Talk:Nontrinitarianism

This article was nominated for deletion on 05/12/05. The result of the discussion was keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Christadelphians

Why is there an entire section dedicated to a small and obscure group like the Christadelphians? If we add a section for every fringe group out there, this page would take hours to read. pjh3000 (talk) 02:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed from core article, but retained in expanded sections. They are relevant, but not well known.pjh3000 (talk) 18:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Bible Students & Church of God International

Do we really need to include Bible Students & Church of God International under Groups? Information about these groups is virtually non-existent on Wikipedia. If you pad an article with too much useless information, you discourage others from reading any of it.pjh3000 (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

artificially restrictive definition

Why should it be organized "groups" that are implied by the term? Why should only "Christian" groups be implied? And why should the only applicable arguments be those that conclude the doctrine of the Trinity to be "non-scriptural"? I think that the introduction arbitrarily adopts these terms. Why should Jewish, Muslim, gnostic, rationalist or pantheistic notions be excluded, etc.? The doctrine of the Trinity is rejected by diverse groups and individuals, on a variety of grounds. Any one of those groups, grounds, or arguments is properly implied by the term. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Scriptural Confirmations - Two incompatible arguments against the Trinity

The Biblical quotes given here seem primarily to be making the argument that Jesus was a being totally apart from Jehovah, which is one non-trinitarian argument. However, other trinitarians (Swedenborgians, for example) argue that the person of Jesus is identical with the person of Jehovah--one God, one person. But if the numerous Biblical quotations supporting that position were to be added to this list, it would be confusing, I think. (E.g. Jehovah is the Father in Isaiah 63:16; 64:8, and Jesus is the Father in Isaiah 9:6; so Jehovah is same person as Jesus.)

But before diving in and coming up with a solution myself, I wanted to see what others who have been working with this page think. I am new to this article, and it is clearly one with a history and with plenty of room for controversy.

I just want to make a contribution that adds some depth to the understanding of the topic, without causing chaos. But the current organization seems too limited to encompass the various forms of non-trinitarianism. So what do others think? --Mac (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Restoration Movement

This article currently states that Restoration groups (which I understand to refer to the Churches of Christ, Christian Churches, and Disciples of Christ - if I am incorrect, please state this more clearly) do not believe in the trinity since the word does not appear in the Bible. This is inaccurate; while churches of Christ do not typically use the word 'trinity' for this reason, all churches of Christ that I know of believe in the doctrine of the trinity (although, since there is no central organization, there may be exceptions). This should be corrected. 24.131.79.170 (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is Christadelphians on the list (50K people) and Oneness Pentecostalism (~10M+ people) is not? Jasoninkid (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC) Sorry it has ~24M people not 10M Jasoninkid (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Offensive to Muslims and Jews

A common argument for Christian-based Nontrinitarianism is that the Trinity is offensive to Muslims and Jews. It has been made several times, it should maybe be looked up as a statement or argument. For instance, a similar comment was made by Anglican archbishop Rowan Williams. [1] ADM (talk) (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

RfC?

There is allegedly an RfC on this article started on the 17th. I don't see any evidence on the page to indicate this. Does anyone here know what the RfC was filed for, if in fact one was intentionally filed? John Carter (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Pagan sections

The following sections mostly repeat and should be condensed to a single section: 7 Pagan origin 8 Pagan basis Fig (talk) 11:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Questions about individuals

