Talk:Nontrinitarianism/Archive 1

Mormon classification

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints support Trinity (that differ from Catholic and Protestant),why do they classify into Nontrinitarian? This is wrong.61.22.184.104 03:53, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Because their "trinitarianism" is not Trinitarian at all: "Behold I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son." (Ether 3:14). "And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son." (Mosiah 15:1) Mormonism is a form of Modalism.

Since modalism denies that there are three simultaneously existing persons in the Godhead, I think that it's safe to say that Mormonism is the farthest thing from Modalism; although, Mormonism also is not Trinitarianism. Mkmcconn 17:56, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think you understand pretty well, Mkmcconn. No, Mormons aren't Trinitarian. But what we are is a good question.  :-D Hopefully good and true disciples. Tom (hawstom) 06:59, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Non Trinitarian Churches

Looks like the list of Non-Trinitarian Churches show congregations founded in the Modern Era. The "nontrinitarian" belief then looks more like an attempt to clean up a supposed "impure" belief.

Neutrality of the title

While it may be interesting to discuss the common things among those who oppose Trinity, the title doesn't seem neutral. (It certainly is an ugly word) Would Nonislamism or Noncommunism be neutral?

It is an irony of this topic that the nontrinitarian status of these groups is far more important (usually negatively) to trinitarians than it is to the groups themselves; I believe this is because for many trinitarians the description, "nontrinitarian" is a codeword for "not Christian." We have, for example, seen this dispute over on the Jehovah's Witnesses article, where trinitarian editors originally removed the adjective, "Christian" from the first paragraph, and after much wrangling a compromise was reached to keep the label, "Christian" but also include the label, "nontrinitarian" in the first paragraph. The JW people originally objected to the label, "nontrinitarian" appearing so high up in the article, in part, I think, because the "nontrinitarian" moniker did not mean much or anything to them.

So, the "nontrinitarian" grouping is indeed somewhat unusual in that it is delineated by an absence of something rather than by the presence of something, and is mostly defined as a reaction to a different group. As to a POV, certainly in many trinitarians' eyes the label, "nontrinitarian" is almost a curse word. Yet, in the history of antitrinitarianism (as it is starting to be fleshed out here on WP) there have been many nontrinitarians and antritrinitarians who were fiercely proud of being so. Further, the fact that there is such a thing as the history of antritrinitarianism in itself demonstrates that this reaction to the trinitarian concept is itself a concept or a movement capable of neutral historical identification and discussion, although there is really no other way to title it than in the negative, as reacting to a concept it does not share. In other words, unlike "terrorist" for example, I don't think nontrinitarian groups would object to be being labeled as nontrinitarian, but at most would say such labels are surplusage necessitated by the trinitarians.

In sum, then, the label is not POV offensive to those being labeled, and it does define an identifiable, if heterogenous, movement within the history of Christianity. It continues to be important, as the trinitarian/nontrinitarian debate continues to rage (including here on WP!). I (as the totally unbiased originator of the Trinitarianism article and a developer of this article, LOL) would therefore conclude it is encyclopedically useful and should stay, along with its current title.

P.S.: I helped develop this article and I brought the Trinitarianism article into being because of the raging (and I mean, raging) disputes over this doctrinal distinction going on over at the Jehovah's Witnesses talk page. People were calling other people "not Christian," and when I inquired why, I got only cryptic replies that it had something to do with the Holy Trinity. The Holy Trinity article was not much help as it stood, and there were no helpfully linked articles on this unnamed schism that was generating so much passion and controversy, so I did my development work to help inform other WP readers who might be as confused as I and as interested as I in what all the fuss was about.

--Gary D 19:40, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Pagan and Hellenic Origins

I have edited this section to balance the article by highlighting the flaws of the "pagan origins" hypothesis. I have also begun to expand on the "Hellenic origins" hypothesis and will develop it further when I have more time.

Thanks to whoever edited my previous additions to the "Pagan and Hellenic Origins" section; you've succeeded in providing objectivity where I had not! :P I have added a few more comments today (25.11.04) so feel free to tweak them if necessary.

--Teutonic Knight 14:44, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're very welcome; thank you for the new material. Tweaking is surely on the way, by me or others. As someone with knowledge in the area, can you help to tie some of these historical orgins into the later trinitarian doctrine? I was surprised to stumble onto this and find it such a passionate issue to those involved; I hope we can shed some light on the issue for other readers who come to it. --Gary D 06:17, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

My pleasure.  :) I have written a number of essays and articles on the subject (some of them quite large) but it will take time for me to distill the salient points into a manageable size! As a sideline, how do I edit my profile to show personal details, as you have done? --Teutonic Knight 09:36, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Simply click on your user name anywhere it appears on this page (it appears in red because you have never edited it) or at the very top of every WP screen, and it will take you to your user page, which can be edited just as every other page. --Gary D 05:18, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I've got it sorted now.  :) --Teutonic Knight 11:06, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have started to develop the history of progression from Philo to Trinitarianism. Please let me know what you think of it so far. --Teutonic Knight 11:21, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It may be useful to consider how big a story we wish to tell. Wikipedia policy is to limit each article to roughly thirty-two thousand characters (to avoid certain browsers overflowing), which tends to leave articles somewhat short and sometimes like news stories in their summarization and brevity. Now, there's no reason you can't put in all you want to here, and the article is currently only about thirteen thousand characters, so there's still plenty of room. However, if you're still developing steam, and considering this page is an overall summary of nontrinitarianism over all two thousand years, what we might want to do eventually is break out a piece of the text as a subtopic in a separate article, and then summarize and link to it from here. There is no hurry on this, though; simply add all the text you want here, and let's see how large it grows. We can do the breakout into one or multiple new subtopic articles at any time. No matter how many articles result, they will all point to each other, allowing readers to navigate between them to get the whole picture. In addition, all these articles can be brought together by being collected into a common category; I have in fact been "threatening" for a little while to create a category entitled, "Trinitarian-nontrinitarian controversy", and this might be just the thing to get us there. I've now rambled a bit, but I don't really have any "do" or "don't do" advice for you here; I guess I am raising all this simply to get you thinking about overall article scope and the level of detail you want to pursue (always keeping the reader in mind, of course). --Gary D 05:18, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

P.S.: I note you have reordered a few lists of "see also" and the like. It took me a few moments to figure out what reordering strategy you were pursuing, when it struck me that you were doing it by line length. It has kind of a nice, aesthetic look, but you might pick up some static on it, as the more or less unspoken convention around here is to alphabetize lists, barring some special consideration like the occasional chronological list. --Gary D 05:30, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your response.  :) Having tweaked my entry further before your comments here, I am quite happy with the article as it currently stands. I see this page simply as a definition of non-trinitarianism and an outline of its primary objections; I don't believe that it necessitates a comprehensive history of non-trinitarianism over 2,000 years!

In any case, my primary goal was to clarify the "Hellenic origins" argument and add a few cautions about the "pagan origins" argument - and I am now satisfied that this has been successfully achieved. I could write a great deal more, but will not unless other people request it.

Thanks also for your comments re. the "see also lists"; I'll keep that in mind for future edits. --Teutonic Knight 11:55, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that Arianism is still 'acceptable'. Your wording is fine, However 'Catholic' gives the impression that only Roman Catholics were involved in the rejection of Arianism. DJ Clayworth 20:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I took your language as suggesting that Arianism was an accepted variant at one time, for as long as Arians were not excommunicated from the (Catholic) church. It's true that it gained enormous strength within the Catholic/Orthodox church, to a point, until it was rejected. But, my point is that, it was not "accepted" until it was rejected. Its final rejection means that it was judged as having been "rejected" (by the Catholic/Orthodox church) all along. The word "Catholic" is helpful here, as would be the word "Orthodox", because it helps to differentiate the body from which Arianism was excommunicated. The Arians who did not repent, of course, continued to think of themselves as the true Christian church. Otherwise, I'm glad that we agree about the wording. Mkmcconn (Talk) 20:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What constitutes a relevant link?

I added a link to a church (under "nontrinitarian groups") on July 22 and it was removed on July 28 by Geni. I have been told that I need to place this on the discussion so those who previously edited the article can verify whether the link is relevant to the article. Here is the link > Christian Churches of God. Please inform me as to whether the link belongs in the section or not as I find it just as relevant as the rest of the links under the "nontrinitarian groups" section. Thanks.Loosestring 17:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Editing the section on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

The section of this article on Mormon beliefs was not entirely accurate, probably written by a non-Mormon making a good-faith effort to describe what actual Mormons believe. I've made a few minor changes to clarify. The biggest change was removing the section on the Mormon concept of exhaltation. While this section was fairly accurate (although somewhat theologically speculative, in my opinion), this LDS teaching is not really related to the concept of trinity, which describes the relationship between the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost. Let me know if you have any questions or comments about these changes. SLCMormon

Since Mormons identify themselves as Christian, for the purposes fo Wikipedia,they are . Ips facto . (I am not a Mormon. ) I am , however, amused by quotes taken way out of context..) cheers 70.72.1.203 09:09, 3 March 2007

oops, (UTC)

dump from Trinity

The Trinity page had a ton of nontrinitarian material that was better suited here, and I transplanted it. I beg your patience, as there is not duplicate material on this page, plus new material that has not been integrated. Feel free to jump in and help get this material incorporated into the page. I thought it was better to save the material than simply delete it off Trinity. The Trinity page will now have a manageable, concise, fair, and (I hope) hard-hitting summary of nontrinitarianism. Jonathan Tweet 02:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Non- or anti- trinitarian

This article is the top article for the Category: Anti trinitarianism. Why are these two names not the same?—Red Baron 23:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Good question. Although the terms are somewhat interchangeable, I believe 'Non' is the majority term.--C.Logan 00:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The prefix "anti" was used mainly in Catholic writings; I suspect it would go back to the middle ages, but I have not research that. Anecdotally, I would say that nontrinitarians are not "anti" Trinitarianism so much as supportive of a differnt concept of the nature of God. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, can we go about changing the name of one to the other? …and, how do we do it? I would suggest changing this page to "anti-", only because it is the only example of "non-".—Red Baron 14:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Red, I can only speak for myself, but I do not like the term anti. I am not anti-Trinitarian. To me that would seem to classify me primarily as someone who is against a concept. I am not against a concept, but I am for a concept that sees God as Father and His Son and the Holy Spirit as three separate, distinct beings; together they form one godhead. This may not be the orthodox viewpoint, but I don't think of it as "anti" the orthodox viewpoint. I acknowledge that 4th century Christianity and its vast number of adherents are committed to the doctrine of the Trinity. Though I believe, teach, and proclaim the truth of my position, I reject the term anti. I do not spend time talking about the Trinity; rather I spend time talking about what I believe the scriptures say. Does this distinction make sense to you? To me it is important. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Storm Rider, good point. 'Anti' implies protest. 'Non' simply contrasts to the 'orthodox' view for purposes of categorization. I believe the category title may be the one which needs to be changed, if at all.--C.Logan 01:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I sympathize with the aversion to the use of "anti-" as it is constantly used in the pejorative. While wikt:anti- uses the term hostile in its opening definition, results from OneLook tend to limit definitions to opposition and against. In reality, Rider, that is an apt description of what you have written above. The Godhead doctrine you describe is in opposition to trinitarianism so-called. While there is some social stigma attached to being anti-anything, I think it is academically accurate to declare some things as in opposition to others. Then again, maybe we should refer to opposition to antitrinitarianism as antiantitrinitarianism because they are in opposition, too.

