Talk:Valentinus (Gnostic)

contender

Why not mention that Tertullien suggested that Valentinus was a serious contender for Bishop of Rome/Pope and almost won the election, with a reference, without the slanderous part of the quote? SquirleyWurley

It is mentioned in proper fashion. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

flora

the article says: "Ptolemy is known only for this letter to a wealthy Gnostic lady named Flora", but ptolemy's article says flora wasn't a gnostic, but a christian. which is right? Tjenare 21:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

~~Dan Baedeker~~ Article says Valentinus (d. c. 160) was married to Santa Sabina. But Santa Sabina (d. 126) article says she was the widow of Valentinus. She must have been married to a different Valentinus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.171.86 (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

which death date is correct?

this page states his death date at 160ce. G.R.S. Mead, via Hoeller, http://www.gnosis.org/valentinus.htm claims Tertullian placed Valentinus death much later than 160ce. by claiming that Valentinus lived after 175ce. However, Tertullian himself was born in 160, therefore if Tertullian was speaking first hand as a personal acquaintance it would mean that Valentinus death was later than the listed 160ce. However, I'm not entirely sure how much of Tertullians history can be trusted as he also placed Origen and Valentinus as personal acquaintences, but by any timeline they could not have overlapped. Could someone please note these problems to at least educate the reader for potential errors? Which death date is correct?

signed by, Zoshac — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoshac (talk • contribs) 22:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Orthodox Bias

Christianity wasn't orthodox at the time of Valentinus. Framing the article as him being a gnostic is an anachronistic distinction. He is one of the oldest Christian theologians, surpassing many of the Church Fathers and both he and those who adhered to his theology saw themselves merely as Christians. Obviously, this is a relatively recent development in biblical scholarship and most articles on these topics have the same bias, but a bias it is. 2601:8C0:983:83E0:7C1E:8F83:7F99:3502 (talk) 09:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)