the "first century" or "second century" it's much more usual to use AD or BC, or it is still the normal custom to use AD for the first two centuries anyway) is minority.
Your last standing point is that the use of AD, in general, is acceptable: note I never commented on this, since use AD/BC in my edits, not BCE/BC or whatever. I am simply againts redundancy. And your usage of AD is redundant.
Last, note that you started reverting my edit in a "repetitive", without answering my comments on your talk page, after I stopped reverting, and that after a whole day you answerd my post only after my revert, and this "is not taken kindly, etc. etc."
--Panairjdde 21:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I did answer your comments. But there are many more important things than this I could be spending time on right now, both on Wikipedia and in my real life. It seems an awful lot like an ultimatum when you tell me I must respond within twelve hours and refute a list of enumerated points one by one, or you're going to revert. I find most people are a little more patient than that. I suggest that since this is a one to one impass and nobody else has weighed in, that we invite some more regular editors of this article to express their views on whether the AD is helpful or redundant. I have been working on this article for some time in my spare time and I know others have as well. Why don't we give it a few days and if more of the past contributors here have expressed a consensus in agreement with your position, I will let it slide. It's really not that important to the article, but its just the courtesy of making the article "user friendly" and no more challenging than it needs to be. Having AD just helps the casual reader get the whole thing in focus, even if it should be obvious if he really thought hard about it. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
No you did not answer. And above all, you claim to have no time to answer me, but have plenty of time to revert the edit. If you had took time to answer me, instead of simply reverting, all of this could not have happened.
The funny thing is that you make claims, I show you they are wrong, and you ask me to wait for some other editor to come. But, youfound time to revert my edit. This is your "patience"?. Reverted.--Panairjdde 23:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pointless edit war 2

From Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard:

Read it [Manual of Style] more clearly. AD is acceptable. It is also traditional practice. And the MOS makes a point of saying that crusading across the wiki invading articles and messing with it is seriously frowned upon, because it starts edit wars, as we are now seeing everywhere. Even on the Montanism page where this all started, consensus is to keep the AD. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  1. I agree it is acceptable, but it is not mandatory, and MOS says usually it should not be used. So you should give a good reason to insert it.
  2. I do not agree it is "traditional practice": could you please explain this better?
  3. The fact that my edits are "crusading across the wiki invading articles and messing with" them is your interpretation. As far as I am applying MOS or other Wikipedia rules, I am not crusading.
  4. As regards consensus, you should think that consensus can not go against WP rules. If you have a good reason to put it in, amending the position explained in MOS, it is fine, but you should provide this reason. Furthemore, even if you gather consensus on this article, neither you, nor Crculver have the right to revert all of my edits before showing this consensus for all of those articles. Paul of Tarsus included.

--Panairjdde 23:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If you go across tons of articles making a change according to what you think the style standards mean, without talking about it with the community first, that raises suspicion. Making changes en masse to articles without community support is frowned upon, even if they are justifiable edits. Talk it over first, and if you get support, someone could probably just write a bot for you to take care of this. In the meantime, though, being a loner isn't going to win you any friends. CRCulver 00:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
No, CRCluver. There is a think called "be bold" on this WP. I am not obliged to ask for your permission to make edits, even more when those edits are done for compliance with the Manual of Style. It raises more suspicion to revert unilaterally calling my edits "vandalism". And if the friends I could win are all like you, it is better to be alone. I was simply doing my cleanup routine; whenever I get some problems, I discuss them in that article talk page or within the reverter talkpage (even if with CS was more difficult, since he has no time to answer me), but I always kept on doing the routine on other articles, because noone was against the changes in themselves, but only on their particular application to their articles. Only you unilaterally reverted all of my edits claiming they were vandalism. --Panairjdde 01:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I was alerted to this dispute and want to comment:

  • I agree with Panairjdde that in this case "AD" is not needed and might be called redundant.
  • However, he is mistaken if he says (in the 1st section) that redundant things need to be removed. There is no such WP policy. Redundancy sometimes increases readibility.
  • I agree with Codex that this revert war is really silly. Both sides share the blame and it's hard to decide which one should have stopped reverting back and forth.
  • I don't know whether P. has problems with the AD style (he seems to say he has not) and I have myself removed dating styles to avoid battles about it. But to do so aggresively is out of place, even more so when doing so on many pages simultaneously.