The problem is that it is unencyclopedic to have the two names simultaneously. For me, the question is whether there is a common term for the phenomena. I had never heard of either term until I found this article. My point is only to bring all things into order. Storm Rider, you say that the term used by Catholics (acknowledged as biased) has been anti. Logan, you say non is the "majority" term. Personally, I see a vast amount of editing required to change all the "anti"s to "non" in contrast to one change from "non" to "anti". However, this collaboration is built on accuracy more than ease. So, let's use whichever is most verifiable and accurate. I would love to help.—Red Baron 15:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Anti-trinitarianism refers to particular theological writings or modes of argument specifically relevant to controversy over doctrines of the Trinity. When referring to whole religious groups and belief-systems, "non-trinitarian" may be more appropriate, since many members of such groups would consider that they have positively valid religious doctrines, and would not want to be negatively defined as merely being "anti-" something. I'm not sure that having the article titled Nontrinitarianism and the category Antitrinitarianism is a real contradiction... AnonMoos 19:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Pagan origin and Pagan basis

The two sections "Pagan Origin" and "Pagan Basis" are almost identical for their first three paragraphs, just slight paraphrases of each other. I don't know enough to recommend which is better, but someone who is more knowledgeable should try and remove the duplicated material and merge the two sections. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.41.11.134 (talk) 15:24, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

POV comment

this page shows only the trinitarian point of view Stuart Little

It's not a good stub; but I wouldn't say that it shows any point of view. I think that it's admirably confusing, if a muddled picture is a sign of neutrality. Mkmcconn 22:52, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

What a phony sockpuppet POV: I don't see this Stuart Little at the Trinity article saying the same thing there after all the nontrinitarianism/anti-trinitarian stuff was moved to this article (== dump from Trinity ==). Should anyone be surprised if it turns out to be you who removed it at the Trinity article? GabrielVelasquez (talk) 10:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

But Arianism was the orthodoxy (or not)

Three councils adopted various forms of it, namely the council of Sardica in 343, the council of Sirmium in 358 and the double council of Rimini and Selecia in 359. Or is the objection they did not go for full blooded Arianism?Dejvid 29 June 2005 19:43 (UTC)

There are all sorts of councils enacting various things here and there. But if the councils of the whole (ecumenical councils) express what is the orthodoxy of the whole church, then Arianism has never been orthodox. It was dominant in some regions of early Christendom, but it was not the doctrine of the church. I'll ask Wesley to add his views on that issue, from an Eastern Orthodox perspective, but I think that it's more accurate to say "A specific form of Nontrinitarianism is Arianism, which had become the dominant view in some regions in the time of the Roman Empire, by the time that it was rejected by Church Councils.", rather than "Arianism was orthodox at one time." Mkmcconn (Talk) 29 June 2005 20:13 (UTC)

I understook that at least one of the those councils was oganized as on a whole movement basis but I admit I'd be hard pressed to back that up at this imediate point in time. At least I understand your point of view now.Dejvid 29 June 2005 20:49 (UTC)

While I'm not familiar with those specific councils, it's true that Arianism was very prevalent for much of the fourth century, and at times was favored by the Roman Emperor in Constantinople. But it was never orthodox; it was a new teaching originated by a priest named Arius in I think the early 300s, disputed fairly early by then deacon Athanasius, and formally rejected at the ecumenical councils of 325 and 381. In retrospect, the 381 council proved more decisive than the 325 council. Later in the fourth century, Vincent of Lerins wrote about how to discern which teachings were orthodox and which weren't, thinking of the Arianism controversy and one other I forget now. He concluded by formulated the "rule" or "canon" of Lerins: it must that which is believed at all times, in all places, by all people. While Arianism was at one time probably believed by a majority of Christians, it was not believed at all times, being rather something new. And I don't think that any bishop of Rome ever accepted it, so it didn't make it to even all five of the early major centers of Christianity; Athanasius fled there for refuge I think at least a couple of the times the emperor banished him; at other times he fled into the Egyptian desert to live with some isolated monks. At any rate, I hope this helps. Wesley 2 July 2005 16:53 (UTC)

That's just wrong. It wasn't anything new. Jacob Haller 22:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

No? Enlighten me. Is there any record of any Christian well before Arius asserting that "there was a time when the Son was not"? Wesley (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia a vehicle for Roman Catholic propaganda?

Nope; it's a vehicle for anonymous innuendo. Wesley (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Other nontrinitarian monotheistic groups besides Christian groups

I want to see an article talking about all monotheistic religions that do not recognize the deity of Christ, but I don't know what to call it. Does anybody have suggestions for a title name? This article would include Muslims, Unitarians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Baha'i etc. Jonrgrover 16:18, 23 November 2006

I'm lost upon a title for you, but I must tell you that it would be inaccurate to list Jehovah's Witnesses on such a page because they profess belief in Christ as well (though not belief in the Trinity doctrine that states that Christ ---> God). If one were to pass by a Kingdom Hall, the plaque would read "CHRISTIAN Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses". {Jazzmaniac (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)}

This concept is appropriately handled already in the article on Jesus. Also, I have to echo Jazzmaniac. It would be inappropriate to say that the Jehovah's Witnesses do not recognize the deity of Jesus Christ, since it is central to their doctrine. I believe that this is why both Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses tend to take offense at being called nonchristian...because they do recognize Christ as deity, although both are certainly nontrinitarian (and will openly admit it.)--JCrenshaw (talk) 21:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It is true. As a latter day saint, I believe with every fiber of my being that Christ is my Savior. The long name for our church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. We believe that President Monson directly speaks with Christ, but it is true that we are really believe notrinitarianism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jelloanderson (talk • contribs) 04:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Jesus is not God

Does anyone want to take a stab at addeding this in the article. It is rough and needs links to the Scriptures, but can make a good point. If no one wants to, I will attempt to do more.
Jesus prays to God, John 17: 1-3
has faith in God, Hebrews 2:17, 18,Hebrews 3:2
is a Servant of God, Acts 3:13; 4:27,30
does not know things God knows, Mark 13:32; Rev1:1
holy spirit does not know either is taught by the Father, John 8:27
worships God, John 4:22
calls God his God Rev 3:12
is in subjection to God, 1 Cor 15: 28
has God for his head, 1 Cor 11:1
is exalted by God, Acts 5:31; Phil 2:9
is given authority by God, John 17:2,3
is given life by the Father, John 6:57; John 5:26
is given kingship by God, Luke 1:32,33
is given judgment by the Father, John 5:27; Acts 10:42
is given lordship by God, Acts 2:36
has reverent submission, fear, of God Hebrews 5:7-10
and is made high priest by God Hebrews 5:10
Johanneum 05:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent reference list! But you forgot an important one:
The schizophrenic trinity god talks to himself, or God spoke to Jesus in the company of witnesses (John 12:28,29).
GabrielVelasquez (talk) 10:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You would need to cite the people that use these texts as evidence that Jesus is not God. Many of these very same texts are also interpreted as being evidence for belief that Jesus is God, and that the one God exists as the Trinity. This reconciles verses like the above with all the verses that more clearly elaborate on Jesus' divinity. Wesley (talk) 05:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

May be "schizophrenic" is too big a word for you, perhaps "Crazzee!" is better; in any case if you are in support of the trinity you are at the wrong article, if you have improvements for this article which is cleary opposed to that lie, then great, start improving. All angels are divine bruthah, but notice the deception though, Ho THEON... Theos... (John 1:1). Ask someone who speaks Greek, like I did, the second is only (ONLY) qualitative, hence translating them both "God" is a deception... "God is spirit:" - John 4:24, and so are Angels, and so is Jesus (incorporeal)... hence yes "Divine." --- GabrielVelasquez (talk) 06:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop supporting POVism. Additionally, your comments are getting rather out of hand. Your objectivity in the matter is essentially non-existent at this point. You have made it more than clear what you believe and why you are here-and what you intend to use the encyclopedia for. Unfortunately, you have been breaking policies, and you continue to do so while directly ignoring all helpful suggestion directed towards you. It's become sort of apparent that attempting to explain things to you reasonably is a waste of time- you simply can't see past your biases, specifically when it comes to other editors. Why are you ranting by flaunting some poorly developed exegeses of Biblical verses?--C.Logan (talk) 04:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe because you keep using stupid phrases like "flaunting some poorly developed exegeses" as though you are some Dr.know-it-all, and the Greek speaking editor doesn't know Greek. I presented valid reasoning and you have the bad tact (pick your policy) to call it a rant. Flying-Firetrucks-ofFudge it all. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 05:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If you don't understand the words, don't make fun of them. If you do, then you should be intelligent enough to know that criticizing someone for using complex sentences just makes you look very immature. I'm not going to argue with you on this extremely complex issue, because you seem generally unreceptive when I attempt to explain clearer things (such as simple rules and requirements). Who doesn't know Greek? What are you attempting to say here?--C.Logan (talk) 05:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Cute; if you have to ask me what I mean by that then you are the one who doesn't know what "exegeses" means. Secondly, you don't attempt to explain, you use phrases like "you look very immature" which is a Personal attack. Thirdly, "flaunting some poorly developed exegeses" as you put it is just plane bad Wiki-Etiquite, if you have been here longer than John Carter you should know better by now. It makes me sad to see you act hypocritially man, I'll share a veggie burger with you some time. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 07:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

{{RFCreli}}

More to the point Wesley, I do not have to prove the Jesus is not God. Nontrinitarianism is a POV. The POV is that Jesus is not God.
You people seem to keep missing this and wasting people time, for the last time:
"Nontrinitarianism = Jesus is not God."
20:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what anyone is requesting of you. You may want to ask for clarification, even though you haven't been very receptive to it at this point. Please cease ranting, and start discussing.--C.Logan (talk) 04:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Nontrinitarianism isn't a POV. It's a lot of different POVs, namely all POVs other than Trinitarianism: Unitarianism, atheism, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism ... Is there any point to this article? Peter jackson (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

So wait, if atheists, Jews, Islamic people and others are nontrinitarianism, than why is nontrinitarianism listed as a Christian denomination? If nontrinitarianism rejects the basic tenets of Christianity, should we not move this article to some other section of Wikipedia?bolinstephen (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Removing the Incorrectly Included Seventh-Day Adventists

This is the SDA position as quoted on their website http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html. Clearly they have a traditional trinitarian doctrine:

2. Trinity: There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons. God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all, and ever present. He is infinite and beyond human comprehension, yet known through His self-revelation. He is forever worthy of worship, adoration, and service by the whole creation. (Deut. 6:4; Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2; 1 Tim. 1:17; Rev. 14:7.)

3. Father: God the eternal Father is the Creator, Source, Sustainer, and Sovereign of all creation. He is just and holy, merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness. The qualities and powers exhibited in the Son and the Holy Spirit are also revelations of the Father. (Gen. 1:1; Rev. 4:11; 1 Cor. 15:28; John 3:16; 1 John 4:8; 1 Tim. 1:17; Ex. 34:6, 7; John 14:9.)

4. Son: God the eternal Son became incarnate in Jesus Christ. Through Him all things were created, the character of God is revealed, the salvation of humanity is accomplished, and the world is judged. Forever truly God, He became also truly man, Jesus the Christ. He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. He lived and experienced temptation as a human being, but perfectly exemplified the righteousness and love of God. By His miracles He manifested God's power and was attested as God's promised Messiah. He suffered and died voluntarily on the cross for our sins and in our place, was raised from the dead, and ascended to minister in the heavenly sanctuary in our behalf. He will come again in glory for the final deliverance of His people and the restoration of all things. (John 1:1-3, 14; Col. 1:15-19; John 10:30; 14:9; Rom. 6:23; 2 Cor. 5:17-19; John 5:22; Luke 1:35; Phil. 2:5-11; Heb. 2:9-18; 1 Cor. 15:3, 4; Heb. 8:1, 2; John 14:1-3.)