Extended Primary Source Quotes

Justin Martyr Why is Justin Martyr said to be beleive Nontrinitarianism? 150 AD Justin Martyr "The Father of the universe has a Son, who also being the first begotten Word of God, is even God." (Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch 63) 150 AD Justin Martyr "Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts." (Dialogue with Trypho, ch, 36) 150 AD Justin Martyr "Moreover, in the diapsalm of the forty-sixth Psalm, reference is thus made to Christ: 'God went up with a shout, the Lord with the sound of a trumpet." (Dialogue with Trypho, ch 37) 150 AD Justin Martyr quotes Hebrews 1:8 to prove the Deity of Christ. "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever." (Dialogue with Trypho, ch 56) 150 AD Justin Martyr "Therefore these words testify explicitly that He [Christ] is witnessed to by Him who established these things, as deserving to be worshipped, as God and as Christ." - Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 63. 150 AD Justin Martyr in Chap. LXVI. He (Justin) Proves From Isaiah That God Was Born From A Virgin. (Chapter Title, Chap. LXVI) 150 AD Justin Martyr "And Trypho said, "You endeavor to prove an incredible and well-nigh impossible thing;[namely], that God endured to be born and become man...some Scriptures which we mention, and which expressly prove that Christ was to suffer, to be worshipped, and [to be called] God, and which I have already recited to you, do refer indeed to Christ." (Dialogue with Trypho, ch 68) 150 AD Justin Martyr "But if you knew, Trypho," continued I, "who He is that is called at one time the Angel of great counsel, and a Man by Ezekiel, and like the Son of man by Daniel, and a Child by Isaiah, and Christ and God to be worshipped by David, and Christ and a Stone by many, and Wisdom by Solomon, and Joseph and Judah and a Star by Moses, and the East by Zechariah, and the Suffering One and Jacob and Israel by Isaiah again, and a Rod, and Flower, and Corner Stone, and Son of God, you would not have blasphemed Him who has now come, and been born, and suffered, and ascended to heaven; who shall also come again, and then your twelve tribes shall mourn. For if you had understood what has been written by the prophets, you would not have denied that He was God, Son of the only, unbegotten, unutterable God. For Moses says somewhere in Exodus the following: `The Lord spake to Moses, and said to him, I am the Lord, and I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, being their God; and my name I revealed not to them, and I established my covenant with them.' And thus again he says, `A man wrestled with Jacob,' and asserts it was God; narrating that Jacob said, `I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.'" (Dialogue of Justin with Trypho, A Jew, Chap. CXXVI [See also The First Apology of Justin, Chap. XIII; XXII; LXIII; Dialogue of Justin with Trypho, A Jew, Chap. XXXVI; XLVIII; LVI; LIX; LXI; C; CV; CXXV; CXXVIII) [Trypho to Justin] "...you say that this Christ existed as God before the ages, and that He submitted to be born and become man" - Dialogue with Trypho, ch.48. 150 AD Justin Martyr "We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God Himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the Mystery which lies therein" (First Apology 13:5-6). 150 AD Justin Martyr "Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten by God, being His Word and first-begotten, and power; and, becoming man according to His will, He taught us these things for the conversion and restoration of the human race" (First Apology 23). 150 AD Justin Martyr "But both Him, and the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him), and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore." (Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch 6) Notice what else Justin say: "Worship God alone." (Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch 16) "Whence to God alone we render worship." (Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch 17) 150 AD Justin Martyr "God begot before all creatures a Beginning, who was a certain rational power from himself and whom the Holy Spirit calls . . . sometimes the Son, . . . sometimes Lord and Word ... We see things happen similarly among ourselves, for whenever we utter some word, we beget a word, yet not by any cutting off, which would diminish the word in us when we utter it. We see a similar occurrence when one fire enkindles another. It is not diminished through the enkindling of the other, but remains as it was" (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 61). 150 AD Justin Martyr "God speaks in the creation of man with the very same design, in the following words: 'Let us make man after our image and likeness' . . . I shall quote again the words narrated by Moses himself, from which we can indisputably learn that [God] conversed with someone numerically distinct from himself and also a rational being. . . . But this Offspring who was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the creatures, and the Father communed with him" (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 62). 