Talk:Gnosticism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

edit summary explanation of a recent edit[edit]

Deleted a sentence that wrongfully claimed there're 4 rivers in the Quran with the respective reference. Nagel et al makes it clear that he uses a reference from external literature e.g. the hadith literature, in this example he uses Sahih Bukhari Tajrid Sarikh & Futuhul-Ghayb. The Quran doesn't support the notion of 4 rivers, as is clear through the word: anhārun= multiple rivers of water, abundance, honey, milk and khamrin (خَمْرٍ) (أَنْهَارٌ). These are evident in Q108:1, Q47:15.

Was in edit summary space - now here as well... copied JarrahTree 07:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Soon to come ... (Origins)[edit]

I plan to edit the first para in the section Origins. It reads as if Gnosticism was a religious denomination, but the scholars disagree: Gnosticism is a modern construct somewhat counterparting a certain subgroup of those in the antiquity that called themselves Gnostics. Modern scholars think there were many Gnostic movements, most of the scholars that they share a common denomination of certain beliefs, a few scholars claim there was nothing such. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 13:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

"'Gnostic'" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 'Gnostic'. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 04:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Minor Point on Valentinus[edit]

The current article reads "Valentinianism was named after its founder Valentinus (c. 100 – 180), who was a candidate for bishop of Rome but started his own group when another was chosen." The source for this latter statement being Adversus Valentinianos 4, the point here being that even in the article for Adversus Valentiniaos itself doubt is drawn as to Tertullian's account (the page here ). I am by no means an expert of these matters, but I have encountered a claim that there is evidence suggesting he remained within the church community until his death (1) and even one that says he likely refused the bishop position yet offers no evidence on this point (2). In any case, it seems unlikely to me that a well respected member of the early church community would have 'started his own group' after being passed over out of sheer envy as per Tertullian's account, and it appears there are at least some academic sources contending this. I would like a second opinion of someone more knowledgeable on these matters before making an edit to reflect this contention. 1. [minorpoint 1] 2. [minorpoint 2] Issekinicho (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

  1. ^ Hoeller. "Valentinus A Gnostic for All Seasons". The Gnosis Archive. Retrieved 1 April 2020.
  2. ^ Brons, David. "Who was Valentinus". The Gnostic Society Library. Retrieved 1 April 2020.
Right, but we can only write based on the academic consensus however flawed. Wikipedia is not about "truth", whatever it is. Hoeller might be mentioned as a minority opinion, though. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 11:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)