5. Holy Spirit: God the eternal Spirit was active with the Father and the Son in Creation, incarnation, and redemption. He inspired the writers of Scripture. He filled Christ's life with power. He draws and convicts human beings; and those who respond He renews and transforms into the image of God. Sent by the Father and the Son to be always with His children, He extends spiritual gifts to the church, empowers it to bear witness to Christ, and in harmony with the Scriptures leads it into all truth. (Gen. 1:1, 2; Luke 1:35; 4:18; Acts 10:38; 2 Peter 1:21; 2 Cor. 3:18; Eph. 4:11, 12; Acts 1:8; John 14:16-18, 26; 15:26, 27; 16:7-13.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.152.101.44 (talk) 19:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I can not access the link above, nor any of the links in the appropriate article from the public library interent computers for some reason, and this comment is unsigned. So, would someone please verify that this is correct and the deletion should have been made, because otherwise it looks to me like vandalism. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I can access the link. The statement is correct, clearly trinitarian.--JCrenshaw (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Arianism is undefined and does not fit in the same group as those who state that Jesus is not God

• Arianism sometimes means the doctrines of Arius, and sometimes means Homoiousian ones, and sometimes means Anomoean ones, and sometimes means other groups whose affinities are disputed.
• Many references refer to nontrinitarian martyrs of the period "confessing Christ."
• Auxentius of Durostorum asserts and attributes to his adoptive father Ulfilas the belief that "the Father is God of the Lord, while the Son is God of the created universe." and states that "this blessed man was revealed as a prophet and ordained as priest of Christ." Jacob Haller 22:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• He quotes Wulfila saying "I believe in [...] his only-begotten son, our Lord and God..." Jacob Haller 22:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't realize there was a distinction between Arius and the 'Homoiousian ones'; Isn't 'homoiousius' the word that Arius proposed in 325, instead of 'homoousius' that the Council ultimately adopted? In any case Arius and his followers certainly honored Jesus as a highly exalted angelic being; but they also believed there was a time when He did not exist, that he was not coeternal with the Father. Muslims also honor Jesus as a great prophet, though they don't believe He is God either. Wesley (talk) 05:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church

I removed the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church from the list of non-trinitarian groups because of undue weight. The most reliable source on them says the group had 7 members in 1999. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 06:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Reference

• I have restored this entry. The source you cite says no such thing as you claim, (i.e., "seven members in 1999") and you have been informed of this misreading before. You have been involved in removing sourced, notable (by Wikipedia standards) [1] [2] entries from appropriate lists, and you are incorrectly citing a content policy (undue weight) in an attempt to stretch it to list inclusion criteria. This is particularly grievous considering the existence of redlinks in Nontrinitarianism, of which the entry you tend to remove is not a member. A number of those that are not redlinks contain no sources whatsoever; this is, as diplomatically as I can put it, "selective" editing, even if the justification for removal were true. Based on the very souce used, however, it isn't. ◄Zahakiel► 14:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The group is not significant enough to belong here, as that would be undue weight. Yes there are a few redlinks - I am not familiar with those groups so perhaps they should be removed as well. This is no place to spam your tiny group. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 03:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You do not seem to understand the "Undue weight" policy, and I have explained to you several times, over several pages, that this is a policy content.

Let me quote to you some revelant portions you consistently overlook from WP:DUE:

"An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia." Note that, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not," however the issue you are raising is about the size of the group, not the number of people who hold this rather common view.

Furthermore, "not significant enough" is a judgment call, and one unsubstantiated by the outcome of the AfD you tried unsuccessfully to level against that article. It is "significant enough" for Wikipedia, and as it has its own article, including it in a list of groups sharing a criteria in common with it is not WP:SPAM, which is ALSO a content policy, and does not cover the inclusion of legitimate articles in legitimate lists. The size of a group is not a criteria for inclusion of these kinds lists, as you have been told on the talk page for "List of Christian denominations" by another editor, and you insist on misapplying policy to suit your jugdment.

Note even further that even vastly limited groups (if such were the case) can be mentioned in "anciliary" or subordinate, record-like articles (like lists) so even if your absurd application of "undue weight" were perfectly correct (which it isn't) and even if you had a policy-based reason for including your own desires as Wikipedia guidelines (which you don't) it would still not justify removing that entry. This is unacceptable activity for a supposedly neutral editor. I am restoring the deletion, and I am going to insist that you incorporate a neutral editor's thought processes into your own. I am opening another RfC on this issue, because I do not think it is going to be decided between the two of us, and I believe your edits are improper. ◄Zahakiel► 13:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The source has an incorrect hyperlink. You shouldn't use a hyperlink if you can't link to the sourced material (in this case, the link is to the article for the newspaper that supposedly contained the information, but the information is not available.) The evidence I can find would suggest that this group is larger in size than 7 people, since they are 20 years old. Also, just because you "haven't heard of" something, doesn't make it undue weight. I see no reason not to include it in the list. I DO believe that it needs to be made clear that this is NOT the Seventh Day Adventist Church. Their name is confusingly similar, and has resulted in a trademark conflict of some sort. This should be clarified in this list.--JCrenshaw (talk) 21:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

RfC on inclusion of small group

{{RFCreli}} By way of full disclosure, I am a member of the non-Trinitarian CSDA Church, the inclusion of its Wikipedia article on this page (which includes a list of non-Trinitarian Churches) is the reason for this RfC. I have contributed content to that article, though I did not begin it myself. I have supported it being kept in an AfD by Colin MacLaurin; and since the article was retained, this editor has gone out of his way to attempt to remove its mention from every other article that lists it, even when the criteria has been fully met. The improper use of the article-content-policy undue weight is being used as an attempted justification[3] for not mentioning it in even the most inclusive of lists, like the List_of_Christian_denominations; and although a third-party has informed this user that even "tiny" groups are suitable for inclusion as long as their existence can be verified, (Talk:List_of_Christian_denominations#Scope_of_list) and although notability must be (and is) demonstrated within the article itself, or it would have been deleted, the attempts elsewhere - such as here- have continued unabated. This user has also sought to introduce prejudicial and entirely incorrect information into the article itself, and while this is a topic for another RfC, I believe it shows strong evidence of bias. While the same has been said of me (see the "spam" comment by Mr. MacLaurin above - which is about introducing advertising data into articles, not about including them with sets of other like groups) I have not violated any policies in the attempt to get neutral, verifiable material included in the entry, and to remove incorrect information from badly misused sources (see the talk page for several examples of this by the editor in question; e.g., completely false data about the size of the movement). I will agree to whatsoever consensus neutral, third-party editors create, but I do not believe that a valid Wikipedia article about a Christian group should not be in a "List of Christian denominations," or that a valid article about a non-Trinitarian group should not be included in what is obviously a very inclusive list of non-Trinitarian groups. ◄Zahakiel► 13:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Although I appreciate what you are doing here and the legalese, Ps and Qs, could you please edit this so it doesn't just allude to this christian denomination/group, but I know from my first read there. Thanks.GabrielVelasquez (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gabriel; I am not sure I perfectly understand your meaning, but certainly the issues I am raising apply to all small groups. The objection of the editor who is mentioned in my request for comment believes that the particular group mentioned (i.e., the CSDA Church) does not belong in this list of non-Trinitarian groups; perhaps he believes this of all small movements, (although I contend a large degree of subjectivity would be involved in making such a determination) but his primary interest is in Adventist-related articles, and this is why my request is phrased as it is. Perhaps you can recommend some alternate wording for a more general request during or after this request is processed? Thanks. ◄Zahakiel► 13:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment (I was mentioned above). The group in question has appeared on the following: Millerites, Adventist, Seventh-day Adventist Church, Template:Adventism, Nontrinitarianism, and List of Christian denominations. I and others removed it per undue weight. After removing it from "List of Christian denominations", I then noticed that that article has no clear boundaries for inclusion (it is a vast article of course), so I commented on the talk page, asking for other input. It was replaced there and remains, and no one has disputed that. However regarding the other articles, I believe this group is not notable enough by Wikipedia standards to be mentioned there, as such would be undue weight. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 08:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Perhaps it would be useful to the discussion, and my own understanding here, if you could explain what you mean exactly by "undue weight." You are clearly not quoting from the actual policy WP:DUE, which deals with letting every matter in an article be given a neutral point of view. Let me quote it specifically for others who may wish to comment: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." There is no question of neutrality in including a non-Trinitarian group in a list of non-Trinitarian groups, however small and "unimportant" you personally believe it to be. The "in proportion to each" phrase, which you might be hanging your hat on, does not apply to mere mention in a list, since the articles themselves already have standards for what information can be included, and issues of "prominence" are to be settled therein. There is clearly not a WP:SPAM issue going on, since verifible information is being provided in an appropriate place, and there is no advertising taking place - the article is already there. I am not trying to be unduly combative here, but I do believe you are misapplying the policy due to your personal view that "this group is not notable enough by Wikipedia standards to be mentioned here." I have to demand at this point, WHAT "standards" are you talking about? As I pointed out in the RfC request, the group is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, but you say it is not notable enough for inclusion in a list? That is a clear double-standard, and needs some policy-based justification rather than just the whims of an individual editor. ◄Zahakiel► 14:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I was asked to help with a technical issue about the RFC notice not showing up on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy. I restored the notice, hopefully it will show up the next time the bot runs. Now as to the issue of the group's inclusion on this page: I think the issue is one of Notability, rather than strict size of group, and our definition of minimal Notability is demonstrated by whether or not we have decided to have an article on the group itself. If we can show (1) the group is notable, and (2) its status as a Nontrinitarian group is notable, it should be included in the list. Now it seems that for point (1) the CSDA is debatably notable, but so far the community has decided that it is, as it's article has survived two AFDs. For point (2), the question is really one of manageability, and I'll have to defer to Christianity subject experts. If there are hundreds of groups that we have articles on that would be considered Nontrinitarian, then it would be unmanageable; we won't be able to list them all without having the article be taken up by the list, and we'll have to only list the most notable ones. Currently it seems like we have 30 groups listed, which is large, but not unmanageable, and there are three red links, which implies that the highest levels of notability are not required. This is all per the guideline Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Lists of people. I know from the title of that link it doesn't sound like it would apply here, but if you read it, I think it will be clear that its logic should. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with the technical question, and in terms of your contribution to the discussion of the issue itself, your conclusions are in essence the same as my own. I need to note here, as I noted on the talk page for the article in question, the the above editor responsible for removing the information is falsely quoting his source in the section above. His statement that, "The most reliable source on them says the group had 7 members in 1999" is absolutely untrue; the source cited (a 1999 article in the Clarion-Ledger newspaper) says no such thing, only that seven members of one congregation in Tennessee were involved in a project on a cotton farm related to the Y2K concern. I just want to clarify that since even if the issue were tied into the strict size of the group, contributors reading up on this issue are in danger of being misled, for whatever reason. ◄Zahakiel► 21:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, AnonEMouse. I suggest we consult the most reliable encyclopedias on the issue, and see which nontrinitarian groups they list or deem important, and just use that sample. Regarding the number of members, that article only mentions the existence of "under 25" as I recall. However that is not the issue here - let's consult reputable encyclopedias on "nontrinitarianism". Colin MacLaurin (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

