Talk:Ebionites/Spiritual Ebionite Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

This page was created to facilitate the RFC on the spiritual ebionite material. The article and talk contents archived here should remain here as directed by the RFC. The talk sections below the article detail the issues involved and how the RFC was resolved. Ovadyah 18:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents

Spiritual Ebionites

{{POV-section}}

Allan Cronshaw is the spiritual leader of the modern Ebionite Restoration Movement which has re-established the spiritual essence of both Judaism and Christianity as manifest in their Ebionite Source. On his web site at http://Ebionite.com [1], he shows the relevance of every historical quote regarding the Ebionites, and demonstrates the validity and spiritual essence of these quotations. Yeshua/Jesus taught that the Kingdom is Within (see http://GateOfEden.com [2]) -- and only those who make their body-vessel into a Living and Consecrated Temple in accordance with the Nazirene Vow, can enter within the Holy of Holies within us, and learn directly from what was called in the writings of Clement, the True Prophet. The Ebionites used the Hebrew and original version of the Gospel of Matthew exclusively, which was known as the Gospel of the Hebrews or Ebionites. In the same way that Yeshua revealed the Sacred Manna (Knowledge) only to his Disciples who had abandoned the ritualized legalism of the Jews and the heathen ways of the Gentiles, and followed the Spiritual Narrow Path of TheWay, Yeshua taught that all Ebionites can become the Messiah, and reign in the Inner Kingdom as he did. And that the Kingdom is within us as Yeshua taught (Luke 17:20-21), is the reason there can never be an End Times or a coming of the Messiah in the way that Jews and Christians believe. What is called gnosis in Greek, is the Sacred Manna that is the Experiential Knowledge of those who follow in the footsteps of Yeshua/Jesus, enter within the Holy of Holies of their Body-Temple, and learn the Mysteries of God from the True Prophet. Yeshua/Jesus taught that the soul evolves to perfection over the course of many lifetimes (see http://ChristianReincarnation.org[3]). In previous lifetimes, Allan Cronshaw lived as Jacob who is called James, the Brother of Yeshua/Jesus (see http://BrotherOfYeshua.com[4]), and Matthew a fourth century Ebionite Elder who assisted in the hiding of seven libraries of scriptures in order to protect them from the Church of Rome (see http://BibleCorruption.com[5]). In the present time Allan has helped many others both restore their knowledge of their past lives, as well as guide them into the Inner Kingdom. As a modern enlightened Ebionite, Allan Cronshaw is widely published across the Internet, and has become a spiritual resource for both Jews and Christians seeking the Spiritual Essence of their respective religions. Allan Cronshaw interacts with a multitude of seekers world wide on his seven forums, Blogs, and many web sites. On his web site http://DivineManna.org , it is demonstrated how the proper use of what Yeshua/Jesus called the Key of Knowlege that both the Jews and Christians threw away, can restore the Kingdom within the sincere Disciple of TheWay. By following these Original Ebionite teachings, true seekers can prove the Truth within themselves -- which is why Yeshua/Jesus called these Sacred Teachings TheWay. Spiritual Ebionites are strict vegetarians, and as stated by the grandsons of Jude, the brother of Jesus, when asked about the Kingdom: "They frankly confessed their royal origin, and their near relation to the Messiah; but they disclaimed any temporal views, and professed that his kingdom, which they devoutly expected, was purely of a spiritual and angelic nature." (see http://ebionite.com/#spiritual_kingdom ). They devoutly expected the Kingdom, because it can only come within the mind and body-Temple (Luke 17:20-21) of those who live a Conscrated Life in TheWay.

Ebionite Restoration Movement -- NPOV'd Abstract

Allan Cronshaw, who claims have lived previously as James the Just, is the leader of the modern Ebionite Restoration Movement which seeks to the follow the Gospel of the Hebrews and Clementine literature on the practices and beliefs of the ancient Ebionites. They accept Jesus as a Messiah.

New Links

The new links added by an anonymous user are to a group more widely known as the Nazirene Essenes. Their founder, Allan Cronshaw, claims to be Jacob who lived as the Brother of Jesus, and lived in the fourth century as an Ebionite Elder named Matthew. Nothing against them, but they seem to fit better under Gnosticism. --Ovadyah 22:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I need to make a small point here, but an important one. If you disagree with the findings of who Allan Cronshaw is or what he represents, that's fine, but make your comments in your own name. It is dishonest to edit someone else's opinions to make your words come out of another persons mouth. Thank you. --Ovadyah 20:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Ebionites are not gnostics. This group certainly is, or some new age mystical facsimile. The creator of the linked pages is a self-described mystic [1] who believes he is a reincarnation of something or other [2]. This has as much to do with Ebionism as vegetarianism. My apologies to the Nazorean Essenes, who are another gnostic group. --Ovadyah 17:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Once again to state the Ebionites were not Gnostic is to disregard all text atributed to them. What do you suspose is the TRUE Prophet Peter spoke of to Clement? The entire Kingdom Yeshua taught of is purely spiritual in nature. If there was any dought the dead sea scrolls and other such findings should cause a seeker to stop and think.

Was Yeshua and the Ebionites onto someting? If so then maybe the vision of the Mystic holds true. Modern science has proven an inter connectiveness beyond all speculation. Our minds our Holograms interpeting a holographic universe. This universe while being made up of 12 dementions of which the organic mind can hardly grasp an understanding of 3. While science now speculates 10 dementions they may some day fathom the other two.

We are something like a radio reciver stuck on one station from the 50's and laugh to scorn anyone that sugest if you change your dial/mind, you will hear something else. The reality of the complete Gnostic is that of someone that has excaped Platos cave and can not begain to relate to others the nature of reality to thoes still looking at shadows on a wall thinking that is all there is.

I reverted the article to the previous version by Michael C Price. All the anonymous IPs following this have been warned repeatedly by Wiki about acts of vandalism. This sometimes malicious self-serving POV is one more example. Ovadyah 21:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

This page is about Ebionites, not new age Yeshua. There is already a link to this author on the Nazarene page. Please leave it there. Ovadyah 04:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Spiritual Ebionites