150 AD Justin Martyr [Note: Justin never says Jesus is a created angel. Justin never refers to Jesus as an angel before creation, although JW’s will falsely affirm such from the text below. Justin, however, does refer to Jesus as the "angel of the Lord" after creation in various appearances to man. Many but not all Trinitarians would have no problem affirming, along side of Justin, that Jesus as uncreated God, was referred to as the Angel of Jehovah.] "HOW GOD APPEARED TO MOSES. And all the Jews even now teach that the nameless God spake to Moses; whence the Spirit of prophecy, accusing them by Isaiah the prophet mentioned above, said "The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib; but Israel doth not know Me, and My people do not understand." And Jesus the Christ, because the Jews knew not what the Father was, and what the Son, in like manner accused them; and Himself said, "No one knoweth the Father, but the Son; nor the Son, but the Father, and they to whom the Son revealeth Him." Now the Word of God is His Son, as we have before said. And He is called Angel and Apostle; for He declares whatever we ought to know, and is sent forth to declare whatever is revealed; as our Lord Himself says, "He that heareth Me, heareth Him that sent Me." From the writings of Moses also this will be manifest; for thus it is written in them, "And the Angel of God spake to Moses, in a flame of fire out of the bush, and said, I am that I am, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, the God of thy fathers; go down into Egypt, and bring forth My people." And if you wish to learn what follows, you can do so from the same writings; for it is impossible to relate the whole here. But so much is written for the sake of proving that Jesus the Christ is the Son of God and His Apostle, being of old the Word, and appearing sometimes in the form of fire, and sometimes in the likeness of angels; but now, by the will of God, having become man for the human race, He endured all the sufferings which the devils instigated the senseless Jews to inflict upon Him; who, though they have it expressly affirmed in the writings of Moses, "And the angel of God spake to Moses in a flame of fire in a bush, and said, I am that I am, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob," yet maintain that He who said this was the Father and Creator of the universe. Whence also the Spirit of prophecy rebukes them, and says, "Israel doth not know Me, my people have not understood Me." And again, Jesus, as we have already shown, while He was with them, said, "No one knoweth the Father, but the Son; nor the Son but the Father, and those to whom the Son will reveal Him." The Jews, accordingly, being throughout of opinion that it was the Father of the universe who spake to Moses, though He who spake to him was indeed the Son of God, who is called both Angel and Apostle, are justly charged, both by the Spirit of prophecy and by Christ Himself, with knowing neither the Father nor the Son. For they who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God. And of old He appeared in the shape of fire and in the likeness of an angel to Moses and to the other prophets; but now in the times of your reign, having, as we before said, become Man by a virgin, according to the counsel of the Father, for the salvation of those who believe on Him, He endured both to be set at nought and to suffer, that by dying and rising again He might conquer death. And that which was said out of the bush to Moses, "I am that I am, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, and the God of your fathers," this signified that they, even though dead, are let in existence, and are men belonging to Christ Himself. For they were the first of all men to busy themselves in the search after God; Abraham being the father of Isaac, and Isaac of Jacob, as Moses wrote." (Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch 63) 150 AD Justin Martyr "It is not on this ground solely," I said, "that it must be admitted absolutely that some other one is called Lord by the Holy Spirit besides Him who is considered Maker of all things; not solely [for what is said] by Moses, but also [for what is said] by David. For there is written by him: ‘The Lord says to my Lord, Sit on My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool,’ as I have already quoted. And again, in other words: ‘Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever." (Dialog of Justin with Trypho, a Jew, ch 56) 150 AD Justin Martyr "Then I replied, "Reverting to the Scriptures, I shall endeavor to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things, — numerically, I mean, not [distinct] in will. For I affirm that He has never at any time done anything which He who made the world — above whom there is no other God — has not wished Him both to do and to engage Himself with." (Dialog of Justin with Trypho, a Jew, ch 56) 150 AD Justin Martyr "… even so here, the Scripture, in announcing that the Angel of the Lord appeared to Moses, and in afterwards declaring him to be Lord and God, speaks of the same One, whom it declares by the many testimonies already quoted to be minister to God, who is above the world, above whom there is no other [God]." (Dialog of Justin with Trypho, a Jew, ch 60) 150 AD Justin Martyr "I shall give you another testimony, my friends," said I, "from the Scriptures, that God begat before all creatures a Beginning, [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos; and on another occasion He calls Himself Captain, when He appeared in human form to Joshua the son of Nave (Nun). For He can be called by all those names, since He ministers to the Father’s will, and since He was begotten of the Father by an act of will; just as we see happening among ourselves: for when we give out some word, we beget the word; yet not by abscission, so as to lessen the word [which remains] in us, when we give it out: and just as we see also happening in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled [another], but remains the same; and that which has been kindled by it likewise appears to exist by itself, not diminishing that from which it was kindled. The Word of Wisdom, who is Himself this God begotten of the Father of all things, and Word, and Wisdom, and Power, and the Glory of the Begetter, …" (Dialog of Justin with Trypho, a Jew, ch 60) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.41.241 (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC) Please top with the endless quotes, please. We don't need to be told what the people involved said, and such data dumps are basically useless anyway. Personally, I'm not an expert in the field, so I'm not in a position to answer, and am hoping someone else will shortly. And, again, please refrain from the quotation dumps. The only thing they really accomplish is making this talk page much longer than it needs to be. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC) Tertullian Why is Tertullian said to be beleive Nontrinitarianism? 200 AD Tertullian "Never did any angel descend for the purpose of being crucified, of tasting death, and of rising again from the dead." (The Flesh of Christ, ch 6) 200 AD Tertullian "All the Scriptures give clear proof of the Trinity, and it is from these that our principle is deduced...the distinction of the Trinity is quite clearly displayed." (Against Praxeas, ch 11) 200 AD Tertullian "The origins of both his substances display him as man and as God: from the one, born, and from the other, not born" (The Flesh of Christ, 5:6-7). 200 AD Tertullian "[God speaks in the plural ‘Let us make man in our image’] because already there was attached to Him his Son, a second person, his own Word, and a third, the Spirit in the Word....one substance in three coherent persons. He was at once the Father, the Son, and the Spirit." (Against Praxeas, ch 12) 200 AD Tertullian "Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are, one essence, not one Person, as it is said, 'I and my Father are One' [John 10:30], in respect of unity of Being not singularity of number" (Against Praxeas, 25) 200 AD Tertullian "As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons — the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Against Praxeas, by Tertullian) 200 AD Tertullian "So too, that which has come forth out of God is at once God and the Son of God; and the two are one…. In his birth he is God and man united." (Apology, ch 21) 200 AD Tertullian "There is one only God, but under the following dispensation, or oikonomia, as it is called, that this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made. Him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the Virgin, and to have been born of her — being both Man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and to have been called by the name of Jesus Christ; we believe Him to have suffered, died, and been buried, according to the Scriptures, and, after He had been raised again by the Father and taken back to heaven, to be sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that He will come to judge the quick and the dead; who sent also from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost. That this rule of faith has come down to us from the beginning of the gospel, even before any of the older heretics." (Against Praxeas, ch 2) 200 AD Tertullian "That there are two Gods and two Lords, however, is a statement which we will never allow to issue from our mouth; not as if the Father and the Son were not God, nor the Spirit God, and each of them God; but formerly two were spoken of as Gods and two as Lords, so that when Christ would come, he might both be acknowledged as God and be called Lord, because he is the Son of him who is both God and Lord" (Against Praxeas 13:6) 200 AD Tertullian "The Spirit is God, and the Word is God, because proceeding from God, but yet is not actually the very same as He from whom He proceeds.." (Against Praxeas, ch 26) 200 AD Tertullian "For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a judge previous to sin" (Against Hermogones, Ch 3) 200 AD Tertullian "He will be God, and the Word - the Son of God. We see plainly the twofold state, which is not confounded, but conjoined in One Person - Jesus, God and Man.." (Against Praxeas, ch 27) 200 AD Tertullian "God alone is without sin. The only man who is without sin is Christ; for Christ is also God" (The Soul 41:3) 200 AD Tertullian "We do indeed believe that there is only one God, but we believe that under this dispensation, or, as we say, oikonomia, there is also a Son of this one only God, his Word, who proceeded from him and through whom all things were made and without whom nothing was made. . . . We believe he was sent down by the Father, in accord with his own promise, the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, the Sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father and the Son, and in the Holy Spirit. . . . this rule of faith has been present since the beginning of the Gospel, before even the earlier heretics" ... "And at the same time the mystery of the oikonomia is safeguarded, for the unity is distributed in a Trinity. Placed in order, the Three are the Father, Son, and Spirit. They are three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in Being, but in form; not in power, but in kind; of one Being, however, and one condition and one power, because he is one God of whom degrees and forms and kinds are taken into account in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Against Praxeas 2). 