Please all be reasonable and reach and agreement. Str1977 (smile back) 09:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

If redundant ADs are not to be removed, why Manual of Style suggests not to use AD "normally"? If an article deals with a person born in 9 and all the years/centuries are after Christ's birth, why you need to put AD?
It happened another time that this kind of edit was reverted, but in that case people explained their POVs, and we ended with a compromise (AD stayed, if I recall correctly). The major point, here, is that CS kept on claiming he has not time to answer my requests and point here and in his talk page, but he had plenty of time to immediately revert my edits to the article. I truly believe this "sillyness" is due mostly to this behaviour of his.
As regards editing "many pages simultaneously", note I have been doing this for a long time:
Only with CS I had such a problem. And if you look at his talk page, you will understand why. He has quarrelledwith many, pushing for the introduction of AD recklessly. Maybe it is a religious issue on his side.
As regards me, I'd like to see consistency and efficiency in WP articles. You do not write that the last Football World Cup is being held in AD 2006, because it is redundant. Why should you write that Montanism is a Christian movement of the 2nd century AD?--Panairjdde 11:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah but the last time someone tried being bold on this issue it resulted in a protracted edit war and an arbcom case. I don't don't think we want that again.Geni 01:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I do not understand this. What are you referring to? If (maybe, I am guessing) you are referring to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk (I just discovered it and not read it completely, yet) I seems this was an editor who rejected the use of BCE/CE and unilaterally changed BCE to BC. The matter, here is different, since in that case BC and BCE are both appropriate, and the Manual of Style clearly rejects such changes. Here both uses are allowed, but one is preferible, and CS has yet to show why AD is necessary here.--Panairjdde 01:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
As a further note, you seem to miss also the consensus for reverting some of my edits. See here and here. You also inserted destroyed an article consistency, adding both AD and CE (and this is vandalism), here --Panairjdde 01:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC). Edited: Panairjdde 19:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Reverting your edits is not vandalism. But ignoring all pleas from at least 4 different admins, you have now resumed your edit wars across numerous articles. Your edits removing AD will be reverted on sight until you resume discussion. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
What does it mean "Reverting your edits is not vandalism"? You are the one who does not look for a compromise/consensus, since you just revert.--Panairjdde 19:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
FOUR ADMINS have now pleaded with you to stop this campaign in the most reasonable terms. But you think you single-handedly know better than anyone else You have got to be the most hard headed user to get along with I have ever seen in 1 1/2 years as a wikipedian. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
NAME THEM. Who, qualifying as admin, told me to stop? Furthermore, ASKING TO STOP AND THEN IGNORING THE MATTER IS ACTUALLY BACKING A POSITION. And stop writing in capitals, hard headed Mr ፈቃደ.--Panairjdde 19:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I have yet to see any admin endorse the practice of trawling across numerous articles and stripping them of AD when MOS says that is a valid choice. It is not only against the spirit of the MOS, but against the very letter, as it even gives the example of going around articles replacing "color" with "colour" or vice versa when both are acceptable choices. It is exactly the same thing. AD is expressly allowed, if people want to write AD in an article, they're gonna, and you may as well accept that. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
NO! It is different. Changing "colour" into "color" is not allowed because both forms are accepted. The difference here is that "AD" in front of years is tolerated. You are making confusion with BCE/BC and CE/AD, these are both accepted. Seems like you missed the point, I'll copy it here. Taken from Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Eras:
Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article. Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Anno Domini/Common Era, but when events span the start of the Anno Domini/Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it). For example, 1 BC–AD 1 or 1 BCE–1 CE.
[...]
When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to English spelling as opposed to American spelling it would be acceptable to change from American spelling to English spelling if the article concerned an English subject. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article is colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles as both are acceptable.
Now, the relevant part here is not Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, because it refers to the possibility to use both Common Era and Anno Domini era names, and I am not changing ADs into CEs. The relevant part of MOS we are dealing with is Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Anno Domini/Common Era. "Normally" wants some good reason not to be applied: it means that if you have a good reason to put AD, then you can add it, but normally you must not put it there. For example, when your article deals with both AD and BC years and you have been writing until now of BC years, it is tolerable that you add AD to the first AD year to stress out that you changed era. But if your whole article is about years/centuries of the AD/CE eras, you must not put AD in front of the years.
What of all this you do not understand/agree with?--Panairjdde 21:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The part I particularly DO understand, but maybe you don't, was this part you just quoted: (please read carefully):

Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article is colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles as both are acceptable.

--ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Codex Sinaiticus, it is a bad behaviour not to read other's comments before answering. It just happens I already answered to this position, in the post just above yours. I'll copy it here, hoping you really want to settle this matter, and not losing time.:
Changing "colour" into "color" is not allowed because both forms are accepted. The difference here is that "AD" in front of years is tolerated. You are making confusion with BCE/BC and CE/AD, these are both accepted.
[copy from MOS]
Now, the relevant part here is not Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, because it refers to the possibility to use both Common Era and Anno Domini era names, and I am not changing ADs into CEs. The relevant part of MOS we are dealing with is Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Anno Domini/Common Era. "Normally" wants some good reason not to be applied: it means that if you have a good reason to put AD, then you can add it, but normally you must not put it there. For example, when your article deals with both AD and BC years and you have been writing until now of BC years, it is tolerable that you add AD to the first AD year to stress out that you changed era. But if your whole article is about years/centuries of the AD/CE eras, you must not put AD in front of the years.
Do you understand, now?--Panairjdde 23:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Panairjdde,
even if it is not AD vs. BC, it is still revert warring over a dating style. You may have good arguments for the change, but revert warring it still is.
You are still mistaken, when you claim that one "must not" put AD. The truth is that you needn't to put it there and there might be a good argument for removing them if they are not needed, but to say that they have to be removed is simply wrong. Str1977 (smile back) 00:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
"The truth is that you needn't to put it there and and there might be a good argument for removing them if they are not needed, but to say that they have to be removed is simply wrong": You are wrong. It is not a matter of good arguments to remove them, it is a matter of good arguments to put them in, since the MOS states that normally there should not be any. If normally something should not be there, this means that you need to show why you are ignoring the rule, don't you? The burden on proof is on those calling for an exception, not for those conforming to the standard format.--Panairjdde 00:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, P., for agreeing with me. I just said that your claim that AD must not (=is not allowed to) be there is mistaken. And you are mistaken about the burden of proof. The burden of proof always lies with the one trying to make a change. Hugh! Str1977 (smile back) 00:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You are (again) wrong. I have a good reason to remove it: it goes against the MOS. Now, if someone wants to keep it, he must create a good reason for (and noone have yet to produce it). The AD should not stay there: why are you claiming it should?--Panairjdde 00:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Both of you, stop it please. This is ridiculous. If the MOS is unclear about this matter (and it's my opinion that it is for dates near year zero), I would suggest starting a discussion there and come to a consensus across all articles so this war doesn't have to repeat itself all over the place. Until then, stop reverting each other and just leave it be. Both forms are perfectly acceptable. Fagstein 04:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Fagstein, note I already put up a discussion on MOS, but, until now, no one seems interested. What if no one answers?--Panairjdde 10:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me clarify that I'm not one of "both of you", as I have no part in this revert war. P., "why am (I) claiming it should"? You don't get it, do you? I am not claiming such a thing. All in all, I agree with your substantial points. However, I don't agree with aggressive reverting of such a trifle and with your appropriation of WP policy. As Fagstein wrote, "Both forms are perfectly acceptable". There is no policy demanding the removal of AD. Hugh! Str1977 (smile back) 08:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Would you b so kind to take a littel of your time and copy here the part of MOS that says that having or having not AD is "both acceptable"? And what does it mean "with your appropriation of WP policy", that your interpretation of WP policy is correct, while mine is "appropriation"?
Againg, is it possible to know even a single reason why AD should stay? And if everyone here wants it go away, why all this fuss when I removed it?--Panairjdde 10:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I have posted my interpretation for this article on the MoS discussion page. I hope it helps; hopefully another participant in that manual will lend their advice too. Neonumbers 10:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