A dispute of neutrality should not be summarily deleted, so I created a new section to facilitate discussion. Make your arguments here before you make changes to the article. My initial impression is that this is different enough in content to have it's own page, perhaps with a brief reference here. --Ovadyah 20:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The concepts expressed under the heading spiritual Ebionites may be different then the POV's that dominate this artical but not from the historical accounts of Ebionites.NazireneMystic 20:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I would generally agree that Spiritual Ebionites are unlike anything else that has otherwise been presented, and perhaps they should have their own page. As was stated regarding the Spiritual Ebionites of the past, they were "…rejected from one religion as apostates, and from the other as heretics" (Gibbon: Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire, v.1, p.416). I am in agreement that this description is similarly true of Spiritual Ebionites of the present. Spiritual Ebionites do not belong to a Church of this world, and seek to convert no one, rather state that the source of True Religion is One and the same, just as our God is One. ( http://ebionite.com/ ) Fundamental to the vision of Spiritual Ebionites is that each major religion such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are from the same One Source and that each practitioner has the ability to prove the Truth for themselves by virtue of fulfilling the requirements for seeking the Truth and the Promised Land/Inner Kingdom/Distant Mosque, through living their religious ideals to the highest capacity possible. Further, the goal of religion is that religious practitioners will receive the spiritual bread of life as they seek the Truth that will nourish their mind and fill them with the Spiritual Wisdom and Enlightenment that is beyond the widsom of this world. Spiritual Ebionites contend that it is the corruption of religions by secular authorities that cause man to follow them blindly and to otherwise forget that the true goal of religion is Spiritual and from the same Source. In addition, they contend that such corruptions are necessary due to the workings of the Laws of God for the long-term benefit of the people. As a modern day Spiritual Ebionite I also assert that anyone who calls themselves Ebionite but does not fulfill the requirement to be "in the world and not of it," or in other words, "poor ones" to the ways of this world, does not understand the true spiritual meaning of the word. --Aspirationdivine 22:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Several senior editors worked hard on this article to make it Wikipedia: Neutral point of view and Wikipedia: No original research. The last thing this encyclopedia needs is a religious debate over what constitutes a "true" Ebionite, so here's what I would recommend: 1) the bulk of the content of the Spiritual Ebionites section should be moved to it's own page where it can be more fully developed, 2) a short paragraph that is NPOV and NOR should be written to explain the principles of the group without expounding on them at length. I would expect this paragraph to be modified by Wiki editors to conform to NPOV and NOR standards as was the case for the material on the Ebionite Community. Does this seem reasonable? --Ovadyah 16:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Shalom Ovadyah: The problem is that you make no mention of what you intend on doing with the entry under Modern Ebionites which represents a total denial of everything Ebionite. There is no historical authority that states that the Ebionites did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah -- in fact, just the opposite is true. There are a number of authorities which state that the Ebionites used the Gospel of the Hebrews exclusively -- and that the nature of this Gospel was to secret (Gnostic) to be revealed to the Gentiles. Every authority states that they were vegetarian, totally opposed to animal sacrifice, and the kingdom they sought was "purely spiritual". Historical authorities state that not only did they believe that Jesus became the Messiah, and One with the Inwelling Logos/Son of God, by virtue of the fact that he fulfilled the Law within himself -- rather than outwardly in ritual and tradtion in the manner of the Jews. These same authorities also state that EVERY Ebionite (or person) who in like manner fulfills the Law within himself, is able to become Messiah/Christ. That the Ebionites are not properly represented in the main article is one thing -- but that they are totally misrepresented under the entry of Modern Ebionites, is totally objectionable. And this is important because the Essenes became Ebionites, and both groups represent the spiritual essence of Judaism and Christianity. And lastly, to state that Christianity is not biblical, merely demonstrates a profound ignorance of Jewish Mysticism which in and of itself is Gnostic. As Peter states in the Homilies of Clement which is said to be Ebionite, there is no difference between the Torah and the New Testament, once the allegorical symbols are understood from a spiritual perspective. By --Nazirene 19:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Nazirene--Nazirene 19:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't allow myself to be drawn into the specifics of a religious discussion here. It seems to me there are two ways to approach the problem: 1) delete all mention of modern Ebionites whether spiritual or otherwise, or 2) let each group provide a consise definition of modern Ebionite beliefs and practices as they see them. Ideally, there should be some contribution from editors who have at least indirect knowledge of these groups but are not members. It's not uncommon for one religious sect to totally object to the existence of another. That should not become Wikipedia's problem.

With respect to the historical Ebionite information, there are no "historical authorities" other than quotes from the early Church Fathers. It is by no means proven that the Clementine Homilies or Recognitions are the product of Ebionites, at least in their final form. Nor is it certain that the so-called Gospel of the Ebionites is really Ebionite. That name was given to it by modern scholars. Likewise, it is a complete conjecture that the Essenes became Ebionites. What I object to the most are your assertions that the historical Ebionites lived differently than other Torah-observant Jews of the time when the polemical commentary of the Church Fathers cited in this article indicates otherwise. If you can cite primary sources to make your case, that are known to be about Ebionites, rather than make conjectures that would be helpful. --Ovadyah 20:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Shalom Ovadyah: By your way of reasoning, the whole of the Ebionite article is fatally flawed and cannot exist. You state: "there are no 'historical authorities' other than quotes from the early Church Fathers" -- yet, what is documented in both that entry under Spiritual Ebionites as well as http://Ebionite.com not only confirms what is in the main part of the article, but draws all the loose ends together. The Ebionites asserted that Yeshua/Jesus "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). Which is exactly what Jesus taught -- i.e., that anyone who fulfills the Law within themselves will become the Messiah, or of an Anointed mind. Because they sought a purely Spiritual Kingdom within themselves -- which exists equally within each of us ( http://GateOfEden.com ). And it was this rejection of the Jewish ritualized Torah observance, as well as the Christian paganism, that caused them to be “…rejected from one religion as apostates, and from the other as heretics” (Gibbon: Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire, v.1, p.416). And that the Kingdom is within us as stated at Luke 17:20-21, is confirmed in the position of the Ebionites that Jesus was in “supernatural union of a man and God... In their eyes, Jesus of Nazareth was a mere mortal, the legitimate son of Joseph and Mary: but he was the best and wisest of the human race, selected as the worthy instrument to restore upon earth the worship of the true and supreme Deity. When he was baptized in the Jordan, the Christ, the first of the aeons, the Son of God himself, descended on Jesus in the form of a dove, to inhabit his mind, and direct his actions during the allotted period of his ministry” (Gibbon; The Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire, V.4, P.366). And this is in support of what is written in the main article which confirms why Jesus rejected all rabbis or teachers of this world, because the Ebionite Disciple was to learn from the indwelling Logos which in the Clementine writings is portrayed as the True Prophet. In chapter 59, under the heading of The True Prophet, Clement quotes Peter and writes: “But I would not have you think, that in saying this I take away the power of judging concerning things; but I give counsel that no one walk through devious places, and rush into errors without end. And therefore I advise not only wise men, but indeed all men who have a desire of knowing what is advantageous to them, that they seek after the true Prophet; for it is He alone who knoweth all things, and who knoweth what and how every man is seeking. For He is within the mind of every one of us, but in those who have no desire of the knowledge of God and His righteousness, He is inoperative; but He works in those who seek after that which is profitable to their souls, and kindles in them the light of knowledge. Wherefore seek Him first of all; and if you do not find Him, expect not that you shall learn anything from any other. But He is soon found by those who diligently seek Him through love of the truth, and whose souls are not taken possession of by wickedness. For He is present with those who desire Him in the innocence of their spirits, who bear patiently, and draw sighs from the bottom of their hearts through love of the truth; but He deserts malevolent minds, because as a prophet He knows the thoughts of every one. And therefore let no one think that he can find Him by his own wisdom, unless, as we have said, he empty his mind of all wickedness, and conceive a pure and faithful desire to know Him. For when any one has so prepared himself, He Himself as a prophet, seeing a mind prepared for Him, of His own accord offers Himself to his knowledge”. Those who live the Consecrated Life -- fulfilling the Law within themselves -- become the Anointed (Messiah/Christ), are themselves taught by the Indwelling Logos or True Prophet, and reign in the Inner Kingdom. That the Torah is an allegory, and each of us must become a Living Temple and fulfill the Law within us -- sacrificing our lower animal natures -- and entering within the Holy of Holies within us -- is the reality that is being conveyed to all mankind universally. --Nazirene 05:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)NazireneBold text

