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

Quaker's View of Baptism[edit]

In the Doctrines section, it is noted that "The outward administration of the sacraments of the Lord's Supper and baptism they rejected." The authority for this statement is from reference 25: "Moon, J. H (1902). Water baptism, a pagan and Jewish rite, but not Christian." J.H. Moon was a Quaker (did not accept water baptism) and in reading his book he seems to take liberties when interpreting which ancient/past groups may have also rejected baptism. However, I did not trace all of his references. My opinion is that this is not an authoritative or sufficiently objective reference and that the above quoted sentence be removed unless the author of that sentence could quote a more objective or ancient Paulician source. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlambros (talkcontribs) 17:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Further, "The Key of Truth" has extremely clear references to adult baptism. Although we do not know whether the original teachings of the Paulicians remained unchanged in "The Key of Truth," it is far more likely that it is closer to the truth of the Paulicians view of baptism than the interpretations of an early 20th century Quaker. Am I missing something here? I would appreciate input prior to my changing the article in case there is something I have not considered. Thank you. (BTW I did read the Talk posting below addressing "The Key of Truth" and I understand the views of the author; however, I still believe that it is a better reference than J.H. Moon for their view on baptism.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:A:1A00:0:17B:9B05:1D78:C31 (talk) 02:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

After no response to my statements above, I deleted the sentence quoted at the beginning of this section. Also, after further research, I question how anyone could cite that reference (J.H. Moon) as a reliable source on the topic of ancient groups' views on baptism. Further, I am more and more beginning to question the "Gnostic" label applied to this group. Mlambros (talk) 11:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Adoptionist Gnostics![edit]

Preposterous! You simply can't be a Gnostic and an adoptionist, the former rejects the humanity of Christ the Latter rejects the divinity of Christ. The former affirms the divinity of Christ the latter affirms that Christ is a creature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


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.

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. says that the Paulicians condemned Mani. Mixing in Manicheism is not correct, obviously. Said: Rursus 17:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm wrong, wrong, wrong again. shouldn't be used. It's another "wikipedia". Wikipedia don't cite itself, and shouldn't cite other wiki-lookalike-pedias, only primary or secondary sources are up to the quality needed. Said: Rursus 17:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No NPOV, full of uncited fiction, needs a complete rewrite[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Why has the recent addition and deletion taken place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jryanburlap (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 22:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"Baanes, an immoral man" -- this statement of opinion should either be removed or replaced with some facts. -- (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Guys, guys!!
  1. please go get a user account, so we can see who's talking!
  2. 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)
I have no desire to be offensive, but I did something radical - I followed the links at the bottom. It appears to me that most of this article now comes very close to mirroring the article at Medieval I went looking for more information because I'm currently reading Ostrogorsky's History of the Byzantine State, for the purpose of remedying a long-felt need to know more about one of the longest lasting states in world history, one that was a world power at least through most of its existence. And one whose history continues to influence the world.
Ostrogorsky's book contains occasional references to the heresy, doctrine, sect, religion (whatever it was), but no overview of them, unless it occurs in some part of the book I haven't yet read. The omission is understandable, given that he was covering ~1000 years in considerably fewer pages, and that it was absolutely necessary to give proper attention to the long-lasting iconoclast vs. iconodule struggle. That controversy happens to have raged during approximately the same period as Paulicianism. After all, the iconoclasm issue was an important contributor to - if not the prime reason for the lasting schism between the Eastern and Western churches. And that was in addition to provoking both civil wars and changes in dynasties.
Most of the comments above seem to come from people who are disputing statements made by researchers who signed their work and whose own perspectives and beliefs were unconcealed - IOW, we can radily tell what they believe. Given that all three references say similar things, unless someone chooses to allege - with citations, perhaps, please? - that all of them have it wrong, I suggest that simply slamming the information is at best unproductive and inflammatory. If - as published researchers say, they believed that there are two equal and opposing deities, calling them Manichaeans is reasonable, if incorrect. The writer of the article on the Medieval Church site says they condemned Manes, but the accusation seems otherwise pretty much on target, given their system was dualistic, and denied the role of God as creator, as well as his omnipotence. In saying that matter is evil, they were Gnostic in outlook, if perhaps not in profession. Given that they apparently also denied the inspired nature of the Old Testament, calling them Marcionites is also reasonable, if also not entirely correct. It seems clear to me that they were either influenced by those earlier religions/heresies, or at least reached similar conclusions.
On top of everything else, some of the comments above are written as though this belief system - whatever you want to call it - is current, rather than history. If there are people today who call themselves Paulicians, but don't subscribe to the same set of beliefs, they'd be well advised to reconsider what they call themselves. Or at least not identify with the Paulicians of the middle Byzantine era, or ascribe to them beliefs which they apparently did not hold.
As to the New Testament being dualistic, perhaps that person could defend the statement? I am conversant with the Bible, and I should very much like any dualism in New Testament Christian doctrines pointed out. I've not noticed it. Yes, different writers emphasized different aspects of doctrine, but none of them condemned the teachings of the others.
Finally, it seems to me that the objections at the top of the main page are now outdated, though I shall not take it upon myself to change them. IMO, the need to more smoothly blend the sources is now a more critical issue. This site is not about burnishing egos; it's about providing information which accurately reflects and combines original research and writing. --Tygerbryght (talk) 09:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk page[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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)