As we've done for all the other entries on this list? Clearly, the articles on each of these groups, when they exist at all, are being used as the source material here - since there is no "encyclopedia on nontrinitarianism" that would apply here. The argument you are taking up at this point is the very reason why the WP:NOT#PAPER official policy was written. Material, as long as it can be verified, is perfectly allowable on Wikipedia even if it does not exist in "reputable" encylopedias. This is also the reason why editor consensus is such a key element of Wikipedia; it eliminates individual biases and allows for a fair representation of existing information. I know that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is generally an AfD phrase (to avoid) but come on now... your interest in getting that particular entry off this page is causing a clear double-standard in your comments. At least you've dropped that "seven members in 1999" nonsense (for now); although you are still misquoting your source. The newspaper states that one congregation in St. Joseph, TN was "less than 25 members" in 1999. Your inability to deal objectively with this topic (and your frequent misquoting of sources is a case-in-point) is the very reason I asked for this RfC. ◄Zahakiel► 04:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there does seem to be at least websites for branchs of the church in Kenya here and Canada here, which might serve to indicate that the body in question does have members beyond Tennessee. Neither gives any numbers so far as I can tell, though. The fact that the body in question is seemingly notable enough for a wikipedia page would to my eyes seem to establish enough notability to make it reasonable to have the group listed, provided it's status as nontrinitarian can be established, which doesn't seem to be particularly questioned. I could however see that, if the body in question were to be seen to be inactive or no longer extant later, then there could be cause to remove it if only active groups were listed. Under those circumstances, it might even make sense ultimately to remove the separate page altogether. And, if for whatever reason the separate page were to no longer exist later, then the separate listing might be open to question as well. John Carter (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, for what it's worth, there are specific cases where numbers aren't known, because the denomination in question, if it is a denomination, doesn't keep records. the Vineyard movement had no official records of any kind, so there would be no way to say that they qualified for inclusion anywhere on the basis of "numbers". Other groups, particularly splinter groups which haven't yet formalized separation, would also be impossible to have numbers cited for them. The Nigerian heresy is one such group. Numbers often aren't available for current groups, and certainly aren't often available on defunct groups from the early years of Christianity, so that particular standard of measurement would be problematic in a lot of cases. John Carter (talk) 20:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is the case here. Although there are separate congregations, there is no central registry or conference that holds data about the local churches. Also re: the status as non-Trinitarian, there is a source included in the article, a "Directory of Sabbath Keeping Organizations," (or something like that) which specifically lists the group as being non Trinitarian, so that's never been in dispute. ◄Zahakiel► 21:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Trinitarian Sabotage

{{Helpme}} I would like to know what is being done to keep trinitarians from undermining and sabotaging the content and quality of this article, being that it is against their interest, and I have already encountered biased interferance??

Since Wikipedia may be edited by anyone, there is no surefire guarantee that someone who has a conflict of interest will edit this article and insert a biased point of view. However, any controversial changes that are not discussed with the community first will be removed until consensus is developed. I hope that answers your question. Likewise, please do not remove any statements you find biased without discussing them here first, unless they are clearly and undeniably meant to be read from a specific point-of-view. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 06:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note the problems with your addition: first of all, it is poorly worded, and is clear POVism. "How about Jesus said..." is not encyclopedic, and sounds more like a forum post. Additionally, Wikipedia restricts the use of primary source interpretations unless it is ostensibly clear what is being said. I have no clue whatsoever how this is apparent with your (insufficient) verse citation. The verses say: The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? Please explain how your interpretation is justifiable without the presentation of a secondary source which makes this same claim. I think it is worth mentioning that both this and the Trinity article have problems with the lack of citations for listings such as this. At the very least, a source must be provided which lists verses as supporting any particular doctrine.--C.Logan (talk) 06:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay I changed it to a quote of the verse itself. I'm not a scholar but it the quote stands on its own. Logically, he didn't refute them by saying "But, I am God." and that in-of-itself is notable enough. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 06:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you're aware of the range of possibilities concerning the interpretation of scripture. It's likely that the same verses which Trinitarians claim to support their doctrine is used to some extent to justify your own (whatever specific one it may be). As such, Wikipedia's policy of relying on reliable secondary sources for interpretative presentations (here, as the presentation of a verse which "supports" a doctrine) matters all the more in examples like these.

There are at least three interpretations of this verse; a notable one with which you may not agree is the "Mormonism"-supportive view. There is also the belief that Jesus was making a claim to the figurative nature (rather than literal) of his "Godhood". As far as I am aware, the Trinitarian viewpoint bases the interpretation of this passage on the concept of theosis and "godliness" (essentially, supportive of the concept of the magnified holiness of saints).

To you, the verse grates against Trinitarian beliefs and claims, but to Trinitarians (and others), the verse is interpreted quite differently, as you can see. Therefore, some reliable source needs to be provided for this addition (and truthfully, for all additions and Biblical verse claims, but no one seems proactive enough to help out with this task). I hope my removal is clearer to you.--C.Logan (talk) 07:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Notable... to you alone (reliable sources are still needed)? Your logical justification above is bold, as I've noted; it is, at the moment, original research (which is not allowed).--C.Logan (talk) 07:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a phony waste of my time, my fellow vegetarian, where are your so called references for the TWENTY ONE verses above it, why didn't you challange them?? You are mistaken that references are needed for everything, ask an administrator. AGAIN where are the references for the TWENTY ONE verses above the one I added, Trinitarian. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 07:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Like I've said above: ideally, these would be removed as well. However, the fact that there is already information which is presented in this manner is not justification to continue adding unsourced interpretations of primary sources. WP:OR states simply: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. It says that if primary sources are used, that their presentation should "make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source." As it stands, there is an implicit interpretation of the verse supporting Trinitarianism. This information can be included, but only if a reliable secondary source is added which makes the claim that this verse does indeed support this concept. The same applies to all the listings, on every page. As I've said, there is little effort to solve this problem- that doesn't mean that these pages can continue to ignore policy. The issue is often raised, but nothing is done about it.--C.Logan (talk) 07:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not become antagonistic. I am being very patient, and I am explaining to you what I think the problem is without insulting you or bringing up your particular belief. Ockham was undoubtedly not well-versed in Wikipedia policy, and I remind you again that your interpretive treatment, logical as it may seem to you, is original research in this context.--C.Logan (talk) 07:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to expand to one particular Trinitarian justification, for the sake of greater understanding of the scope of the interpretation of this passage. St. John Chrysostom notes on these passages that Jesus is saying, essentially: "If those who have received this honor by grace are not found with fault for calling themselves gods, how can He who has this by nature deserve to be rebuked?". This is an interpretation which does not support your own view. What I'm asking for is reliable sources which support this interpretation, rather than your own interpretation.--C.Logan (talk) 07:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That is a nonsensical interpretation of that scripture by a so-called Saint. Again, it is self evident Jesus did not answer them "but, I am God." My adding the verse on its own as a quote is sufficiant, and it is absurd of you to accuse me of Original Research, as though I wrote the Bible. I removed the paraphrasing a long time ago, and I will undo your delete once again, and leave just the quote of the verse... If you think you can delete that whole list of verses, and then move on to deleting this article with your trinitarian agenda you have another thing coming. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you misunderstand how things work here. St. John's interpretation is notable, whereas yours or my own is not (concerning the inclusion and interpretation of particular information). On a side note, I'm at a loss as to how it is "nonsensical". You don't have to agree with it, but it makes sense as it stands.

Your interpretation is not "self evident"; it is your own interpretation, and as it is not notable per Wikipedia policy, adding your own interpretation of a primary source is inserting original research. It is quite simple: unless a source is provided, you made the determinations found in the text. This is original research: making judgments and interpretations without providing reliable sources which support your conclusion. See WP:OR.--C.Logan (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Gabriel, do you know of a secondary source, a quote from a notable minister, theologian, etc. that explains the verse you cited and its significance to demonstrating that Jesus was not God the Father? What Logan is asking for is appropriate; he is not trying to stop you from editing, but assisting you in improving wikipedia. Your work is appreciated, but to ensure that it stays in the article in the future will require acceptable references. If you can't find a source, just say so and I expect that we can be of further assistance. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"This is a partial list of verses implying opposition to Trinitarianism:" is the current wording in the Article qualifying all the verses that are listed below it. As stated below, (by Duffer) Nontrinitarianism is a POV, and the article will in that case have a POV, and the verses cited will be cited with a POV..., the Nontrinitarian POV. Goodness, and I thought for a while I was alone in reasonalble reasoning. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 05:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Implications need sources as much as (if not more) explicit claims do. Additionally, all sources require adherence to a neutral point of view, so I'm not sure what you're attempting to justify there. On Wikipedia, we are compelled to operate as robots- not interpreting anything, but merely providing relevant points along with sources which support them. There has been a great deal of argumentation (and policy misuse/misunderstanding), but very little accommodation to policy concerns. One can whine and polarize the discussion however they'd like, but all it boils down to is my own simple request: please provide a reliable source for this interpretation (sources clear enough so that they don't require editor interpretation by themselves).--C.Logan (talk) 08:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

An outside perspective. The Trinity article has a similar list, I don't see why the Nontrinitarian page cannot have similar un-sourced passages. Frankly though I think such lists are an exceedingly poor means to educate someone on Trini/Non-trini isms and nuances.

Regarding John 10:34 the passage is self-evident, Jesus told the Jews flat out that he considered their charge an accusation (instead of agreeing with them) and further went on to say that he is (or should only be) referred to as "god" in the very explicit sense of "representative of the God." To dispel all uncertainty he continues to tell them that he not only isn't THE God, but His Son. But despite all that a citation or authority has been asked for. Here's a few:

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary (John 10:34-36) "Ye are gods - being the official representatives and commissioned agents of God."

Robertson's Word Pictures: "Ye are gods - The judges of Israel abused their office and God is represented in Psa_82:6 as calling them “gods” (theoi, elohim) because they were God’s representatives. See the same use of elohim in Exo_21:6; Exo_22:9, Exo_22:28. Jesus meets the rabbis on their own ground in a thoroughly Jewish way."

People's New Testament Commentary: "I said, Ye are gods? It was there addressed to judges. Christ's argument is: If your law calls judges gods, why should I be held guilty of blasphemy for saying that I am the Son of God?"

Chrysostom was wrong, or apparently unfamiliar with Jewish law or the Old Testament. But guys really, arguing over one passage will not resolve an 1800 year old debate, relax a little. Duffer (talk) 11:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I'd said at the beginning of this section: "I think it is worth mentioning that both this and the Trinity article have problems with the lack of citations for listings such as this". It's not a good thing, and the issue is often brought up, but no one seems to do anything about it (it's not the easiest thing to find reliable sources for, although many Bible commentaries could possibly be sufficient.

Additionally, Chrysostom was certainly familiar with the scriptures, as the majority of his life's work was devoted to commentary on the Bible. I also don't see any conflict whatsoever between the above cited commentary and Chrysostom's own. As it seems, they all essentially follow the same thought process (as it seems, any contradiction between them is imagined by the reader who presupposes that the above commentary caters only to nontrinitarian viewpoints, which would not seem to be the case). The PNTC touches closest, with Chrysostom's analysis only taking the logical progression one step further by denoting that Jesus was rightfully naming himself as the Son of God because, in the Trinitarian sense, that's who he was. So... I don't see where John goes wrong by the examples given above.

I do appreciate an outside opinion. Optimally, we should stick to sources. Gabriel's addition was the trigger, as the wording and edit summaries alone made a particular agenda clear. I'm fine with nontrinitarianism, and I'm aware that many of these passages are indeed commonly given in support of the concept, but there was just too much interpretive work on Gabriel's part, and it became clear that laxity on the issue will only turn into abuse by POV-pushing users. An issue was raised to find sources for a list which displayed early examples of references to Jesus as God, and I managed to provide a complete source for the quotations. The list of verses listed here, on Trinity, and on many other doctrinal pages need sources- it is a problem- and we shouldn't be lenient on the issue and allowing others to add more verses because "it's already a mess".--C.Logan (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Chrysostom totally misses the point, and his words are in direct contradiction to the context of John 10:33-36. He claims that Jesus felt the slur was undeserved for being rebuked because he is "God by nature". Tthe passage nor context mentions anything about Jesus' nature. I can quote several other commentaries that say similarly, I did not initially provide them since they are lengthy.