200 AD Tertullian "While keeping to this demurrer always, there must, nevertheless, be place for reviewing for the sake of the instruction and protection of various persons. Otherwise it might seem that each perverse opinion is not examined but simply prejudged and condemned. This is especially so in the case of the present heresy [Sabellianism], which considers itself to have the pure truth when it supposes that one cannot believe in the one only God in any way other than by saying that Father, Son, and Spirit are the selfsame person. As if one were not all . . . through the unity of substance" (Against Praxeas 2:3-4) 200 AD Tertullian "Keep always in mind the rule of faith which I profess and by which I bear witness that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and then you will understand what is meant by it. Observe now that I say the Father is other [distinct], the Son is other, and the Spirit is other. This statement is wrongly understood by every uneducated or perversely disposed individual, as if it meant diversity and implied by that diversity a separation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" (Against Praxeas, 9) 200 AD Tertullian "[W]hen God says, 'Let there be light' [Gen. 1:3], this is the perfect nativity of the Word, while he is proceeding from God. . . . Thus, the Father makes him equal to himself, and the Son, by proceeding from him, was made the first-begotten, since he was begotten before all things, and the only-begotten, because he alone was begotten of God, in a manner peculiar to himself, from the womb of his own heart, to which even the Father himself gives witness: 'My heart has poured forth my finest Word' [Ps. 45:1Against Praxeas 7:1). 200 AD Tertullian "… it is not by division that He is different, but by distinction; because the Father is not the same as the Son, since they differ one from the other in the mode of their being. For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: "My Father is greater than I." In the Psalm His inferiority is described as being "a little lower than the angels." Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another; He, too, who sends is one, and He who is sent is another" (Against Praxeas, by Tertullian) 200 AD Tertullian [Just as JW’s attribute words to Tertullian that he never said. We draw your attention to the fact that the quoted words (from "Should you believe in the trinity", Watchtower booklet), "There was a time when the Son was not" are not Tertullian’s, but those of Bishop Kaye in his appendix section on Tertullian. (Bishop Kaye, Account of the Writings of Tertullian, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol 3, p 1181). Kaye, Tertullian, some Trinitarians and all Modalists teach that Jesus was eternally pre-existent as God, and that the title of "Son" was first applied to Jesus after his incarnation. Just as a man cannot be called a father, until after he has a son, so too Jesus cannot be called a Son until after he was physically born via incarnation. This is the gist of what Kaye is saying Tertullian taught. To support this, notice this comment by Tertullian,] "For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a judge previous to sin" (Against Hermogones, Ch 3) see next quote: 200 AD Tertullian [Interesting that Tertullian being a modalist, not only says there was a time before the Son became the Son, so too a time before God was the Father] Because God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father. In this way He was not Lord previous to those things of which He was to be the Lord. But He was only to become Lord at some future time: just as He became the Father by the Son, and a Judge by sin, so also did He become Lord by means of those things which He had made, in order that they might serve Him. (Tertullian, Against Hermogenes, chapter 3) 200 AD Tertullian "For before all things God was alone — being in Himself and for Himself universe, and space, and all things. Moreover, He was alone, because there was nothing external to Him but Himself. Yet even not then was He alone; for He had with Him that which He possessed in Himself, that is to say, His own Reason. For God is rational, and Reason was first in Him; and so all things were from Himself. This Reason is His own Thought (or Consciousness) which the Greeks call , by which term we also designate Word or Discourse and therefore it is now usual with our people, owing to the mere simple interpretation of the term, to say that the Word was in the beginning with God;" (Against Praxeas, by Tertullian) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.41.241 (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC) Origen Why is Origen said to be beleive Nontrinitarianism? 225 AD Origen "And that you may understand that the omnipotence of Father and Son is one and the same, as God and the Lord are one and the same with the Father, listen to the manner in which John speaks in the Apocalypse: "Thus saith the Lord God, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."(3) For who else was "He which is to come" than Christ? And as no one ought to be offended, seeing God is the Father, that the Saviour is also God; so also, since the Father is called omnipotent, no one ought to be offended that the Son of God is also cared omnipotent." (De Principis, On Christ, Book 1, Ch 2) 225 AD Origen "Nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification." (De Principis, Book I, ch. 3, section 7) 225 AD Origen "Saving baptism was not complete except by the authority of the most excellent Trinity of them all, i.e., by the naming of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." (De Principis, Book I, ch. 3, section 2) 225 AD Origen "The holy Apostles, in preaching the faith of Christ, treated with the utmost clarity of certain matters which they believed to be of absolute necessity to all believers...The specific points which are clearly handed down through the Apostolic preaching [are] these: First, that there is one God who created and arranged all things...Secondly, that Jesus Christ himself was born of the Father before all creatures...Although He was God, He took flesh, and