Talk:Ptolemy (gnostic)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.


A permanently unexpandable stub. This is being better handled at Ptolemy (disambiguation) where the link to Valentinius. This entry is superfluous and might well be deleted. --Wetman 19:41, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Removing Superfluous Gonstic theologies. Though differences do exist between Ptolemy and Valentinius exegesis they exist under the same threefold schema. Ptolemy is usefull in comparrison to Valentinius as there is ambiguity toward authorship. Leave this entry to support further specific biographical data. -- Olen Watson 22:09, 13 Aug 2005

"This system becomes the basis of a wild exegesis which discovers in the prologue of St. John's Gospel the first Ogdoad." Such exegesis is no more wild than the Fundamentalist Christians' claim that the Old Testament predicted the coming of non-earthly Messiah. Whoever wrote this is clearly writing with a bias. I suggest "wild" be removed from this line.

This is not a stub[edit]

In my opinion, this article is not a stub, because we don't know more about the gnostic Ptolemy.

Incomprehensible statement[edit]

I edited this article for punctuation and made a few small changes to improve word usage. I have done some reading on early Christianity and gnosticism, but there is one sentence in which I corrected punctuation and verb tenses but could go no further in my effort to improve the language because I simply do not understand it. It is the last sentence before the References at the end of the article. One or two of the comments in the Talk page for this article refer to that sentence. They apparently understand the sentence, but I do not. I have never seen nor heard anything like it. Could someone who really knows this subject read the last sentence before the references and either let me know what it means or correct it? It makes no sense to me. It is:
" exegesis which discovers in the prologue...." What does that mean?CorinneSD (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)CorinneSD (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)CorinneSD (talk) 00:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)