Nazirene, Wikipedia talk pages are not used to debate the issues themselves. Here, we just focus on discussing the ARTICLE, not discussing the issue itself. Your furvor is evident, but for the time being, your movement is simply not large enough to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia. You should continue to work hard to win new converts to your way of thinking-- but Wikipedia is not the place to do it. Wikipedia works to describe, not to persuade. --Alecmconroy
I see the RFC is doing it's job. I decided to do a little fact checking, and I looked up your literature cite from Hippolytus. Here is what it really says, http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/hippolytus7.html
CHAP. XXII.--DOCTRINE OF THE EBIONAEANS.
The Ebionaeans, however, acknowledge that the world was made by Him Who is in reality God, but they propound legends concerning the Christ similarly with Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They live conformably to the customs of the Jews, alleging that they are justified. according to the law, and saying that Jesus was justified by fulfilling the law. And therefore it was, (according to the Ebionaeans,) that (the Saviour) was named (the) Christ of God and Jesus, since not one of the rest (of mankind) had observed completely the law. For if even any other had fulfilled the commandments (contained) in the law, he would have been that Christ. And the (Ebionaeans allege) that they themselves also, when in like manner they fulfil (the law), are able to become Christs; for they assert that our Lord Himself was a man in a like sense with all (the rest of the human family).
I read this passage as saying that the Ebionites believed that Jesus was justified by fulfilling the law completely, not by fulfilling the law within himself. When you make primary literature citations, please cite them accurately and completely from neutral sources, rather than lifting material from your website. --Ovadyah 16:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

From RFC

Came here from RFC, I have no connection to any of this, but looking over the discussion, here's my thoughts:

1. The two Neo-Ebionite groups, "Ebionite Jewish Community" and "Spiritual Ebionites", are connected to "Ebionites" in the same way that "Neopagans" are connected to "Pagans". Which is to say, people in the 21st century are NOT Ebionites, they are new groups that were inspired by Ebionites. This page is about the ancient Ebionites, so, this is not the page to cover those two groups-- at most, this page should mention and LINK to some other page that covers the new groups.
2. When I look at the two groups, I have a hard time determining if they are sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. The "Ebionite Jewish Community" is claims to have been around for 20+ years, so that looks good-- but how many members are we talking here? I can't find any major news sources mentioning the group, nor does a search on Shemayah Phillips produce any sites not directly created by the individual or his closest associates. Ebionite.com is even worse-- it seems just like one individual who got himself a blog. Until there's some evidence that it's notable-- evidence like a mention in a major reputable outside source like a newspaper, I don't see any reason it merits mention.
3. Even if evidence that the Ebionite.com group meet notability requirements were to be produced, the text in the Spiritual Ebionites section is totally unacceptable. The text is written in what I call "Sermon Style", not "Summary style"-- a long, rambling, persuasive-style speech. If we WERE to ever have an article on the Ebionite.com material, we would need to write new text that concisely and objectively summarizes the beliefs in a way that is neutral and verifiable.
4. After reading over Ebionite.com, I think it's a fairly safe bet that the information was added to Wikipedia by Allan Cronshaw himself, or one of his close associates. Wikipedia generally frowns upon people adding links to their own websites or adding text discussing themselves (see Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines). Furthermore, it's pretty obvious that this section was added not by neutral, objective users unconnected to the movement, but rather it was added by adherents of Ebionite.com itself, in an effect to promote their own organization and their own religious beliefs. This too is looked down upon. It is natural to want to advertise your own personal beliefs on Wikipedia, but this too is frowned upon, see Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

For these reasons, I'm removing the text describing the two modern ebionite movements from the main page and placing it at Talk:Ebionites/Neo-Ebionite. If you think either movement is sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia, you should produce a citation of said movement being discussed in a reputable new source, like a newspaper, magazine, printed book, or television news program. You should then post that citation on the talk page so that we can discuss whether it meets notability criteria. --Alecmconroy 05:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Shalom Alecmconroy,
How do you think that the only people that could give insite to Ebionites are none-Ebionites? If the news media ever did a store in Ebionites do you realy think they would know what one is? Would Fox News know an Ebionite if they talked to one? As far as the size of a group, how does that give credibility? Would 12 followers be enough? Just wondering. NazireneMystic 06:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
But see, that's just the point. If everyone who runs every newspaper, magazine, and tv show in the world doesn't know what an modern ebonite is, then probably we don't need to know either-- not yet anyway. Wikipedia is not a replacement for the internet, we're here to summarize the major trends in the world and convey the most notable bit of information. The number of followers aren't as important as "the number of people who know about you"-- if nine people crash a plane into a building and suddenly billions of people know about it, it's notable, even if everyone who knows about it disagrees with them. If five billion people WOULD agree with you if only they knew about you, then it's STILL not notable because right now, nobody knows about you. If only 12 people total on all of Earth know about you, then you're not notable enough yet. If only 12 people total follow you, but millions know about you, then you're notable. For most cases, "newsworthy enough to have gotten a mention in a major news article" is a pretty good rule of thumb for whether you're notable enough to merit inclusion.
But don't be discouraged. Lots of very influential groups started out small. It just means your time has not yet come for inclusion in Wikipedia. There's a quote that I say recite in cases like this: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." It's just that, you have to change the world, at least a little, before Wikipedia can be altered to reflect those changes. Changing Wikipedia first-- that doesn't work-- people will just remove your changes. Instead, focus on getting your message out to people, getting media attention, and suddenly, you'll find Wikipedia automatically changed all by itself to mention you. If Jesus had come to me in 32 AD and asked me to write a Wikipedia article on Christianity, I'd have to reluctantly turn him down, and say "I'm sorry, but you're just not notable enough yet".
You're new, but you'll find that Wikipedia is a lousy way to try to persuade or recruit people anyway. Other editors will edit your writing-- chopping it up, deleting parts, adding parts to it. We're required to add criticism-- other views that disagree with you. We have to keep it fair, being careful never to persuade but only to report. People who come to Wikipedia and try to use it as a way to persuade people find it a very frustrating and completely ineffective way to try and reach people. You're much better off posting to other places where you can make your case without other people editing your words-- places like your own blog, or discussion groups.
--Alecmconroy 07:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Shalom Alecmconroy: While I can understand your position, there is an important element to the Ebionites that is now missing. In stating that Jesus was a man who became the Messiah by fulfilling the Law, where Ebionites differ from traditional Christianity is seen in the historical statement that every person who does what Jesus did, will themselves become the Messiah/Christ or Anointed in English. That every man and woman has the potential to learn directly from the Indwelling Logos/Son of God, is a very important understanding in our present time. What it means is that if the three religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) return to this Source, that every person has the potential to go beyond manmade doctrines of belief, and prove the Truth within themselves. This reality is neither understood by the critics of the Ebionites, or the people who are acclaimed as scholars. --Nazirene 12:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, in this case it sounds like you have done some really stupendous original research that has given you some insights that no other scholars have. However, Wikipedia cannot cover that unless you first convince some other scholarly sources. One of Wikipedia's core policies is No Original Research-- it forbids us from using original research unless that research has first been published in reliable sources. You should contact some of the scholars in this field directly so you can alert them to your discoveries. --Alecmconroy 16:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Alec, here's what I have been able to find so far by browsing thru the history. It looks like the first material for Modern Ebionites was added to the article on 12/20/2003 by an anonymous user. A lot of early editing work was done by this user, Wetman, and Loremaster. Loremaster created the section for Modern Ebionites. Shemayah Phillips makes his first appearance on 5/19/2005 to make some factual corrections to the previous material and expand the section. The new material was whittled down and NPOV'd by several editors. I didn't find any questions about notability raised by these editors. On the contrary, the talk section seems to reflect a concensus that modern-day Ebionites are a reality. Hopefully, some of the editors that worked hard on this page will contribute to the discussion. --Ovadyah 19:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Ahh-- well if lots of eyes, sharper than mine, have looked over that portion and felt it fine then by all means, add it back in if you think it belongs. I may have thrown the metaphorical baby out with the bathwater. :) --Alecmconroy 19:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok. I'll restore the section on Modern Ebionites and leave the Spiritual Ebionites material on the talk page. I'll leave it to someone smarter than I am to explain why it belongs in the article. :) --Ovadyah 19:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Shalom Yah and Alecmconroy,