I agree that Gabriel's way of editing, and wording, was not beneficial to the article, but he is right that this passage is commonly used to defend a non-trinitarian view by pointing out the specific ontological difference between the God and Jesus. I have provided 3 sources that clearly indicate that there is nothing to John 10:34-36 that mentions Jesus' nature beyond being a representative of the God as His Son. It should not matter at all if Chrysostom can view this as supportive of the Trinity doctrine since this article is not about defending the Trinitarian point of view. Every one of these passages (listed here and on the Trinity article) are all debatable within the context of the given viewpoint, you could say what you have about every passage on the list, and a non-Trinitarian can do the same with the Trinity list. Duffer (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm still rather unsure how you see such a strong contradiction even amongst your own cited passages and Chrysostom's. The more obvious issue, again, is that it is very risky to claim that Chrysostom "missed the point", as if the commentary which you have provided has somehow crossed theological and historical lines and divined the truth from this often obscure text. Interpretations are interpretations, and therefore one can never really be wrong- especially when dealing with the possible implications behind a statement which we could obviously never truly be aware of.

There is also something faulty in claiming that John's interpretation of the text is in "contradiction" with the context of the verses. I wonder if we're mis-communicating, because I see nothing in John's own analysis, again, which does not fit with the Jewish context of Jesus' statement- he was speaking to Jews, after all, but I think where you and I may not be connecting is in the fact that John isn't saying that Jesus meant for his audience to understand the phrasing as such; as the Bible operates on several levels of meaning simultaneously, there is the explicit action and understanding of the event, and there is the shrouded meaning hidden behind the words of Jesus (who often spoke of events and other things in a manner that wasn't quite clear to his followers until a later point in time). It seems clear to me that John is emphasizing the latter here, but it is unwise to assume that he does not understand the mundane interpretation of things. Jesus, at least in Chrysostom's view, rebuked the men for being hypocrites at that moment in time by playing off of their own field- and yet at the same time, the meaning of his words goes beyond that which is present and plain.

There is nothing within your sources that shows any contradiction to Trinitarianism (as far as I see), and as for your statement of "there is nothing to John 10:34-36 that mentions Jesus' nature beyond being a representative of the God as His Son": if it is as you say, then it is simply the case that one can't cite the passage as an argument for Trinitarianism. However, arguing against it is another story, and I don't quite see how these verses are any more supportive of nontrinitarian arguments (that a verse is not supportive of an idea does not guarantee that it is antagonistic to it- here, there is no necessity to drive the point home in these verses, so it seems as if some nontrinitarian readers may consider every missed opportunity to drive the Trinity point home as being, rather, in conflict with it. I hope that I'm making an ounce of sense with this phrasing).

I'm not even sure if you understand why Chrysostom was even cited by me here, so take note. The example was to show Gabriel that it is not "self-evident" that these passages support such his own viewpoint. It is rather elementary knowledge that interpretation is a subjective thing, and it is easy enough to demonstrate this by giving a notable source which stands in direct contrast to the user's interpretation, showing the necessity of a clear, reliable source on the matter- one which elucidates explicitly why the verse is antagonistic to Trinitarian doctrine (again, I don't see anything like this whatsoever in your citations; as I've said, they seem like entirely reasonable interpretations whether or not one supposes the Trinity to be a factor- I understand your preference for quick citations, but they don't seem to support the topic, and this could be considered original research to some extent as well, until something clearer is shown). Gabriel seems to have missed it entirely: Chrysostom is not wrong- he just has a different viewpoint, and Gabriel's own is not permissible for inclusion according to policy. We get nowhere with an editor who refuses to provide sources because "it is obvious". If that is the case, then it should be easy to find sources, shouldn't it? Unfortunately the situation progressed in the manner we are now aware of.

I think that, ideally, we should note the verses with some sort of explanation as to why they support either idea (with sources, of course). Plopping them there does some disservice to the reader and the verses themselves, especially considering, as you and I agree, that many of the verses exhibited here and there are arguably on both sides of the fence. The problem with this idea, of course, is that such a series of descriptions could become exhaustive and could take up a considerable amount of space. There is the possibility of reducing the listings to a shorter list of examples, but that's a trade-off. On a side note, we may be digressing too much on the talk page.--C.Logan (talk) 10:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand why you cited Chrysostom, I just don't understand his rational for adding to the text something that isn't there. Jesus says exactly why he rebuked the Jews and in no uncertain terms said that he is not God. Chrysostom twists that into some kind of nonsense about Jesus feeling rebuked over his God-like nature. Also the passage is not cited to contradict the Trinity (which I believe it does but that doesn't matter), it doesn't have to do that, it is employed to support non-trinitariansim and that should be good enough for inclusion. Also I'll say again, leaving Chrysostom aside, that all of these passages given are subjective to the point of view of non-trinitarianism, as are all of the passages listed in the Trinity article. I could probably go through this entire list and find some Trinitarian who views any of these given passages as supportive of the Trinity, and it won't be worth a hill of beans because this list is about what non-trinitarians believe, and the passages that they believe support that view. Duffer (talk) 13:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

See, I don't read Chrysostom in the same way that you are appearing to read it. According to John, Jesus was simply silencing his critics in the same way that he had done several times prior- by using their own ammunition against them. As I'd said, there are two levels of understanding, and Chrysostom seeks to explain the deeper meaning beyond the mundane. He isn't reading anything more into the passage than you are by making the basic assumption that the passage does not support Trinitarianism.

I tend to explore things while erring towards neutrality and objectivity, and there is absolutely no reason why the nontrinitarian and Chrysostom's interpretations are really any more valid or less valid than one another. They both "make sense", and it really depends on what you're more inclined to believe. I believe that the sense in which you argue for is valid, but I don't see how it precludes Trinitarianism, as you believe it to be.

Additionally, I don't understand how you make a distinction between a verse which is sympathetic to nontrinitarianism and one which contradicts the Trinity. "Nontrinitarianism" in and of itself is centered, for a large part, around an emphasis against the Trinitarian interpretation of many verses. We both read the same Bible, but the difference is that Trinitarians often except more than one meaning to a passage (specifically, denoting the mundane/symbological and the theologically Trinitarian elements within it). In nontrinitarianism, these verse are simply mundane, and it would appear (in this case specifically) that the view you express is simply a stripped-down Trinitarian analysis.

I still don't see how this particular verse supports nontrinitarianism (which inherently means "contradicts Trinitarianism"), because there has been no source cited which makes this connection clear. Again, what is needed is a verse which explicitly treats the passage (and the others which remain unsourced) as possessing a meaning which precludes the deity of Jesus/the Trinity- until this point, it only appears that this is how you are reading the commentary, and is therefore about as valid as if you applied the same mindset to the verse itself (and that would be insufficient for the inclusion of the text here).

The argument that a verse does not support Trinitarianism is an ambiguous one- Trinitarians don't believe that every verse supports the Trinity per se(and not every one has to), but they do believe that no verses contradict it. What would be nice would be a reliable source which explicitly stated that the verses contradict Trinitarianism (not necessarily verbatim, but unambiguous sources would be best, because it's not a good idea to rely on editor interpretation much at all).--C.Logan (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Logan you are missing the points or forgetting to respond to them. This article is about non-trinitarian interpretations of passages. Non Trinitarians interpret John 10:33-36 to be supportive of a non-trinity view of Jesus (Jews said he made himself God, he denies that by saying saying he is "god" only in the sense of Jewish law, a representative of The God). The sources I have provided confirm this interpretation. You are still hung up on wanting an interpretation that clearly contradicts the Trinity doctrine. That is not the objective of the article, and is also a fairly substantial double standard. It is not the purpose of the section to prove you or the Trinity wrong, it is to list passages which non-trinitarians view as supportive of their POV regardless if you understand why the passages were presented or not. Duffer (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite see how the sources that you've provided confirm a nontrinitarian perspective; as far as I read them, they could reasonably support the Trinitarian perspective as well. Is there some missing context? See, there's a necessity for a source which explicitly makes an argument against an aspect of Trinitarianism.

The problem with the sources you've shown so far is that the Trinitarian viewpoint is compatible with them- and really, there's no reason as of yet to assume that the sources themselves are arguing for a nontrinitarian view (again, context? Purpose? This is why I don't understand why these sources seem sufficient to you, because you may be more familiar with these factors).

Additionally, I don't see your interpretation of what the sources say as being explicit in any of the texts; I don't see how the sources specify that Jesus "denies that by saying saying he is 'god' only in the sense of Jewish law". As it is (and as I've said), the sources leave a lot of room for interpretation, which is why I suppose there isn't enough cited there. If this is actually what the sources say, please provide something to that effect (some context or further elaboration), because it isn't apparent in what's there.

I understand the purpose of the section, and I understand that nontrinitarians may use some of these passages in support of their beliefs- but please provide a source which explicitly states this. That's what I'm asking for- there are certainly many sources which support a Trinitarian viewpoint and explicitly state as much. At this point, your word is the primary basis on which one supposes that there verses are, in fact, used to support this viewpoint. I (and policy) requires a bit more than that, if even just a reasonably reliable source which states that "this is a list of verses which...".--C.Logan (talk) 07:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand your persistent demand for a primary source for this one verse when every passage in this list, and in the Trinity lists are purely subjective interpretations from the given articles' point of view. You are right that the primary basis of the passages inclusion is purely subjective in the absence of a primary source; as is the presence of every single unsourced passage in this article and the Trinity article. We should delete them all, or we should tolerate them all until consensus is reached. Again: I am not interested in proving you or the Trinity wrong (here). That is not the purpose of the passage, that is not the purpose of the sources I cited for that passage. It is the point of view of non-trinitarians that John 10:34-36 is saying that Jesus is a representative of God, as God's Son. The sources I provided substantiate the interpretation. The sources are provided in the full and can be verified for free with a quick download of the E-Sword bible software (http://www.e-sword.net/) and the related bible/commentary/dictionary modules. Duffer (talk) 10:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Listen, as I've said before, it's not justifiable to continue to ignore policy just because the article is in such a state as it is. Don't make it seem as if I haven't brought up the problems that already exist with these verse lists; I'm concerned about this addition because it is really the point at which we need to cease adding new unsourced information. Gabriel is adamant about including it, but he doesn't provide a simple source which cites the verses given in support of nontrinitarianism (and as it doesn't seem we understand one another, neither have you). Both of these articles, as well as many others which cite verses for interpretive purposes, definitely need sources which support these interpretations; original research is a consistent problem, and the policy page itself makes it clear that any primary source given with an interpretive purpose (explicit or implied) requires a secondary source which supports such a judgment. In this case, as I've requested, all this would need would really even be a reliable source that presented these verses in a similar manner as they are here. Not doing so leaves the judgment in the hands of the editor who added them, and that's not in line with the rules.

It is the point of view of non-trinitarians that John 10:34-36 is saying that Jesus is a representative of God, as God's Son. The sources I provided substantiate the interpretation. This is where you may be misunderstanding me. I'm aware that the sources substantiate the interpretation- what is needed is a source which displays that this interpretation is actually used by nontrinitarians. The conclusion reached by this commentary is universal- Trinitarians would have no problem with it. That's the issue- something is needed which links the interpretation and the nontrinitarian school of thought (again, an example would be a published/online source which cites the verses as an example of passages which preclude Trinitarianism). As it is, all that's seen is a particular analysis of the passage and your own insistence that it is a common nontrinitarian argument. It doesn't matter if you say they're used in this manner, you have to support this with an actual source which uses them as such.