having been made man, He remained what He was, God" (De Principis, Preface, sections 3 - 4) 225 AD Origen "For we do not hold that which the heretics imagine: that the Son was procreated by the Father from non-existent substances, that is, from a substance outside Himself, so that there was a time when He did not exist." (De Principis, Book V, Summary, section 28) 225 AD Origen "We worship one God, the Father and the Son." (Against Celsus, Book VIII, section 12) 225 AD Origen "The specific points which are clearly handed down through the apostolic preaching are these: First, that there is one God who created and arranged all things, and who, when nothing existed, called all things into existence, and that in the final period this God, just as he had promised beforehand through the prophets, sent the Lord Jesus Christ. Secondly, that Jesus Christ himself, who came, was born of the father before all creatures; and after he had ministered to the father in the creation of all things, for through him all things were made" ... "Although he was God, he took flesh; and having been made man, he remained what he was. God" (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:0:4). 225 AD Origen "For we do not hold that which the heretics imagine: that some part of the Being of God was converted into the Son, or that the Son was procreated by the Father from non-existent substances, that is, from a Being outside himself, so that there were a time when he [the Son] did not exist" ... "No, rejecting every suggestion of corporeality, we hold that the Word and the Wisdom was begotten out of the invisible and incorporeal God, without anything corporal being acted upon . . . the expression which we employ, however that there was never a time when he did not exist is to be taken with a certain allowance. For these very words `when' and `never' are terms of temporal significance, while whatever is said of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is to be understood as transcending all time, all ages, and all eternity" ... "For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds every sense in which not only temporal but even eternal may be understood. It is all other things, indeed, which are outside the Trinity, which are to be measured by time and ages" (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:4:1). 225 AD Origen "While we have been sketching the proof of the divinity of Jesus, we have made use of the prophetic statements concerning him, and have at the same time demonstrated that the writings which prophesied about him are divinely inspired" (The Fundamental Doctrines, 4:1:6). 225 AD Origen "So also Wisdom, since he proceeds from God, is generated from the very substance of God" (Commentary on Hebrews). 225 AD Origen "In what follows, some may imagine that he says something plausible against us. "If," says he, "these people worshipped one God alone, and no other, they would perhaps have some valid argument against the worship of others. But they pay excessive reverence to one who has but lately appeared among men, and they think it no offence against God if they worship also His servant." To this we reply, that if Celsus had known that saying," I and My Father are one," and the words used in prayer by the Son of God, "As Thou and I are one, he would not have supposed that we worship any other besides Him who is the Supreme God. "For," says He, "My Father is in Me, and I in Him." And if any should from these words be afraid of our going over to the side of those who deny that the Father and the Son are two persons, let him weigh that passage, "And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul," that he may understand the meaning of the saying, "I and My Father are one." We worship one God, the Father and the Son, therefore, as we have explained; and our argument against the worship of other gods still continues valid. And we do not "reverence beyond measure one who has but lately appeared," as though He did not exist before; for we believe Himself when He says, "Before Abraham was, I am." Again He says, "I am the truth; " and surely none of us is so simple as to suppose that truth did not exist before the time when Christ appeared. We worship, therefore, the Father of truth, and the Son, who is the truth; and these, while they are two, considered as persons or subsistences, are one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will. So entirely are they one, that he who has seen the Son, "who is the brightness of God’s glory, and the express image of His person," has seen in Him who is the image, of God, God Himself." (Origen Against Celsus, book 8, chapter 12, 225 AD) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.41.241 (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps huge chunks of primary sources were not the way to go about it, but the IP above brings up the good point that the list of individuals, without sourcing to strong secondary sources, seems a bit arbitrary and arguable. I would think that if individuals were notable for their nontrinitarian ideas, it would be noted in the general text of the article, and backed by refs. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 17:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Every individual who accepted the Logos Christology cannot be an Orthodox Trinitarian for a very simple reason: The core of the Logos Christology is that Logos is between of the Sovereing God and the created cosmos. This is how Philo taught it, and this is how the 2nd and 3rd century Fathers taught it. In other words, Logos was considered in principio ontological inferior to the God Almighty. I don't believe that any scholar of the field would deny this.