Alecmconroy I see you have changed your point of view regarding Shemayah Phillips's POINT OF VIEW as now being a NONE POINT OF VIEW. have you washed you hands of the matter? Ovadyah, On the artical page there is a section regarding Ebionite writing. There is little actualy quoted in the artical and much that could be quoted. Since most all Ebionite related writings and historical quotes from historians and religous figures of thier time tend to be contrary to the point of view held by Shemayah Phillips would editing the section to include them be ok with you? I.E. would including fragments of Ebionite material be deemed Vandalism by a selfserving POV? How do we know the point of view of Loremaster and Mr.Phillips has is correct?I.E. "On the contrary, the talk section seems to reflect a concensus that modern-day Ebionites are a reality" but are a total denial of what the ebionites of the first through 4th centuries were. NazireneMystic 14:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC) I think an artical on Ebionites should first and foremost present the Historical accounts from thoes that wrote about them at the time Rather then mear short references. Then if anyone claiming to be a Modern Ebionite is noted in the artical that person,people, group should somewhat reflect the matieral in the artical. If They seem different and hold different point of view then the whats spoken of the long gone Ebionites but are allowed a section in the artical anyway then thoes that also call themselves Ebionites AND hold the same views and mindset of the Ebionites of old should be allowed a word or two without being deemed a vandalous POVNazireneMystic 15:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I have been looking through the talk page. I have been looking through the main artical. In the artical there is a section under Ebionite writings and these writings are considered Ebionite matieral by Scholars! Then when people quote these very writings to support the fact the Ebionites were vegetarian the editors are deemed POV'S because they do not support the POV that you think is a modern Ebionite. This is almost unbelievable. By the time im done you would have to pull almost all the writings scholars say are of Ebionite sources off the artical in order to keep your present point of view in only the small matter of diet. Ofcourse to allow quotes from the books scholars say are from Ebionite sources on the main artical it would be clear they were vegetarian and that causes problems with the point of view OdavYah has expressed regaurding the nature of the law Yeshua forfulled since the literal letter of the law calls for killing a lamb at Passover. NazireneMystic 15:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

EARLY in this discussion is was said wiki policy is that no origional research can be used. Since all the writings scholars have said are form Ebionite sources speak of a vegetarian diet and many of the historical critisims from the church regarding the nature of the precived corruption of thier Gospel to support thier vegetarian lifestyle, It is clear that to claim the Ebionite were not vegetarian is using some original research which is against wiki policyNazireneMystic 16:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

To allow an entry stating that the Ebionites did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah, is a total denial of the historical facts of the matter. In fact, it is an abominable lie. Who is in charge of this encyclopedia so I can file a formal complaint in the event I choose to get a court injunction against publishing such an easily provable falsification of the facts! Show be something that disputes that, with respect to Jesus, the Ebionites believed he "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."(Hippolytus, Refut. Omn. Haer. vii. 34) And the fact of the matter is that they believed that anyone who fulfills the Law within themselves, becomes a Messiah/Christ -- i.e., 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." (IBID). --Nazirene 17:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Nazirene-- I withdrew my objection to the Shemayah Phillips material because, as someone who came from Request From Comments, I'm here to help resolve disputes, not to start them. I don't have the same knowledge that the other editors do about this subject. If the Shemayah Phillips is supported by a consensus of people on this page, then I'm not going to be the one to object to it, ya know? I'm a little embarassed-- I just incorrectly thought it was part of what you two were dispute when actually it had nothing to do with the dispute. --Alecmconroy 18:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Shalom Alecmconroy: The total fabrication by Shemayah Phillips which totally ignores all the historical quotations pertaining to the Ebionites IS THE PROBLEM. Shemayah Phillips used to be a Baptist preacher before he rejected Christianity because he deemed it pagan, and embraced Pharisaic Judaism under the guise of calling himself an Ebionite. I have already restored the heading Spiritual Ebionites, and filed a formal complaint with Wikipedia threatening to get an injunction in US District Court. If Shemmayah Phillips wants to promote lies, that is his right. But I have the right to demonstrate the actual historical quotations that prove that Shemayah Phillips is using the Ebionites to promote his hatred of of both Jesus and Christianity.--Nazirene 19:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


Sir: I am Shemayah Phillips. Do you understand the concept of libel? I have never been a Baptist or any other type of Christian minister. I consider this an attack on my reputation. I am not rabbinic, nor is the Ebionite community supported by rabbinic bodies. You accuse me of hating Jesus, etc. Perhaps if you researched what the actual meaning of "messiah" is in its biblical and Jewish context you would have a clearer understanding of waht we actually say. We call Yeshua "a messiah" and "anointed" in a real world way rather than a spiritual way which is not supported. I am in favor of the Wikians handling this matter however they see fit. Our movement does not depend on a mention here, although it has been appreciated nontheless. I did not come here to argue. I first came because I was alerted that an existing paragraph about us was a bit incorrect. One of the incorrect items was this ridiculous accusation that I was a minister. I actually tried to shorten the paragraph. Simply a link to "Modern Ebionites" was fine for me. To write my own review was not what I wanted, and it tends to make one look like an ass. (Take the hint.) So I just wanted to correct a few things for accuracy. And that is what I am doing now---not wanting my name in Wiki lights---but wanting you to cease making untrue accusations. Otherwise, I trust Wiki to do what is best for an accurate, unbiased article, and to simply mention that Evyonut has not ceased as an approach to Judaism is a bonus. I apologize Wiki for having to come here and litter this Talk page with corrections to these silly accusations.--204.116.38.32 03:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Shemayah

Re-insertion of Spiritual Ebonites

NazireneMystic, Do not reinsert the spiritual ebonites section until there is a consensus to do so. Right now, there has not been a consensus among the editors here that the material should be included in the article. By all means, continue to post here on the talk page in an attempt to create such a consensus, but do not simply add the material back into the article yourself.

I've explained why I do not feel that your group is large enough yet to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia. One way to change our minds would be to produce evidence that your group has been mentioned by a major media outlet or scholarly journal. If it hasn't ben mentioned in that way yet, you could contact scholars and reporters directly and suggest that they hear your views and report on them. That would certainly alert a lot of people to your beliefs.

--Alecmconroy 05:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

--- To Alecmconroy: I find it strange that you will hold to differing standards. Everything that Shemayah Phillips maintains is against the historical record. He states that the Ebionites did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah which is opposite to the truth. From a purely parochial Jewish perspective, he states that Christianity is non-biblical. Shemayah Phillips rejects that the Ebionites were vegetarians, that they rejected animal sacrifice, and he even rejects that they used the Gospel of the Hebrews/Ebionites. Shemayah Phillips holds that the whole of the New Testament is a fabrication. Yet, you have endorsed these positions of Mr. Phillips even though there is no historical evidence of their factuality. Shemayah Phillips rejects all of the historical record pertaining to the Ebionites, and recreates them in accord with his personal anti-Christian doctrines of belief. There is nothing in the historical record to support any of Mr. Phillips' positions -- no consensus of historical facts and evidences -- and yet you permit these beliefs of Mr. Phillips which are hostile and contrary to the Ebionites, to be published under their name. And then, when myself and others attempt to set the record straight by demonstrating the actual historical quotes which prove that what Mr. Phillips maintains is an historical lie, you censor us and permit the lie to be published as if it is factual. I just want it to be clear as to what the true issue is. And by the way, NazireneMystic and myself are two different people.--Nazirene 06:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Notability of Spiritual Ebionites

Wiki editors,

I have done a quick search and determined that the Spiritual Ebionites have approximately 150 lengthy and substantial internet pages contained by referencing the following domains (there are probably more that I missed): http://ebionite.com http://nazirene.org http://beingoflight.com http://epistleoflight.com http://brotherofyeshua.com http://brotherofjesus.org http://biblecorruption.com http://TheThreeWords.com http://lettertopresidentbush.tk http://divinestrategery.com http://gateofeden.com http://thetenwords.com http://imystic.org http://gospeloflight.org http://LightOfYeshua.org http://thethreelies.com http://thegnosticway.com. I have detailed search results if they are requested.