Like I've said, and like others have pointed out, I'm just following policy, and there are many times when I'm met with strong opposition for a rule that I didn't make up. Outside of the rules, I'm okay with the Trinity verses, and I'm generally okay with the verses here: most seem obvious enough, but all the same, policy dictates that we provide a bit more than that. It's not the first time that myself or anyone else has brought this up, but as I've said, everyone agrees that it needs to be improved, but nobody does anything about it. I'm not so adamant about inclusion (I'd be fine if both lists were deleted for the stated problems). I would actually prefer to see a more encyclopedic presentation if some of the examples were consolidated into body text, and grouped by specific concepts- list formats are trivial and oftentimes makes it too easy for POVism to creep in. It also takes complex concepts and oversimplifies them. Forgive me if this is incoherent; I've been up all night and I'm dealing with the dread of leaving for work in an hour sans sleep.--C.Logan (talk) 13:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Nontrinitarianism References - Duffer, dude, sorry about this but you can delete it after the references have been sifted out and copied. Thank you. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 05:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete? Eh? I really don't plan on staying, I have given my input several times over. I don't have the energy to participate in something so inherently wasteful of the time of everyone involved. Duffer (talk) 10:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

But you have to admit there is a bias in C.Logan's bureaucratic impedance of improvement of the article, he has already edited his comments after your reply to hide the bias, and hypocritically adds spurious comments in the same article without referencing them (see below). I know you have better things to do, but thanks for what little bias exposing you have done so far, it will go a long way. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The ridiculousness of the latter accusation is noted in my response below. I'm also curious to see where I've "edited my comments". Care to explain? I see some irony in your comments.--C.Logan (talk) 04:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nontrinitarianism&diff=186565468&oldid=186437236
Having only just now noticed the word "diff" in this address, I believe this is the proof of C.Logan's nefarious actions that has be requested, and that you User talk:John Carter have so pet-biased deflected and denied. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Gabriel, you don't know how to read diffs. It's unfortunate that you persist on this point, because I had already anticipated your error and attempted to explain it to you in the beginning of the section below this one. Being ignorant of how to navigate/read Wikipedia is one thing, but using this ignorance as a defense for groundless accusations and personal attacks is just ridiculous.--C.Logan (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Early Christian

" Arius believed that the Son was subordinate to the Father, firstborn of all Creation. However, the Son did have Divine status. This view is very close to that of Jehovah's Witnesses."
Duffer1 was right to delete your addition here C.Logan as you hypocitically did not provide referencing for it. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Where did I add that to anything? I have a feeling that you don't know how to read diffs: the column on the left displays the editor of the last version, not necessarily the contributer of the highlighted information. Read the previous diff to see my contribution- the text Duffer removed (rightfully) was not added by me. Please familiarize yourself with the system before making accusations.--C.Logan (talk) 04:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

"but all it boils down to is my own simple request: please provide a reliable source for this interpretation (sources clear enough so that they don't require editor interpretation by themselves)." - C.Logan (above)
- You violate even your own declarations, and I'll make sure to record how untrustworthy you are in your own hypocritical edits. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I once again very sincerely urge the above editor that repeated use of perjoratives is a violation of WP:NPA, and that it is possible for him to be blocked and/or banned should he continue to indulge in such behavior. John Carter (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This is getting rather out of hand. Gabriel has, on multiple occasions, misread policy, pages, and so on. This isn't so bad, but he seems to be determined to vilify those who disagree with him, (even when they take the care to explain the issues) and at that, he uses faulty interpretations as ammunition. If it does continue, I'll make a notification- disagreements are fine, but this is bordering on trolling.--C.Logan (talk) 04:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you are the one who is trolling, go ahead and make your notification. Why did your edit get deleted... Because it was not referenced. And was the hypocrytical? By the definition of hypocritical when someone says something should not be done and then they going and do it themselves, that is hypocracy. I have a complaint, I have no avenue to voice it, other then do declare the wrong that you did. I consider you do be the one who is trolling. This is the tone people take with me so I will put it that way to you: "I urge you to read the Wikipedia Guideline Wikipedia:What is a troll?"
GabrielVelasquez (talk) 04:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Gabriel, please provide the diff in which I added the information which Duffer removed. I would really be intrigued to see it. I've tried to explain what I think may have been a reasonable misunderstanding by you, but you just chug along with your unsubstantiated rant. Please do show me this diff, because I think it would be very elucidating.--C.Logan (talk) 04:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

He can't, because it was actually Jonathan Tweet who added the content here. Such spurious and demonstrably false accusations as has been made above are not only an explicit failure to assume good faith, but are also demonstrably false. I once again sincerely urge the editor in question to conduct himself more in accord with wikipedia standards. John Carter (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I can prove it and I will prove it and in doing so prove you false, a dangerous lier. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I very certain now that even you are a party to this bias and impedance of improving this article. You directed the very valid accusation above to a complete different user and a completely different set of circumstances when what I was refering to is right there at the top of the section. Duffer1 deleted C.Logan's hypocritical edit of adding what looks like his own opinion about Jehovah's Witness. I don't even know what diffs are and you are using that against me to play games, to fain ignorance, whne all you have to do is check history. Your biased defence of your pet-user (your own usertag) is coniving and irreprehensable. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nontrinitarianism&diff=186565468&oldid=186437236
Having only just now noticed the word "diff" in this address, I believe this is the proof of C.Logan's nefarious actions that has be requested, and that you User talk:John Carter have so pet-biased deflected and denied. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The link you provided is for earlier this year. This change indicates that the content was first added in December, 2006. While it is, remotely, possible that your statement could be defensible, in saying that he "added" it, it would be more appropriate to say that he "restored" it. I believe your own statements, however, are still continuing to be in violation of WP:NPA, and that you are capable of facing sanctions on that basis. Should your comment on Mr. Wales' talk page be ignored, as I believe it may well be, by him, I believe that there is a very serious risk that some lesser parties may see fit to sanction you for your continuing unacceptable conduct. John Carter (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Requesting outside comment

I have gotten the impression that at least one party in this discussion may be operating on the basis of a personal bias. Would it be acceptable to all parties involved to file a formal RfC requesting outsider input on how the article should be structured, what verifiable information it specifically should and/or should not contain, etc.? Also, as at least two parties seem to be impugning the actions or motivations of others, to perhaps ask any parties who weigh in to make any comments they see appropriate regarding the conduct of editors on this page? I can specifically request input from non-Christians of any kind, to ensure that the parties involved do not come to the discussion with any existing biases. John Carter (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I am very certain now that even you User talk:John Carter are a party to this bias and impedance of improving this article. You directed the very valid accusation above to a complete different user and a completely different set of circumstances when what I was refering to is right there at the top of the section. Duffer1 deleted C.Logan's hypocritical edit of adding what looks like his own opinion about Jehovah's Witness. I don't even know what diffs are and you are using that against me to play games, to fain ignorance, when all you have to do is check the edit history. Your biased defence of your pet-user (your own usertag) is coniving and irreprehensable. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nontrinitarianism&diff=186565468&oldid=186437236
Having only just now noticed the word "diff" in this address, I believe this is the proof of C.Logan's nefarious actions that has be requested, and that you User talk:John Carter have so pet-biased deflected and denied. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC on Admin and pet-user bias and hypocritical impedance of article improvemnet

I place this actual call for discussion, where as I suspect User talk:John Carter is in the background rallying more christian biased pet-editors and co-consipiritor Administrators to his defence.GabrielVelasquez (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The link you provided is for earlier this year. This change indicates that the content was first added in December, 2006. While it is, remotely, possible that your statement could be defensible, in saying that he "added" it, it would be more appropriate to say that he "restored" it. I believe your own statements, however, are still continuing to be in violation of WP:NPA, and that you are capable of facing sanctions on that basis. Should your comment on Mr. Wales' talk page be ignored, as I believe it may well be, by him, I believe that there is a very serious risk that some lesser parties may see fit to sanction you for your continuing unacceptable conduct. John Carter (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the intervening RFC notice, which was placed in the middle of existing text, not generally requested, is once again making statements which could be seen as at least bordering on paranoia, indicating that the party in question, and I quote, suspects "User talk:John Carter is in the background rallying more christian biased pet-editors and co-consipiritor Administrators to his defence." Also note how that party has completely refused to respond to the statement I made that the comment he says was added by another user was in fact in this article for at least a year before another editor restored it, as per the links I have provided above. John Carter (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting that I'd assumed correctly when assessing the likely reason behind Gabriel's spurious claim. John, it is apparent that cannot read diffs, and he seems to ignore my attempt to explain how to read them above. One only needs to cycle to one revision prior to understand why my name is there; the diff does not identify the author of the previous version (or text which is being changed in the new revision)- it only identifies the editor who made the last change. Therefore, my name is there because I'd removed Gabriel's other spurious addition which I hadn't noticed. Duffer then rightfully removed a POV addition from another user. As I've said, not understand technical aspects of Wikipedia is not a problem in and of itself, but this user is using his own ignorance to reinforce his "accusations". John, you should remember to clarify your above statement about "restoring" the version. I understand what that implies, but it's possible that GV will assume that reverting to a revision guarantees support for the information included.--C.Logan (talk) 23:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Show me then, show me who made the revision of not you.GabrielVelasquez (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict response to Logan)Point taken. By "restoring" content, what is generally meant in wikipedia is that an individual is putting back into the article content which had previously been removed, almost always when the editor returning the content to the article believes that the reasons for removing it were less than adequate, such as acts of vandalism. I am curious what the results, if any, of the RfC will yield, however, and don't have any real objections to having a discussion regarding how much content this article should contain regarding Nontrinitarian criticism of Trinitarian theology. If editors choose to not respond to the rather emotional nature of the RfC proper, I would appreciate some input on that subject. The one reservation I have for including too much is that the Trinitarian doctrine probably came into existence after the nontrinitarian view was first argued. In fact, I am virtually certain of that last point. Therefore, maybe the proper chronological approach would be something like the following: Arius and others positing nontrinitarianism, Athanasius and others responding with trinitarianism, Arius and others responding to that, and then later developments on the general theme of nontrinitarianism added in basically chronological order. However, unless the arguments put forward against trinitarianism later are substantially different than the earlier versions, I'm not sure it would necessarily be a good idea to repeat them. By the way, I should also point out that this should technically be a user RfC, not a religion one. I should also point out that Logan is actually about four months senior of me in wikipedia, and that I had in the past given him a barnstar for the abuse which was regularly levelled against him in a discussion regarding Bob Dylan's conversion to Christianity with an editor who is now banned for his conduct in that matter.

Response to Gabriel: If you hit the blue link I provided earlier with the blue "This", you will see that the content in question was first added in 2006 by another editor, Jonathan Tweet, who indicates in his edit summary that he may have been transferring information from a merged "Trinity" page. The link can be found here [4]. Look at the left of the page that appears, and you will see the last previous version, and the version on the right will show the additions made in that particular edit. That clearly shows that the quote was first added in 2006 by another party. John Carter (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a good sense of order for the arguments given. One caveat to the chronological approach, however, is that Athanasius and the others did not invent Trinitarianism in response to Arianism, which is what you seem to imply- they simply set it in stone, so to speak.

While no one is certain of the theological beliefs of most Christians in the early periods (until the first explicit reference to Jesus as God in the authentic letters of Ignatius from around the year 107), it is understood that by the time of Arius and Athanasius, most Christians held a generally undefined Trinitarian viewpoint (although in the East, a good number held to Semi-Arianism, which was more akin to binitarianism).