P., I didn't make any fuss about the removal or about the reinsertion. I couldn't care less. Your point is reasonable, but your interpretation of WP policy is not. There is no rule demanding that redundant ADs should be removed. Period. And or course, I cannot quote a rule that doesn't exist. Neither can you. You quote the existing rule and then wrongfully infere that all redundant ADs "must" be removed. Str1977 (smile back) 12:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

____Actually, I can show you the rule demanding removal: "Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Anno Domini/Common Era" means that normally AD should not be there, and if there is no reason to call an exception, then it should be removed. What is the point to have something that says so, if everyone can put Ad wherever he wants?--Panairjdde 14:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
"Should" does not equal "must". Whether AD is added or not is up to the editors' discretion. It is a matter of judgement. And there your arguments come into play. So please stop telling everyone that your way is the only way. It might be the reasonable way but there is room for disagreement. You don't have to convince me, but those objecting on the various pages (and if they refuse to discuss, you may revert up to 3 times etc. etc.) But please stop to lecture everybody that your way is obligatory. Str1977 (smile back) 14:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Really? I'll rewrite the text here, please read it once again:
Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Anno Domini/Common Era, but when events span the start of the Anno Domini/Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it). For example, [[1 BC]]–[[1|AD 1]] or [[1 BCE]]–[[1|1 CE]].
and ask you if this does mean "we suggest this, but do whatever you want" or "you must never you it, but (=except) when a particular case occours"?--Panairjdde 15:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh my, you're making it hard for everyone.
It means quite clearly: Normally you should use plain numbers (without AD) unless there are good reasons to use AD. And these good reasons are sometimes contentious. As I said, I sympathise with your point, though you make it difficult for all. So, please reach an agreement with those opposing your change. Hugh, I have spoken! Str1977 (smile back) 15:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
And that's what I've always said! If there are no good reasons to put it, it can be removed. So, if I remove "redundant AD" from an article, the burthen of prooving that AD was necessary is on those who want to reinsert it! This means that if I remove "redundant AD" from an article, Mr. Codex Sinaiticus or Mr. Crculver can not revert only on the basis that they like it, but explain, article by article why AD is needed there! This is exactly my point.--Panairjdde 17:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
They definitely should explain their edits but, no, the burden of proof is neither with them nor with you. Your opponents are free to revert you again and again, save for the 3RR rule, as per WP:OWN. You all will just have to reach an agreement if this back and forth is not going to continue. If you can't do that, there are ways od dispute resolution. So get your act together (all of you) or go down that road. Final Hugh! Str1977 (smile back) 13:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, understood. I shall no longer remove redundant ADs from articles. I shall do more, in my new contributions, I shall add AD in front of every year, so that any reader will understand for sure that "In 2006, the results improved" actually means "In AD 2006, the results improved", and not 2006 copies of a kind. Of course, nobody will be allowed to remove the ADs.--Panairjdde 08:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Please read WP:POINT and WP:DICK. Thank you. Fagstein 18:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Found new reference

I found a new reference that will settle this matter, I think. It is again the Manual of Style, but a different section. Infact, we are dealing with an issue about years and centuries, rather than eras, so let's head towards Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Years, decades, and centuries. Here all of the examples miss the "AD/CE" next to years, decades and centuries. This means AD should be removed, because it goes against the MoS. If nobody is against, I will restart my editings.--Panairjdde 18:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Give it a week please, so people have a chance to review. We don't want to start another edit war here. Fagstein 18:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
So. Almost two weeks passed. I think people interested reviewed the matter.--151.47.119.2 00:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I've removed the "AD" from the article. (I left a note on the talk page of the user who reverted your edit too, sorry for that). Fagstein 05:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
The Manual of Style for dates and numbers is not ambiguous in this matter. Some dates need to be explicitly mentioned to be AD/BC (CE/BCE) if they are from the early part of the first millenium. Ryūlóng 06:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Can you cite them?--151.44.185.78 23:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I can't find any of this either. The only thing it says is that dates spanning the crossover between 1 BC and 1 AD should have them inside. There's nothing saying that dates from 1-1000 AD should include "AD", and in fact examples given in that range don't have that. Until that's changed on the style guide page, I'm going to leave "AD" off the article. Fagstein 05:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Gnostic" reading of John