These sites consistently are near the top of relevant Google searches, making them high profile amongst internet users with an interest discovering about Ebionites.

The Ebionites also host 8 yahoo forums, including some of the most active in their respective areas. The http://groups.yahoo.com/group/The_Way_of_the_disciple_of_the_Nazirene/ group alone has generated 40,000 posts in the last 4 years and presently has 400 members. The Ebionite Jewish Community that you have permitted to be on the main Ebionite page has only 130 members on their single forum at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evyonim/ and a fraction of the posts of the above group you are not permitting to be represented.

Unless one of the other editors can show a reason as to why a group with one third of the members of just one of Allan's groups should have greater coverage then I suggest that Wiki proportional representation policy be applied and Phillip's section either be removed or Allan's section be allowed by reversing the last revision. The fact that the Spiritual Ebionites are able to back up their positions with quotes from early church fathers adds further weight.Aliothrick 07:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


Aliothrick, Thank you for your comments. Welcome to Wikipedia!
First of all, there are two completely separate questions here. One is whether the "Modern Ebonites" are notable, and the other is whether the "Spiritual Ebonites" are notable. It's best to argue each one by itself, without trying to compare notabilites between the two. When you suggest that "Spiritual Ebonites" are more notable than "Modern Ebonites", I think you're using that point to suggest that both should be included. However, that argument could just as easily be used to show that neither should be included. So, I very much look at them as separate questions-- if you argue MEs are less notable than SEs, that doesn't make it me think SE is notable, it just makes me think MEs might also be non-notable, ya know.
So, let's decide whether SE is notable, and then, if you separately feel that MEs should be removed, you can argue that. I can't argue that with you, of course-- my cursory estimate was that it might not be notable, but obviously, the weight of many prior editors over an extended period of time certainly outweighs my brief look into the subject matter, particularly if there isn't even a dispute over that section's inclusion.
Now, about all the websites you cite. That's some great research you've done there. Good job! But, I want to warn you-- the internet can be tricky when you're trying to assess notability. Identities are hard to establish on the internet, and When you first look at the list of all those sites, it looks very impressive. 17 different websites! 150 different pages. Sure sounds impressive when you here it, and it makes you think there's a rich community of many, many people who are adherents of this group.
However, when you look closely, things aren't quite what they appear. In actuality, 16 of the websites are actually all run by the same 1-2 individuals. Judging by the writing styles, I think it's a safe bet to suspect that they are the same two individuals who are here on wikipedia. So, what at first appears to be a vibrant community of 16 different authors is actually just the work of one very dedication and AMAZINGLY prolific webmaster and one adherent. Since the Yahoo group requires you to be a "member" just to view the messages, we're not looking at 400 "members of the SEs", we're just looking at 400 "visitors who wanted to read their group"-- who knows what portion of those would consider themselves adherents.
Fundamentally, questions of notability usually come back to whether there are reputable secondary sources like newspapers, magazines, scholarly journals, published books, and television coverage. If you don't have those, then you're probably not ready for inclusion in Wikipedia yet. That's not a comment on the validity of your beliefs, that's not a comment on the religious truth of your beliefs-- it's just a comment on what types of information Wikipedia has chosen to cover. Like any encyclopedia, we only have so much time, space, etc, so we have to focus on trying to cover only the most notable issues. Wikipedia exists to summarize reputable seconday sources-- newspapers, magazines, etc. If you don't have those, we don't have enough material to do our job right. Right now, it doesn't look like your group has enough notability to be covered here.
And you shouldn't worry about that. There is an internet, and anyone who wants to read about your group can do so. You don't "need" Wikipedia in order to get your message out and share your beliefs with others. Now that we have the internet, anyone who wants to read about your group can read about it. Not being in Wikipedia in no way implies that you are "wrong" or "incorrect" or anything like that-- it just means that right now, Wikipedia can't do a good job of covering your group, because we don't have enough new sources to do a proper job of it. Besides, you and your website can do a much better job of presenting your beliefs than we Wikipedia editors ever could.
I think you should stop worrying about trying to get in Wikipedia and focus on getting some serious news coverage. With your passion, I bet it would be possible. You're obviously very very passionate, very very knowledgable. When I was 16, I got every local news crew in town to come interview me when a bunch of my friends and I dressed up in costumes to go to the opening of movie, and all it took was one measely phone call. With your guys resourcefulness, I'm sure you could do some amazing things. And once you got ENOUGH media atttention, once you were in a national newspaper, were interviewed on CNN, or something like there, there would be no problem including you in Wikipedia.
--Alecmconroy 09:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Shalom Alecmonroy,

What news coverage does the followers of Mr. phillips have? this seems to be a focus of yours as to notibility, untill I might bring this up and then maybe you will state its not the number of adherants that matter but how many know of you like you stated to me earlier on this talk page. Then you tell Aliothrick that its not the number of people that know of us but that the number of adherents you have after it is shown that quit a few know of us but few follow as you have stated could be notible. The most coverage mr. phillips has is the POV expressed in this artical against all writings atributed to the Ebionites. Do a search on "wikipedia Ebionites" and you will see a few hit to wikipedia were the term is used but after that there are many online references like dictionaries that use the misinformation wikipedia supports as a source for thier definition of Ebionites. The major news source Mr. Phillips has is Wikipedia. I wonder how long the Barnabas writing will remain as an Ebionite writing section after I start quoting from it on the main page? I have asked ealrier if this would be allowed and have not got an answer so unless the ebionite writings will seem as a selfserving POV then I will soon start. Ive been waiting till a certian editor would start to misrepresent the nature of the law Yeshua forfilled because the writings of the Ebionites will shed light on this subject. One buy one to keep the current articals POV these writings will have to be dismissed leaving only a link to Mr. Phillips site as the wikipedia Ebionite artical.64.12.116.5 20:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I was signed in the above post adressed to Alecmonroy about news coverage and the Barnabas writing was from me.NazireneMystic 20:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

NazireneMystic 20:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome. Pending any discussion regarding how notable the present movements are I would like to formally dispute the section on modern Ebionites and suggest it be removed on the basis that they are not notable and that they stand against facts established and accepted by Wiki as notable. As you note we can then determine through discussion when any other modern group should mentioned. In the mean time the section on the Ebionites that is not limited to the present time can be further developed if any contributors wish to put in the work to do so. Is this acceptable? Aliothrick 13:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This is quite a tempest in a teapot! I think all this consternation by a chorus of gnostic voices serves as evidence in itself of the notability of Shemayah Phillips and his Ebionite Community. The so-called Spiritual Ebionites, by contrast, are not notable, despite their claims of exclusivity. --Ovadyah 02:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I have been collecting evidence of modern Ebionites for some time now on my user page. Feel free to check it out. If the RFC thinks it is helpful to the discussion, I can repost it on this talk page. --Ovadyah 03:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Shalom OvadYah,