The Trinitarians upheld the beliefs which had existed prior to the Council, and which predate Arius and several of the heresies which preceded him. Trinitarianism could still, of course, have been an invention, but if this is the case, its birth occurred long before Arianism (or Sabellianism or Monarchianism, for that matter) even came onto the stage.--C.Logan (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I myself have the impression that the belief in the Trinity was more or less preexistent to Arius, and probably with a large percentage of the Christian population (exact amount undetermined, of course) but it wasn't particularly well-defined until after Arius argued as he did, in effect forcing Athanasius and the others to explicitly commit to writing what many Christians had implicity believed before then. John Carter (talk) 01:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that you've stepped over my error and just continued to (looks like) try to improve the article.
I have holstered both guns (metaphor) and would like to say this: If you are truly interested in not continuing to waste time arguing with me please answer these questions/issues:
(1) Are "Ho Theon" and "Theos" in the Greek the same word/phrase?
(2) Is your swatting me with policy link-tags like I'm some mosquito rather not a violation of policy on etiquette, when you could be quoting (simply copy/paste and putting quotes around) the so-called violation, instead of threatening me with policy link-tags. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 07:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about the mistake, but I would suggest that you focus more on supporting your points than attempting to make those who disagree with you look bad. One part of assuming good faith is considering, no matter how much you may disagree with the person or their beliefs, that they may actually be correct- therefore, it's good to try to understand the opposition and the policies they are citing (and why they are citing them, obviously).

As for the policy links, it's generally acceptable to cite the links alone- it leads the user to the page itself so they might review the entire set of rules (sometimes even leading the reader to refute the accusations, as I have done myself several times). When one becomes familiar with the policies, it becomes easier to simply cite the tags, because most editors generally understand the policies and what they represent. It's also a mark of laziness, I admit, but one that gives the necessary information in a short form. Now, I don't see how you consider these to be a "threat"- I'm pointing these out to you so that you might look them up and read them, and understand the reason I'm opposed to a particular action or addition (as well as gain a general understanding of the policy in general, which will help later on).

As for the Greek question, I think you've made a typo. Assuming that you're talking about John 1:1, you either mean "ho theos" or "ton theon" (rather than "ho theon"). You could be talking about either of the two possibilities, because they are both relevant to understanding the "theos" in the third part of the verse. "Theos" alone can be either indefinite, definite (by Colwell's Rule) or qualitative, depending on the context (and upon judgment, as . Greek has a definite article, but no indefinite article, so it is important to determine which of the above forms is represented here (understandably it makes a huge theological difference).

Some, most notably the Jehovah's Witnesses, famously translate this with the indefinite article, although the validity of this translation is questioned given the grammar and the context. Others have argued for the qualitative form, in which both Trinitarians and nontrinitarians see the word as ascribing Jesus with some quality of divinity. Obviously, the latter group generally interprets this in a looser sense, while the former offers the qualitative form as being indicative of "possessing all of the attributes of God the Father ('Ho Theos')", while still remaining unique from Him (and hence, this interpretation is seen as an inherent grammatical support of Trinitarian beliefs).

However, due to Colwell's analysis of Greek predicate nominatives, there is also the strong possibility that the "theos" in this verse is definite (Colwell found that 87% of predicate nominatives which had been verified as definite nouns and had been placed before the verb lacked their definite article). He established a loose rule based on these findings, and he cites John 1:1 as a specific example:

"The opening verse of John's Gospel contains one of the many passages where this rule suggests the translation of a predicate as a definite noun. καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος looks much more like "And the Word was God" than "And the Word was divine" when viewed with reference to this rule. The absence of the article does not make the predicate indefinite or qualitative when it precedes the verb; it is indefinite in this position only when the context demands it. The context makes no such demand in the Gospel of John, for this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas."

As you can see, there is a rather dramatic range of ideas concerning the interpretation of this particular verse. Many scholars considered Colwell's work to be a landmark, and several proponents of the qualitative viewpoint later voiced strong support for Colwell's findings. Personally, I find both the qualitative and the definite predicate nominative to be plausible translation solutions for this passage. As for your original question, "Are "Ho Theon" and "Theos" in the Greek the same word/phrase?" (sic): grammatical forms aside, they very well could be- it depends largely on how you classify the word in question, and there is no unanimity in this regard.--C.Logan (talk) 09:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

(Point for future Reference) Some nerve talking about waste of space to me, considering this lecturing rant I read here, all that was needed here was "some sources say yes, some sources say no, depends on which you quote." For the purposes of this article it is impedance if you don't accept the secondary sources here that supports the Nontriniarian view since this is the Nontrinitarianism article. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 05:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the point is perfectly valid. If the source quoted makes willful misstatements of the statements of others, then it clearly does not qualify as a reliable source in general, and it's being representative of even the group it would claim to be representing would be similarly dubious. A source which attributes false statements to another is clearly in no way a reliable source. If, for instance, the website of Vatican City were to claim that the Earth is flat, it would clearly be an unreliable source. If it were however the official website of the Roman Catholic Church operated by that church, then it could be trusted regarding official Roman Catholic policy, but only in those matters. As it has not been established that any of these sources are such direct agents of the body, then they can only be seen as being outside sources which do not quote their own sources accurately, and thus fail WP:RS. John Carter (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it was a rant at all, lecture perhaps, but is that bad? I thought it was a very thoughtful answer to your question, and much more interesting and informative than "some say yes, some say no" would have been. Aleta (Sing) 21:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• This appears to be a user conduct dispute and not a content dispute. As such I am removing the RfC template. Please take it to WP:RfC/U or WP:AN/I, the correct boards for this concern. Relata refero (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

References for "Only an agent of God."

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary (John 10:34-36) "Ye are gods - being the official representatives and commissioned agents of God."

Robertson's Word Pictures: "Ye are gods - The judges of Israel abused their office and God is represented in Psa_82:6 as calling them “gods” (theoi, elohim) because they were God’s representatives. See the same use of elohim in Exo_21:6; Exo_22:9, Exo_22:28. Jesus meets the rabbis on their own ground in a thoroughly Jewish way."

People's New Testament Commentary: "I said, Ye are gods? It was there addressed to judges. Christ's argument is: If your law calls judges gods, why should I be held guilty of blasphemy for saying that I am the Son of God?"

Chrysostom was wrong, or apparently unfamiliar with Jewish law or the Old Testament. But guys really, arguing over one passage will not resolve an 1800 year old debate, relax a little. Duffer (talk) 11:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Copied from above as it has been burried/ignored. - GabrielVelasquez (talk) 07:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but the concerns which I'd brought up were never answered/addressed. Re-citing these doesn't eliminate the fact that there is nothing in them which supports that Jesus is claiming to "only" be an "agent of God", which is what I'd brought up.

Using the sources in this manner still makes such an interpretation dependent on the editor's reading of the text and/or the editor's presuppositions. Basically, these commentaries are valid for Trinitarianism and nontrinitarianism equally, but a source is needed which shows the verse being interpreted in a way which explicitly precludes Jesus being God, if even a reliable source which lists the verse as one commonly used by nontrinitarians. It's not asking for much.

On another note, you don't need to reply in several sections with an identical response, because it just wastes space redundantly. When I find myself with a comment pertinent to multiple sections, I usually place it in the newest section and only refer to it with a few words in the other sections.--C.Logan (talk) 08:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

For us to include a statement in the article to the effect that he was "only an agent from God" we would need a source which explicitly makes that statement, or uses fundamentally identical terminology. None of the quotations above come even close to doing that. It would certainly be possible to cite a source outside of the Bible which indicates that, for instance, "Group X sees Quotation Y as being support for the contention that he was only an agent from God", if such a source can be found. But the quotations above in and of themselves prove nothing. John Carter (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If the quotations have ever been used by someone else to make the argument, then you could say that, citing them. DGG (talk) 16:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

True. If someone used them as a reference in making the argument that he was only a messenger, then there would be no problem citing that person as a source for saying that the quote has been used as a support for making that argument. It would be particularly useful if the quote were from the leader of a group/sect/denomination which holds with that belief, as it would also indicate that it is apparently cited as one of the reasons that group holds that belief. John Carter (talk) 16:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

please clarify - "if even a reliable source which lists the verse as one commonly used by nontrinitarians. It's not asking for much." what I see here is that the nontrinitarian use is not relevant, it has to be someone who has witten about that group, which seems ubsurd to me, so did you mean a realiable sourse within that nontrinitarian group?? GabrielVelasquez (talk) 02:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

And your comment seems pretty much absurd to everyone else, and your statement above is one which I believe a reasonable person could interpret as yet more tendentious editing. Please read policies and guidelines. What is required is that a reliable source makes the statement. To date, you have indicated that you as an individual have drawn that conclusion. That is not sufficient. If you can find a published source which explicitly makes the statement you made above, or said virtually the same thing in different words, that would be sufficient. However, you have to date failed to do so. And please refrain from explicitly misquoting others, as you did above. Putting words in other editor's mouths is at best problematic conduct. John Carter (talk) 02:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm asking for clarification, and you now have stooped to a new low:
when did you become the spokes person for "everyone else." Please refrain from violating policy:
Wikipedia:Civility,
Wikipedia:No personal attacks,
Wikipedia:SKILL#SKILL,
Wikipedia:ICA#ICA,
Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith.
The fact is I clearly stated that was my interpretation, and it could not be right it was absurd. But you, in terrible tact and bad taste, not to mention a nasty attitude, have to assume I was saying that was C.Logan's meaning, and act in such a nasty manner based on your flawed intpretation of events, when I was infact asking for his meaning. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 05:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If, as you stated, it is your own interpretation, then it is a clear and explicit violation of WP:OR, and as such has absolutely no place here. I once again urge you to study policy, so that you will not continue to violate it as you have done here. Also, I sincerely urge you to cease putting perjoratives, such as "absurd", in the mouths of others. Such conduct, as well as several other of your actions, are a clear violation of WP:CIVILITY. No one is obligated to respond to your own snide accusations and attacks, and, in fact, continuing to make them makes it that much less likely that anyone will pay attention to your comments. John Carter (talk) 15:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been watching this for some time now, and it is clear that you, John Carter are quite the "asshole" (sic.). I you insist on taking this poor souls comments out of context and then you blame him for it. You are an arrogant pompous prick. Try dividing 166 by the actual number of intelligence types (7) and you get a figure much closer to the fact. It is not "clearly a violation" of policy as there is no WP:OR, he was quoting C.Logan, and on top of that only looking for explination. It is your false interpretation, made delibertatly to intimidate and insult, that User:GabrielVelasquez put the word "absurd" in the mouth of C.Logan when I can see he meant User:GabrielVelasquez's own interpretation was absurd and needed clarification. I have read in more that one instance where you take a partial quote from User:GabrielVelasquez and misuse it, effectively taking out of context. You have made a serious mistake twice already I have noted: you keep refering to your opinions as everyone's opinions. This is going to be remedied as soon as a group is formed to address your "flawed intpretation of events" and other remiss behavior of late. I see that you think that you are above the guildlines of this encyclopedia and that your title as administrator allows you the privilage of this type of abuse, but it is being recorded for future reference, I assure you.
142.132.6.8 (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The user's construction earlier was to indicate that I had made that statement. Also, it should be noted that the above IP seems interested only in other very limited range articles Gabriel has edited, making it a virtual guaranteed sockpuppet of Gabriel. Use of such sockpuppets is of course frowned upon. And using such clearly obscene language as "asshole", as the IP did, is a clear and explicit violation of WP:NPA. I personally have no doubt that this comment above is simply Gabriel trying to indicate someone else agrees with him. John Carter (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

C.logan:
I believe one of the "secondary references" you have been asking for is here, but I will have to dig for it later.
If you feel so inclinde you might sift for it yourself. I will later when I have time if you don't anyway:
http://www.watchtower.org/e/archives/index.htm#jesus_christ
(subsection won't linkup, but it is called "Should you believe in the Trinity."
GabrielVelasquez (talk) 06:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The actual article is titled "Is Jesus God?"
http://www.watchtower.org/e/20050422/article_01.htm
GabrielVelasquez (talk) 04:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking through it now- I haven't yet found the verse in question (I might have overlooked it), but I'll use the search engine and see if it turns up in another article. I'm pretty sure that this source is okay. John and I have been asking for a source which either uses the verse in such a manner or which notes that nontrinitarians use the verse in such a manner.