"The divisive movement was partly inspired by a gnostic reading of the Gospel of John— "I will send you the advocate [paraclete], the spirit of truth" (Heine 1987, 1989; Groh 1985);"

I need help reconciling this with my understanding of Gnosticism (I am no official expert but am in Grad studies for the Nag Hammadi texts). How exactly is this a "gnostic" reading of the Gospel of John? It is my understanding that plenty of groups used similar interpretations of this passage, including the Prophet Mohammed(!). In fact, this interpretation isn't Gnostic in either a contemporary understanding or in a patristic understanding of Gnosticism - does it focus on a matter-spirit dualism? does it affirm the creator as ignorant? does it appear esoteric? did Montanus reserve his sect for an elite? Gnosticism affirms divinity in all things - does the Montanist understanding affirm people as being divine, or are people, like Montanus, simply being "used" as a channel? I don't see how this interpretation can be said to be 'gnostic' at all - what is 'gnostic' about it?

Do Heine and Groh identify this reading as 'gnostic'? 'Gnostic' is too often used simply as a slanderous umbrella term for 'heresy.' I contest that it is being used here, in this article, for this purpose. Can anyone make a persuasive argument concerning how this interpretation of this passage is 'gnostic'? Or are we relying on the opinions of Heine and Groh, here?

Isn't the statement that Montanism was 'divisive' a bit POV? It may be divisive if you think the Established Church of the time was the only way to interpret the Christian message, in which case everything not of the Roman Church is 'divisive'. I think Protestants etc would not agree. ThePeg 23:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Addition to "differences" section

I have Added a note commenting on the Quartodecimen nature of the sect. This info comes From Trevett's 1996 book (as noted).

[edit] Irenaeus sentence

I have removed the following rather strange sentence, which followed that about Tertullian:

Irenaeus, who visited Rome during the height of the controversy, in the pontificate of Eleuterus, returned to find Lyons in dissension, and was inspired to write the first great statement of the mainstream Catholic position, Adversus Haereses.

Irenaeus' work does not discuss Montanism at all, but Gnosticism. He lived before Tertullian, not after. If we want to link Irenaeus to Montanism at all, we need something solid here. This mainly seems to be misinformation at the moment. I think I remember reading somewhere that Irenaeus urged moderation in dealing with Montanism, but I don't know of any reference for that. (If you do, of course, do add it in). Roger Pearse 18:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tertullian and Montanism

I just wanted to call into question one line and suggest that it is rather biased:

"The most widely known defender of Montanists was undoubtedly Tertullian, onetime champion of orthodox belief, who believed that the new prophecy was genuine and began to fall out of step with what he began to call "the church of a lot of bishops" (On Modesty)."

Based on my research of Montanism, Tertullian was not a "onetime champion of orthodox belief" but rather a lifelong proponent of such beliefs. His move to Montanism was not one in which he jettisoned orthodox beliefs, but one in which he added to those beliefs. Even after his move to Montanism, he was still looked to by those in Carthage for theological advice. In addition, he never left the catholic church of Carthage, so he could almost be called a "catholic Montanist". He did have issue with some aspects of the catholic church, but as the quote seems to indicate, they were more with the institution than with the theology of that institution. (Csayler)

"Onetime" in this case is simply a journalistic vulgarism for "formerly". --Wetman 08:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unconvinced

I'm getting a bit bored of reading articles which claim that non-orthodox approaches to Christianity meant their followers all became very immoral. Let me guess which authorities claim that the Montanists believed that by being Martyred they could behave in as debauched way as possible? Could it be the orthodox Church who ended up stamping them out, by any chance? The same stuff is said of every group that came up with a different idea to the party line - the Cathars, the early Gnostics, the Brethren of the Free Spirit etc. The problem we have is that all the information we have on these 'heretical' movements is from the point of view of their suppressors. Is it always a coincidence that they spring up when people feel the orthodox way isn't working? There's a fair amount of immorality among the Catholic Church down through history so perhaps we ought to view these charegs with a pinch of salt on occasion! ThePeg 23:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The link Montanism in the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica is dead. Landau7 14:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/o/n/Talk%7EMontanism_8875.html"