What I see in your user page is evidence that what you call modern ebionites have nothing in common with ebionite Constantine had murdered. by modern do you mean different?NazireneMystic 04:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the evidence shows there are many small groups in the USA and Israel that have much in common. And they are being noticed. They just don't have much in common with your non-notable group. Interestingly, Alecmconroy has noticed and applied for membership to your group. Alec, will this influence your ability to conduct an impartial RFC? --Ovadyah 01:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
lol. "applied for membership" is a very formal term. On the yahoo group, you have to 'join' the group before you can even read the contents of the group. My 'membership' in the yahoo group in no way implies agreement with the group. But, he cited the yahoo group not long ago, so I figured I owed it to him to take a peek in it. --Alecmconroy 02:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok. Fair enough. Let us know your findings if you feel it's appropriate. --Ovadyah 03:12, 4 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)

New Subsections for each movement

As a non-Ebionite I suggest that there be section header "Contemporary Ebionites" which explains what the modern Ebionite movements have in common, with subsections for the "Shemayah Phillips" (currently the "Modern Ebionites") and the "Allan Cronshaw" (currently the "Spiritual Ebionites") movements. They both exist and both claim to be the spiritual heirs of the ancient Ebionites; as such they should be noted. This would make it easier for folks to see what theological posoition they each represent. --Michael C. Price talk 09:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

But how many people does a movement have to have to be notable? Are we really prepared to let every passionate individual with an opinion insert himself into the encyclopedia? --Alecmconroy 09:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that both movements above are notable enough. Obviously, though, we can argue this out on a case by case basis. But I think it the new structure would present a more logical and comprehensible structure for readers. That's not to say that each subsection should be a podium for non-verifiable statements. Statements such as
"Allan Cronshaw is the spiritual leader of the modern Ebionite Restoration Movement which has re-established the spiritual essence of both Judaism and Christianity as manifest in their Ebionite Source."
would have to be NPOVed as
"Allan Cronshaw is the leader of a modern Ebionite movement."
--Michael C. Price talk 10:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The Spiritual Ebionites are the only group that not only presents each and every historical quotations pertaining to the Ebionites, but presents them in a manner that explains and brings them to life in the mind of the reader. The Spiritual Ebionites not only confirm what all the authorities present as the facts, but also demonstrate the truth of what authors such as Keith Akers has alledged with respect to why the Ebionites were vegetarian and against animal sacrifice. And to prove this, additional historical quotations are employed from the noted Clementine Homilies, and the tenets are then demonstrated in the experiences of Charles Fillmore who was the co-founder of Unity Church (see http://ebionite.com/vegetarian.htm#unity ). It is a fact that Shemayah Phillips has opposed the historical record, and has attempted to deny that the Ebionites were even vegetarians. Yet, Allan Cronshaw and the Spiritual Ebionites are the only authors who have themselves embraced this original Ebionite Path that was not only held in common by the Essenes, but was explained by Charles Fillmore as necessary in order to receive the Spiritual Revelation by what the Ebionites referred to as The True Prophet that is within each of us -- but remains "inoperative in the minds" of those who do not embrace this Spiritually Consecrated Lifestyle. Which means that while Shemayah Phillips has totally rejected what all authorities have speculatively acknowledged as the Ebionite teachings, only the Spiritual Ebionites have embraced these teachings with intimate experiential knowledge. --Nazirene 10:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Nazirene, we're not going to debate religion with you. How true your beliefs are just doesn't enter into it. Notability and Verifiability are what count, not Truth. If someone says the sky is blue and I can't find a single newspaper/magazine/etc article that confirms this, then it doesn't get into the encyclopedia. --Alecmconroy 10:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Nazirene, the more you attempt to belittle others the more you belittle yourself and what you represent. If you continue I might start suspecting that your position isn't notable. --Michael C. Price talk 10:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Greetings MichaelCPrice and Alecmoconroy: I am not belittling Shemayah Phillips -- I am stating the facts. What we have here is the age-old conflict between the literalist-fundamentalists represented by Shemayah who condemns all Gnostic concepts, and the spiritual-Gnostic as represented in the Spiritual Ebionites. While there is not one word condemning Shemayah Phillips on any of the Spiritual Ebionite web sites, he goes on at length with many unfounded allegations and total misinformation on his own web site at http://ebionite.org/gnosticism.htm . Quoting the position of one of the Wikipedia editors on this page above (that I did not make): "Everything regarding Ebionites down to quotes from church fathers speaking of their doctrines are Gnostic as it comes. They were the Gnostic's Gnostic." Speaking of the relationship between the Essenes and the Ebionites, the Encyclopedia Britannica writes: "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." (Encyclopaedia Britannica Online). What is written under the heading of Modern Ebionites disputs and rejects every fact reported by the Britannica, as well as the historical body of information. But it must be understood that the main differences between the Essenes and the Pharasic Jews who Jesus opposed, is seen in the fact that the Essenes were Gnostic. Long before the Da Vinci Code controversy, biblical scholars such as A. Powell Davies warned the Christian world that discoveries such as the Dead Sea Scrolls had confirmed what they had believed all along -- that the Roman Church created the divinity of Yeshua/Jesus -- i.e., “Biblical scholars were not disturbed by what they found in the Dead Sea Scrolls because they had known all along that the origin of Christianity was not what was commonly supposed to have been” (quoted by Millar Burrows in More Light on the Dead Sea Scrolls). Worse yet, Edmund Wilson, an expert who worked on the Dead Sea Scrolls further raised the question as to what difference it makes if “Jesus... had been trained in the discipline and imbued with the thought of a certain Jewish sect, and that he had learned from it the role that he afterwards lived...” (The Scrolls From The Dead Sea). All groups that teach that man can transform himself and open the inner "narrow gate" and learn directly from God, are Gnostic.--Nazirene 12:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Naz, as I've explained, Wikipedia talk pages aren't for debating the issues, they're just for discussion article issues. You continue to embark on extended religious debates here, so, just be aware I'm not going to continue to carefully read through and reply to each one of your posts anymore. If you wish to bring something about the article itself to my attention (for example, if you receive media coverage that raises your group's notability, please take care to make this particularly fact very visible upon quick inspection. Similarly, do not take my silence as indicative of any change of my opinion on the notability of your group-- if I change my mind, I will make that clear. Most of all, do not attempt to re-insert your point of view into the article until there is a clear consensus of editors here that that is the appropriate action. All the best. Please believe me when I say that I truly and sincerely wish you well in your attempt to find truth and share it with others-- even if Wikipedia is not the appropriate forum to do so at this time. --Alecmconroy 12:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I have created new subsections. The old "modern Ebionites" section now exists in a subsection called "Ebionite Jewish Community", since this seems to be what they call themselves A new "Ebionite Restoration Movement" subsection exists which briefly describes what were lised as "Spiritual Ebionites". --Michael C. Price talk 18:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Michael C. Price, your attempts to find common ground are laudable, and the NPOV'd material certainly looks better. Despite that, your efforts do not remove the principle objection of the RFC: that the Spiritual Ebionites are not notable. --Ovadyah 03:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that I have dodged the thorny issue of notability. --Michael C. Price talk 07:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

An Independent Observation

This is one of the most amazing dialogues I have seen in a long time. I would say that the Wikipedia editors invited extended religious debate, when they restored the entry Modern Ebionites, and suppressed the entry under Spiritual Ebionites. Further, the group that was restored appears to have gotten a free pass with respect to historical accuracy and published articles and papers. I would appear that the group that Wikipedia restored, emphatically states that all the known scholars are in error, and the Ebionites did not accept Jesus as the Messiah. Yet, such esteemed sources as the Encyclopedia Britannica states that the Ebionites revered Jesus as the Messiah. The group that Wikipedia rejects, demonstrates how all the historical quotations are correct. So why is one group being held to differing standards than the other? I can't understand this myself. It is either politics, or Wikipedia is anti-gnostic. It appears that the Spiritual Ebionites are wasting their time, because no amount of facts will have any meaning in the debate. A Fellow Gnostic Traveler.

