Talk:Paulicianism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start on the Project's quality scale. See comments | |
Contents |
[edit] Gnostics
There have been many heresies along the history of Christianity, but the most threatening by far in de Middle Ages was that of the Paulicians. The Paulicians had their roots in Armenia, were they mixed Christianity with the dualist religion of Mani, which was deeply rooted in the Gnosis.
http://www.religionstatistics.net/histen4.htm
- Gnosis is one thing, Gnostics yet another. The movements labeled as "gnosticist" generally have no connection towards each other, so that "gnostic" is a mere label of disgust from trinitarist christians, applied to any movement that 1. is more dualist than the ordinary dualism of trinitarist themselves (ourselves, me trying to be a little forgiving and self-critical), 2. has a different set of doctrines than the salvation-by-lifting-sins discourse of Jesus'es crucifiction. It's better to claim that the Paulicians where deeply influenced by the extinct religion of Manicheism. They did (do?) certainly have gnosis, but being a former gnostic, I say: gnosis and salvation is the same thing, only differently manifested in diverse personality type... Said: Rursus ☻ 16:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- I'm wrong. http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Paulicians says that the Paulicians condemned Mani. Mixing in Manicheism is not correct, obviously. Said: Rursus ☻ 17:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] No NPOV, full of uncited fiction, needs a complete rewrite
This article is based almost exclusively on The Key of Truth - a 100+ year old book that was based off Paulician documents of their professions of faith that were drawn up in 1837 (Key of Truth, xxiii-xxviii). The notion that this group was some sort of proto-protestant group accounts for the fact that the sect has met among modern writers with more interest and certainly more sympathy than it deserves.
The facts are the Paulicians believed that there was a distinction between a God who made and governs the material world and a God of heaven who created souls, who alone should be adored. This remains POPULAR oppinion and Conybeare remains a dissenting voice against the world-wide, mainstream understanding.
This entire article needs to be rewritten from a neutral POV. As it stands, it represents only the POV of some English speaking Christian groups who feel the need to trace apostolic succession through the Paulicians.
Edited back into the text: "was a Gnostic and Manichaean Christian sect that florished between 650 and 872 in Anatolia, outgoing from Armenia and the Eastern Themes of the Byzantine Empire." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitsitt3 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Removed from the text: "While there were some Paulicians that had Gnostic elements, the charge that they were Manicheans and dualists is disputed." "The Paulicians are not dualists in any other sense than the New Testament was dualistic." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.251.169.69 (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Why has the recent addition and deletion taken place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jryanburlap (talk • contribs) 18:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
It was brought to my attention that it have been changed. Please don't make any changes without discussing it first. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitsitt3 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
"Baanes, an immoral man" -- this statement of opinion should either be removed or replaced with some facts. -- 207.109.22.134 (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Guys, guys!!
- please go get a user account, so we can see who's talking!
- please sign your statements with ~~~~ so that we can see who's saying what!
- There was certainly an edit war ongoing here, the text Paulicianism certainly needs attention, but that requires some collaboration, instead of the counter-mandings and reversions as before. Said: Rursus ☻ 16:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Talk page
Somebody blanked the talk page. I have restored. -- SECisek 05:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
If anyone wants to make changes to the main page it needs to be discuss in here first. Wikipedia is not a place to support a doctrine. Is was designed so others can come and learn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLayman (talk • contribs) 20:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- TheLayman, violence against the article won't help resolve anything. Cited sources will. And PLEASE learn to sign your notes on the talk page! --Alvestrand 20:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- And as said before, sign by writing ~~~~. When answering a comment, indent by beginning your added comment with one or more :s to control edit level. I indented twice by :: in order to signal that I'm answering and supporting the statement of Alvestrand. Simple edit instructions can be read lowermost on the webpage when you're editing. Said: Rursus ☻ 17:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The article was changed by two other users. TheLayman cited the Columbia Encyclopedia several times and someone else changed it. Whitsitt3 22:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- I was referring to this edit. Possibly a keyboard navigation error. --Alvestrand 04:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Some thoughts on the "issues"
The article seems very odd to me, because in the beginning the Paulicians existed from 4th to 12th century, and then they're lost. But at the end of the article they reappear. First of all: most encyclopedic sources outside WP claims the same: in the 12th century or so, they're lost to history. Then they popup again in the early 19ths. Most of those sources allege connections with cathars, which seems farfetched in the extreme, considering the 4th independent emergence of cathars, and the bogomils and so the french cathars, who by automaticity are connected with the bogomils. This seems to much speculation to my taste. It seems like the history writing, not we ourselves, provides us with prejudicies and invented stories, trying to explain and falsely connect the eternally reoccurring but possibly unrelated emergences of "heresies". Maybe what we can see is the shadow of the church itself, not any historical continuity of heresies. Now trying to be practical: What sources can we trust? (Opinions only – we cannot know the truth so opinion will have to do). I propose modern texts based on anthropological studies are OK. More? Said: Rursus ☻ 17:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