Some thoughts on the "issues"[edit]

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)

Certain modern Christians (mostly Baptists, see Landmark Baptist - for one) support a fanciful narritave that connects a series of ancient and mideveal people and sects in an to attempt to claim that any number of modern Christian sects have ancient histories that stretch back to the time of the apostles. It runs something along the lines of St Paul to Novationists to Donatists to Paulicianists to Claudius of Turin to Petrobucians to Henricians to Cathars to Waldenses to Wycliff and Huss to Anabaptists to Modern Baptists. That skips quite a bit, but you get the picture. It was pushed hard in the 19th century and is pure fiction. It does not even stand up to even the slightest examination and the only pieces of "evidence" that ever backed it up whotsoever were found to be Victorian era forgeries. I cleared most of this nonsense out of Wikipedia quietly two years ago, but never got around to this article. The Waldensian article is one of the few I monitor, as there are legit modern Waldensians and they have made it clear they do not support this belief about their sect's origin. I worry less about the Cathars, Paulicianists, etc. as they are confined to the history books. Please, any attempt to work on this article would be a good thing. -- Secisek (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Hehehe! Yes, like the The Templar Revelation inspiring The Da Vinci Code: originally a mythomanic concoct believed to be true by the fringe around the mythoman. I know that some fringe religious groups have d*rn'd hard to understand the ultimate meaning of "thou shallst not bear false witness", but that flaw is due to their reality check (or lack of thereof), it's a handicap and not generally a moral flaw. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 08:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


"Paulicians (Armenian: Պավլիկյաններ, also remembered as Pavlikians or Paulikianoi[1]) were a Gnostic and quasi Manichaean Christian group which flourished between 650 and 872 in Anatolia, Armenia and the Eastern Themes of the Byzantine Empire." Anatolia is a new geographical name. Please,use the right name for the right time! E.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


"The adherents of the sect fled, with the Armenian Paul at their head, to Episparis." Episparis is a kind of insect. Anyone knows the modern name of that place? (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

"Sect" is a misnomer[edit]

The term "sect" used throughout the article is a misnomer that was used by its opponentes. WP should not use the biased partizan lingo of the opponentes. Paulicianism was a movement of dissenters who organized a separate Church, not a separate "Sect", and the article should use the appropriate terminology. Any objections to call it "Church" in the context of the article? Terminologically, "sect" is a "clique", and "clique" is an exclusive circle of people with a common purpose, not a religious movement, and not an organized separate Church Barefact (talk) 05:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Picture but no info?[edit]

By whom was this article created? Talk about Massacre of Paulicians.

Add this, by Edward Gibbon:

‎"The feeble Michael the fifth and Rigid Leo the Armenian were foremost in the race of persecution but the prize must doubtless be judged to the sanguinary devotion of Theodora, who restored the images to the Oriental church. Her inquisitors explored the cities and mountains... and flatterers of empress had affirmed that they could murder 100 000 Paulicians - by sword, gibbets or flames." -- --Otherguylb (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

We could add this to also the page of ST. Theodora, as far as she is saint because of getting rid of Paulicians and other Iconoclasts... --Otherguylb (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

You ought to come up with a better source than Edward Gibbon. NJMauthor (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

This article does not need a rewrite[edit]

See discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard/Archive 10#Is Paulicianism a fair article?. There are some neutrality issues, but these are somewhat minor and no re-write is required. Oiyarbepsy (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Paulicianism/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Last edited at 21:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 02:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)