Note. There are messiah in a biblical sense, and this differs from the modern term Messiah as baggaged by Christianity. If I say "The Messiah" what connotation does this have to the majority of people in the Christian West? On the other hand if I avoid the term and use terms like "a messiah" (see the Hippolytus quote) then I am saying that Yeshua was anointed but not the apocalyptic MESSIAH. He failed as the "Christian Messiah" definition, while he can still be a messiah and dead as many messiahs are including the kings of Israel. It lies in the definition of a messiah----biblical or apocalyptic Christian. So when I say he was not the Messiah he was not the Messiah according to the Christian definition.--204.116.38.32 04:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Shemayah

I agree the non-Messianic claim looks odd. I wonder if the ancient Ebionite claims of Jesus being non-divine have become confused with claims of Jesus not being the Messiah? Let's see. I have placed a {{Fact}} tag by the claim that the "Modern Ebionites" (now renamed the "Ebionite Jewish Community") rejected Jesus as a Messiah. --Michael C. Price talk 18:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I've updated the messianic claim: it's clear that the "Ebionite Jewish Community" do accept Jesus as a Davidic messiah. --Michael C. Price talk 07:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


I have been watching the story unfold, and I absolutely agree with this assertion Gnostic Traveler. These are the points in simple format.

"Shemayah Phillips" states:

-Modern Ebionites are the legitimate descendant, and practice as the original Ebionites

(on what basis? clearly their following statements contradict what the historical record shows)


Note: The problem with the writers of the article seems to be that they are unaware of the scholarship and the fact that we are talking about a phenomenon that lasted centuries. Lipsius writing over a hundred years ago was well aware of two distinct strains, one later than the first, of "Ebionites proper" and "Essenic Ebionites" which in ways were indistinguishable from Elchasites (See Biographical Dictionary of Christianity). Epiphanius (where most of AC's spiritual folks and Keith Akers derive their anti-Temple vegetarian "ebionites" had problematic sources, and was late, and second hand (See Glen Allan Koch's dissertation on Epiphanius from UMI). CHurch fathers assigned the name "Ebionite" to any group that appeared to be Judaic and anti-Pauline. You must look at the historical sources chronologically. For a modern assessment see James Tabor's comments in Jesus Dynasty. Also look at Hyam Maccoby, Mythmaker. Both seem to understand the historical record you seem to be unaware of. --204.116.38.32 04:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Shemayah


-The Ebionite Jewish Community promotes Yahwism

(Yahwism is the belief that God's name is YHWH. A spiritual perspective would be that God's name cannot be known except by those who become One with Him, as Yeshua did. Yahwism is a fundamental belief that looks to God in the outer world rather than seeking to be known by Him from within, just as the Kingdom is within -- Luke 17:20-21)


Huh?? This is incorrect. Yahwism is a belief that Israel's God according to its scriptural tradition is the one God of all things. The name is not the primary point made by the term. --204.116.38.32 04:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Shemayah


-Jesus was a prophet, but not a Christian Messiah

(Messiah means Anointed in mind. All Prophets are Messiah, there are varying levels of Messiah/Anointing, just as there are various grades in school or progressions in university instructional courses. The record shows that the Ebionites believed Jesus was born human, as you or I, and became Messiah, as we are also able to do.)

It does not mean anointed "in mind." Why are you claiming to be independent but making "spiritualist" pronouncements? Anointing is an act of consecration with oil, a physical act on a person consecrated to act out real world activities. You say there is no historical bases. But look in the Bible (Tanak) itself for these real world definitions.--204.116.38.32 04:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Shemayah


-Christianity is not a biblically-based religion

(Christianity as practiced today has been compromised by various pagan introductions - this is a far cry from saying that it is not biblically based -- evidence shows that the bible scriptures have been altered to suit secular authority's opinions and beliefs, so this begs the question, what did the original Christians believe? Early Church Father Origen was known to have written the definitive authority on this. i.e.: De Principiis)

Christianity is based on "new revelations" of questionable origin and worth. Biblical means Bible, not New Testament. Christianity depends on these new revelations not on the Bible solely. --204.116.38.32 04:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Shemayah

Shalom Shemayah,

In the later days Young men will see visions and old men will dream dreams! God speaks to Messiahs from within. All Prophets recive inner Revelation. 152.163.100.8 12:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


-Ebionites actively campaign against missionary work done by Christian groups

(There is no historical evidence of this, in fact Ebionites were not known to directly interfere with other religious practices)

Notice present tense. Ebionite do campaign against Christianity now and we have managed to return families in Latin AMerican countries, for instance, to Judaism (Ebionite and other movements), we rescue people from groups like Jews for Jesus.--204.116.38.32 04:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Shemayah


-they encourage a return to a Tanakh-reliant approach to Judaism amongst messianic Jews, Hebrew Christians, Gentile Christians and others.

(The spiritual view is not to convert others to their beliefs, rather notes that each person has predetermined choices that were made prior to entering into life, therefore the reasons why people have different religious practices and worship is for a higher reason, and it is up to each person to seek that higher reason to understand the source of all things.)


-Modern Ebionites are not gnostic, or dualist, but strictly monotheistic

(Gnostic refers to those who receive inner revelation as the source of their knowledge. This belief is in conjuntion with the kingdom that cannot come to this outer world, but instead is within us - Luke 17)


-monotheism disallows a belief in a "Satan" that competes with God

(Although this idea is not opposed within the concept of monotheism, there is no mention of it on wikipedia's own monothesim page. Further, a spiritual perspective is that Satan is not so much a being, but an allegorical interpretation of the force that imprisons the mind in this realm - which would be more in line with the Ebionite view.)


-Modern Ebionitism emphasizes the social justice aspect of the Tanakh, and Yahwism as a socio-economic as well as a religious idea

(Basically this means that Jesus came to bring social change through religion. This idea is outside of mainstream view, not only historically, biblically, but also spiritually. Since the kingdom is within, there is no reason outside of the inner struggle to attain the kingdom from this world to invite social change - everything is at it should be, necessary to the conditions of humanity growth. When God looks out upon His creation He states, "It is Good!" Genesis 1,2 -- that mankind has been unable to see this, is due to his own faulty perception and misalignment with God, hence the need for change from within.)

You need to look at scholarship that shows that Yeshua was a social reformer. Horsley, Tabor, Maccoby, Malina and others. --204.116.38.32 04:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Shemayah


-they also reject membership for those involved in occupations deemed to be "exploitive."

(?? It sounds like they will not do anything that is against their moral convictions. This differs from other religions?)