On a side note, some of the information here is a little iffy. The argument against Colwell (and concerning John 1:1) is hardly convincing, because it misquotes Colwell and doesn't quite explain his study to a sufficient extent (it also neglects to mention that Colwell himself cited 1:1 as an example in which the rule does, indeed, apply). This, however, is no big deal.

My main concern is with the deceptive misquoting of the Church fathers. When I read quotes, I always check the source, because more often than not sites which attempt to denounce an opposing view (such as theosophists) usually interpret a quote favorably. Justin Martyr is cited as saying something very out of character, and when searching the quote, I found that he is indeed misquoted- there are actually many sites devoted to responding to the misquotations made in this tract, such as this and this (I prefer the layout of the former).

In any case, I've found the reference, and I think it's fair enough. The specific page is here. John, do you agree that this reference should be sufficient for the verse in question?--C.Logan (talk) 09:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That source does say that Jesus is not God, which should be sufficient. I would however advise Gabriel that he would be best served taking the time to justify his comments before making them. None of us are paid, and we all have other things to do. It is at best very poor form to make such statements and then request that others do the work of verifying his statements for him. John Carter (talk) 14:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed- this could have been pointed out a long time ago. But at the very least, Gabriel did point it out, so I'd say that's a good thing. This will make future citations simpler. One caveat- we don't want to use exclusively Jehovah's Witness sources when sourcing the verses in general, because this article does not simply pertain to Jehovah's Witnesses, but nontrinitarians in general. This is, of course, assuming that anyone will actually get around to sourcing the other verses.--C.Logan (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There is the matter of content relative to the Seventh-day Adventists, Unitarians, Albigensians, Swedenborgians, and others, including Islam. Perhaps it might be useful to point out different interpretations of the various groups, to the degree that they offer different interpretations. John Carter (talk) 15:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

John 14:1

I have removed the quote above from the article for the following reasons. While the quote does say, "Believe in God. Believe also in me," or words to that effect, that does not mean that the source is necessarily differentiating himself from God. It is two separate statements, and can just as easily be read as saying, "You should believe in God, and you should also believe my statements" or "Believe in God, and believe in me as an incarantion of God". Neither of the admitted interpretations above is even remotely close to formally indicating that the two entities cannot be one, but simply drawing a distinction between an "abstract concept" of God and a person who may or may not be an incarnation of God. John Carter (talk) 15:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This, again, being the reason why Wikipedia requires secondary sources for interpretive analysis of primary sources. It is far too easy to read the text any which way (typically such readings are guided by POV and preordained conclusions)- and this is especially true with religious texts, such as the Bible and the Qur'an. For inclusion in the encyclopedia, such interpretation requires a reliable source to support the fact that such a view is not the editor's alone. Thank you for pointing this out, John.--C.Logan (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Trinity? or No Trinity? ...that is the question! .....Or is it?

For centuries there has been debates within the Christian belief system about this emotive subject.(And let's not argue about what 'Christian' means, I'm using the worf Christianity in it's broadest possible sense, in accordance with the usual dictionary definitions.) In my view Wikipedia is not the platform for doctrinal analysis of bible texts. Already much (infinite?) discussion on the moot points of the nature of Jesus Christ has been done. Scholars continue to repeat the views of previous scholars and add their own comments in order substantiate their own viewpoints. I have my views, I know what the Bible says, I am aware of the different understandings of commonly known bible verses, I know the grammar and I can see the challenges for both sides in this matter. Yes, I can see the viewpoint of both sides and can follow their respective, but mutually exclusive, conclusions.

However, my view is that..by all means Wiki should draw attention to the two major opposing views on this subject, but! ...as Trinity is a theological subject, Wiki is in no position to arbitrate, nor to weigh more heavily on either side of this ongoing religious contention. 'Trinity'is a matter of belief/faith. Beliefs differ.

This being so, I think that a lot of time and space is being wasted in articles and on 'talk' pages in trying to reach a consensus, or even worse, attempting 'to prove' one side or the other. (Personally, my belief is definitely one way and definitely not the other! However..)

In summary, can we (wiki editors/contributors) not simply state a summary of the position of the two sides in this discussion, perhaps with a few examples from both sides of the argument (Yes, I know it is a big, long, complicated subject!) and leave all the minutae out of it? Just a thought! Regards --Lepton6 (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

While I can symphathize with the above viewpoint, I would note that there are a lot of people who aren't as familiar with the subject as either the above editor or myself or several others who edit this page are. And, although some might find it unfortunate here, we have a policy of WP:NOTPAPER which indicates that such delving into what some might call minutiae, if the minutiae meet WP:NOTABILITY requirements, should be done. Having said all that, however, I do think that most articles of this type would probably do best to cover the subject in only a comparatively loose way, and leave the detailed exploration of individual variations to other, more focused, pages. John Carter (talk) 17:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, note first that the two articles (Trinity and Nontrinitarianism) were originally one article, until the latter grew to a viable point and was spun off on its own. We don't want to create too much redundancy between articles, as Wikipedia's summary style guidelines allots a short summary from parent to sub-article. Most certainly, we do not want to present this article in a "debate"-like manner, with argument-to-argument points being plopped down.

Being that this is the sub article, however (and one which is largely reactionary to the parent subject), I think it's fair enough to provide some context for Trinitarian-nontrinitarian arguments. If we're discussing article improvement, let me get this off my chest: the "verse list" system used here and on other articles is dismal and, while convenient, only serves to weaken the article's encyclopedic value and makes it a POV magnet for drive-by additions of verses.

Your comment is, truth be told, pretty vague on how you'd like to go about things. I can only really see a general aspect of "improvement" from what you're saying here, and therefore I can't give any specific suggestions on what should be done. The only glaring problem which comes to mind is the verse list; eliminate this and incorporate relevant verses into the text itself (i.e. "Nontrinitarians such as the X's and the Y's emphasize the ontological differences between Jesus and God by noting Jesus' own words in verse Z, arguing that...", to reference a recent problem addition) and you'll have my support.

Reading your comment, I just feel the need to caution you to always provide reliable sources for your citations. For example, the verses alone would be insufficient for my above example; a reliable secondary source exhibiting the usage of these verses by the aforementioned group (along with their interpretation) would be a requirement. I can't stress this enough because of the last discussion that went about here. I'm unsure what belief you adhere to, but it seems as if you have a semblance of interest in neutrality. I do hope that you have a good hold on the concept, because articles on theological issues become POV magnets, and it is often rare to find a truly neutral contributor.--C.Logan (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

"Improvement" formulation

Your implementation is rational but reasonable only if you are prepared to allow for all 27 groups or denominations (list in article /where applicable) in your X+Y=Z formulations, or better "X1+X2+X3...X27 use interpretation of Y1 to support their belief Z1."
Perhaps more practical is "Verse Y1 is viewed as meaning Z1 by groups X1 & X2 & X3... X27" or some such variation.
I might add that Z1, Z2, Z3, etc. would be the dimensions of the Nontrinitarin position, and so the whole article could be reformated logically to follow this Z(n) list, then followed somewhere (not forgetting history, etc.) in the article by your associated formulation.
GabrielVelasquez (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the above, is, ultimately, that the WP:NOTABILITY of each verse as used by each group would have to be established, and that might be more than a little difficult. Also, I'm not entirely sure that just the 27 listed are all that do qualify for inclusion on the basis of notability, just that they're the only ones listed yet. If that is the case, then the lists would become even more weighty than they already are. Also, in all honesty, this page probably isn't supposed to be as much a summary of the chapters and verses the various groups use to advance their positions, but rather to discuss Nontrinitarianism in general. In so far as the verses used are particularly important to any given group in their advancing the nontrinitarian position, then certainly they can and should be included, but we would probably want to ensure that the other content regarding how these groups advance their position should receive as much due weight as possible as well. My own personal favored option would be to have a basic introduction to nontrinitarianism in general as it has developed over time, including biblical and other quotations and citations as relevant, and then, where indicated, adding group-specific sections thereafter to indicate any significant additional information which is basically unique to that particular group. John Carter (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

improvements

The article has some mistakes and needs citations and bibliografy. I will do my best as my schedule permits.--Vassilis78 (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Intoduction

Some people speak on behalf or against the Trinity without knowing what the Trinity is. In order this to be coped with, I insisted on a longer introduction.

Because when we speak about the Trinity, we don't just speak about three things or persons. There are some very specific details in the original and classic doctrine of Trinity that cannot be put aside and which are usually unknown to people who have not studied the Church Fathers. Some people must also understand that the Trinity doctrine is a doctrine of the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church, and it is based on specific arguments that have to do with the (Greek) cultural environment of the 3rd and 4th century C.E. People who try to re-establish and re-define the Trinity doctrine out of this context are anachronistic and very possibly in disagreement with the original and classic dogma that prevailed in the last 15 centuries.

--Vassilis78 (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Jayjg,

1. Many people argue that Jesus was not made but begotten from God. Do you understand what does this really mean? The truth is that noone can really understand it if he is unaware of the principles of the classical theism.
2. Many say Jesus is begotten by God but he is co-eternal with God. Can you explain this? The truth is that noone can explain this if he is unaware with the philosophical principles of the classical theism.
3. What is the difference of the economic trinity from the official Trinity doctrine? Why those who believed in the economic trinity, such as Tertullian and Hippolitus, are not really trinitarians?
4. Why Jesus' being beggoten in time, as Apologists claimed, actually makes Jesus a creature?

The answers of all these questions have to do with the principles of (platonic) classical theism. If this principles are not understood, the whole case is out of topic.

--Vassilis78 (talk) 09:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Please don't start out by reverting, because your reverted version has spelling/grammar errors. Look carefully at the existing text, and decide if you want to add material, but don't revert first, because that simply re-introduces the errors. I will reject any version of the text that starts by reverting in those errors again.
2. There are many Christians who are not Catholic: please do not use solely Catholic sources to describe Christian doctrines. The Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, and Protestant views of Trinity all differ.
3. The 1910 Catholic encyclopedia is in any event not a reliable source.
4. This article is about Nontrinitarianism, not the Trinity, which has a whole other article. The lede should describe nontrinitarianism, not the Trinity. This is particularly so because, as mentioned above, there is not a single Christian view of what the Trinity means. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

* Amen brotha. Watch this guy, he's yet another Trinitarian trying to "fix" this article. GabrielVelasquez (talk)

Jayjg, how can we define untrinitarianism if there is a diversity of opinions among trinitarians? So, due to this diversity, which occurs mainly in the Protestant world, we have to be specific of what Trinity we are talking about, that is, we have to put a benchmark. Capito?

Hence, what is our benchmark? When the article talks about ancient anti-trinitarians as Arius, Ebionites, Marcion, Modalists, Adoptionists etc, we are not talking about any sort of Trinity that Protestants invented in the last two centuries, but we are talking about the classical and original doctrine of Trinity that was established by the first four Ecumenical Councils of the united then Catholic and Orthodox church. This traditional doctrine is based on the philosophical principles of the classical theism about the transcendence and absoluteness (immutability, timelessness etc) of God, and these principles are accepted by the Orthodox, the Catholic and the traditional Protestants. So, we are talking about the 80-90% of nominal Christendom. Capito again?

--Vassilis78 (talk) 07:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Your changes mostly described the attributes of God, not specifically the Trinity, and since different Christian groups define the Trinity in different ways, it's best just to give what they all agree on (three distinct persons in one being) and leave the rest for the link. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)