Given that on no point in the above is there any similarility with any historical, biblical, or spiritual variety, how can Modern Ebionites be allowed to stand? Basically all that is stated under Modern Ebionites is that they have the same name as the historical variety. I could call myself "America", but that doesn't mean I have anything in common with either the band or the country. The facts strongly suggest that "Modern Ebionites" are using their wikipedia source as a stronghold to indoctrinate their beliefs into mainstream. Classic revisionist theory at work. --Aspirationdivine 19:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what your credentials are but you need to do some real historical work.--204.116.38.32 04:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Shemayah

Shalom Shemayah,

While we are looking into real History maybe we should ask why a work considered frudulant "Gospel of Barnabas" is in the Ebionite writings section? while scholars say its of an Ebionite point of view because it potrays the Ebionites as not understanging anything Yeshua taught they only say this after they state it was clearly written in the middle ages and with no known supporting text. Also no historical quotes from real Gospel of Barnabas to back it up. But since that text supports you cutting your penise I see why its included without being deemed a POV. The Gospel of the holy 12 or the Gospel of the nazerenes is more credible and potrays Yeshua as teaching a Reincarnating soul that evolves to prefection over many lives among other things and contains many quotes church fathers used is discribing the Gospel. once I start looking into this Ebionite artical it seems much more needs to change to be NPOV then the addition of the Ebionite restoration. 152.163.100.8 12:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

NazireneMystic 20:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Most of your concerns have been addressed with the new article layout. There is now an "Ebionite Jewish Community" subsection under "Modern Ebionites", along with "Ebionite Restoration Movement". Any verifiable, NPOV contributions welcome. --Michael C. Price talk 19:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Shalom Michael C Price: Thank you for the opportunity. I basically only added two quotations from the Church Father Hippolytus pertaining to the Ebionites, and sufficient and limited explanation to present the spiritual objectives of the Ebionites with respect to the plight of the prodigal sons who must seek to return to the Kingdom within. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nazirene (talk • contribs)

Nazirene-- I reverted your verbose elaboration on your movement. It was unverified, non-encyclopedic in tone, and about a non-notable source. In my opinion, this whole group is simply not notable enough and we should delete all mention of it-- but I left the one line summation and the external link in place for now. Any other editor removes it has my strong approval though. --Alecmconroy 18:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I have suggested at User talk:Nazirene that they create an Ebionite Restoration Movement article, as has been suggested previously. This would avoid swamping out the Ebionite article and be more acceptable (I suspect) to the consensus of editors here. I have also suggested they read up about Wikipedia policy if they wish to make a lasting contribution. --Michael C. Price talk 19:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, that'd be an improvement over posting it, and then we could just let the experts at Articles for Deletion deal with whether it belongs in the encyclopedia. I'm not trying to be argumentative about this, but it's hard to understand how NOR and Notability can be reconciled with one individual (with potentially as few as 1 follower) can come here and posting extended essays on their own personal religious beliefs. --Alecmconroy 21:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I think this is the right answer. It's the same approach that was taken by the vegetarian Christians, who were also struggling to fit a square peg into a round hole. I don't think Alan would be happy in the end without his own article anyway. It's an opportunity to practice writing in Wiki style without having your work constantly pecked by editors. Alan, Alecmconroy gave you some invaluable advice that I hope you will take to heart. --Ovadyah 02:03, 3 August

2006 (UTC)

Shalom Alecmonroy,you have stated if millions know about you and hardly any follow that would in it self be notible. If you look over Mr Phillips site he has a counter that shows that kind of traffic and for all to see he writes about a page on Allan Crownshaw's movement so in fact large numbers do know of us and few follow. It is also notible that the once Pro Ebionite "Epistle of Barnabas" is now deemed anti Ebionite by susposed experts. Its very notable the Epistle actualy supports the historical quotes regarding Ebionites, most of which can not be used in the Ebionite artical because it counterdicts the prevailing point of view.NazireneMystic 18:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


Well, cite the page he mentions you, and I'll take a peek at it and its counter, but I should tell ya: page counters are a particularly bad way to establish notability-- a counter of 100,000 means that the page has been served 100,000 times-- but it gives no indication of how many of thoses loads were caused by humans, how many different individuals have loaded the page, or how much of the page they actually read. Counters are also easily tampered with. A much better measure of notability is mention in popular media or scientific literature.
Based on what little reading I've done, I question whether Phillips' notabiltity is sufficient to merit inclusion. If everyone else is cool with it being here, I won't be the one to dispute it-- I'd rather people who knew a little more about the subject be the ones to make that call, but from what I could find so far, I haven't found enough to suggest he should be here. So, if based on that, your most notable source is someone who, to me, is non-notable, who wrote one blog post in which he disagreed with you, I don't think that meets notability.
As for your unique interpretation on the Epistle of Barnabas-- it's the same exact situation. If your opinion is sufficiently prevalent that you can cite peer-reviewed papers published in scholarly journals that share your opinion, then it certainly is notable enough to merit inclusion. If, however, your interpretation is your own research, it's probably would violate notability and "No Original Research" to include it.
--Alecmconroy 19:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
In light of the unanswered dispute I raised of Phillips' notability two weeks ago and Alec's unanswered questioning of the same nearly a week ago, I am deleting the Ebionite Jewish Community section. I note that in all the discussion in the last few weeks that no one has presented a case, or even a suggestion, that Phillip's is notable enough for inclusion. If anyone would like to reverse this could you please present your reasons here first. Aliothrick 09:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Ebionite Writings

I fail to see how including the Gospel of Barnabas in the Ebionite writing section is NPOV. Wikipedia is self says most scholars believe its a frudulant text to support Islamic doctorines. Why would a fake text be used to support a certian point of view in the Ebionite artical? The text has no earlier supporting Codexs or even fragments and only shares in name one listed from early church fathers.On the other hand The Gospel of the holy 12 is also mentioned by name from early dates and interestingly enough contains quotes early christians used when quoting the Hebrew Gospel. The Gospel of the Holy 12 Has Yeshua teaching of our souls as prexisting and that they reincarnate and evolve to prefection over many lives.NazireneMystic 20:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)NazireneMystic 20:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The relevance is explained in the one sentence.
It is also speculated that the core of the Gospel of Barnabas, beneath a polemical medieval Muslim overlay, may have been based upon an Ebionite document.
--Michael C. Price talk 21:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Shalom Michael C Price,

I se that it is note worthy but the mannor it was presented in the Ebionite artical was a little POV so I NPOV'ed it. reads more accurate and none bised now.NazireneMystic 00:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but your addition is confused and adds nothing to the Barnabas comment; polemical medieval Muslim overlay, already implies "fraud", but this isn't relevant, what is relevant is the statement may have been based upon an Ebionite document. --Michael C. Price talk 04:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

What confused you? Do you understand the nature of the frud the scholars claim? for one thing to think to think it has anything to do with the long lost Gospel besides its name is at best a wild guess on the part of all scholars and the frudulant document supports rituals the muslims practice like cutting thier privates.

The largest agreement the Scholars come to is it is a frudulant document but that is polished over nicely in the artical.

Were the artical actualy about the Gospel of Barnabas is written from a NPOV since it is impossible to write an Ebionite artical from a NPOV and still include the the group that calls themselves modern Ebionites the Npov discription of the Gospel of Barnabus also must take a hit here and conform to the dominate POV the artical takes.

BTW, Its more a wikipedia adition then "mine" I just copied the npov from the Gospel of Barnabas artical so maybe you should correct it also?152.163.100.8 18:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed you'd copied it from the Gospel of Barnabas. Nothing wrong with that in itself, but you've missed my point entirely. It's confusing because the "fraudulent" nature of the GoB is both irrelevant and already implied by the current entry. --Michael C. Price talk 18:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Further Comments

I created this section for further comments about the RFC process. Comments left on the main talk page will be periodically moved here. Feel free to state your views, but try to be civil about it. Ovadyah 14:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

For more discussion on the RFC process and commentary of the spiritual Ebionites, go to Neo-Ebionite 2. Ovadyah 05:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)