In addition, the majority of the Fathers, before Origen, who believed in the Logos Christology accepted that the Son of God was not co-eternal as a person with God. They taught, as Philo did, that Logos endiathetos, that is the Reason of God, was expressed as Logos proforikos, uttered, and then Logos became a person. Only with the addition of the platonic timeless generation doctrine by Origen the idea of co-eternity of the Father and the Son as persons was established. As regards this idea the New Catholic Encyclopedia admitts:

"In fact, even Tertullian seems to think (Adv. Hermog. 3) that God is neither Son nor, in the strictly personal sense, Father until ‘‘after’’ the coming forth of the Word with a view to creation. Side remarks in his treatise against Praxeas show more conclusively still that a concept of truly eternal generation or nativity was not yet current [circa 200 C.E.]".—R. L. RICHARD/W. J. HILL/EDS, "Trinity", The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Gale, 2003, Vol. 14, p. 192.

More details in the article in the future. See the five stages of the formulation of the Trinigy under the subtitle Origin.

--Vassilis78 (talk) 06:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Pagan origin vs. pagan basis

I am not expert in this field but it appears to me that the sections pagan origin and pagan basis either need to be merged or differentiated. — Robert Greer (talk) 13:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Secularism, Modernism, and Pluralism

It would be interesting if the article could mention the impact of certain contemporary philosophical trends such as secularism, modernism and pluralism in the development of anti-trinitarianism and/or nontrinitarianism. For instance, many of the proponents of the historical Jesus quest tried to redefine christology in a way that excluded a proper understanding of what is meant by Christ's divinity, which placed them in a de facto position of undermining the doctrinal basis of Nicea's Trinitarian belief. Also, certain currents of thought within the interfaith movement tend to emphasize the political or doctrinal harmony of religions in a way that is arguably nontrinitarian, in that it presents Jesus as an admirable humanist or a remarkable socio-political liberator. ADM (talk) 08:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Misunderstanding of Church Fathers

This article shows a great misunderstanding of the early church and the entire section of people who are nontrinitarians is simply ridiculous and filled with error. Just because the Trinity hadn't been formulated does not mean that the ideas were not in the early church fathers. The view that the church fathers espoused a non-trinitarian formula is only an opinion and it should not be presented as factual as it is in this article. Therefore I am going to go through the article and delete the instances that lack citation or that simply are inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ic2705 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

These comments expose a great bias and prove that you really have no business editing here. - Jesus Christ

Important editing / Self-important POV

I have edited this article substantially based on three criteria: 1. Lack of citations and thus pure speculation and opinion that has been presented. 2. Declaration of something as if it is factual when it is not. For instance I deleted many of the early church fathers as being people who supported nontrinitarianism because their teachings are up for interpretation and it is unfair to present them as belonging to any view which they did not clearly articulate, and which is heavily debated. 3. I added to the introduction to reflect the reality that nontrinitarinism is full-heartedly rejected by historical Christianity. This is simply a fact and it should surely be part of the introduction of this topic since it is integral to an encyclopedic understaning of the issue.

I expect people to undo my editings (as in fact one person already has, however this person did not follow guidelines for undoing edits by summarizing and explaining why the edits were undone). I implore anyone who does not like what I did to discuss your disagreement on the talk page and to at least be courteous enough to explain what you are doing in the summary. I have documented what I have done on the edit summaries and on this discussion page. Everything I have done is fully in line with WP standards. Thank you. --Ic2705 (talk) 09:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Vasillis 78, I am willing to discuss the changes and come to an agreement, but if you want to play "edit tag" I am up for the game. You have given no reason for undoing the edits, have not discussed it, nor even attempted to explain yourself. It appears you simply do not like what I am adding and subtracting because you don't like the facts. I have done nothing but present the facts. It is impossible to present the early church fathers to be on either side of the view and thus it is mere speculation to present them as such. The least you could do is provide some citations to show why you believe these church fathers held the views they suggested. This is simply WP standard. As for the paragraph I insert in the intro, I am merely stating reality and I have given citations, I could give you many more if you would like. Whether you like it or not the vast majority of Nicene Christianity rejects nontrinitarian formulas and would not even consider them to be Christian in any sense of the term except as herectics. This is reality and thus the article must reflect it, not your opinion. I'm willing to talk but you seem to not care, so I'll continue undoing your edits without further explanation. --Ic2705 (talk) 02:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This reads to me like a very foolish set of statements, as in Wikipedia there is a differnce between citation and fact. This article is about a point of view and all that is needed to include something in the article is to cite a notable publication that says something on the topic. As an example, Jehovah's Witness are well known, the don't believe in the trinity, and anything they publish against the trinity is usable in this article because they are "nontrinitarians." You seem constrained by a kind of tunnel vision where you use policy but fail to understand it. You missed all the historical figures that were nontriniatrians and all the "Christian" denominations that consider the trinity devil spawned, as though in your little bubble you delusionally believe they did/do not exist, and you would be considered a disruption to this encyclopedia if you took this delusional tunnel vision to all those other articles. You fail to grasp the simple reasoning that faith is not fact neither is opinion a fact, but the exsitence of faith and opinion are fact. That is all you need to grasp here, to keep from debating with other users. - Anonymous

The facts are what I have writen above (see Question about persons): the Logos Christology. If you know what is this, you will understand me. As you see, above the New Catholic Encyclopedia admitts that at least till Tertulian the eternal generation of the Son was unknown. This is enough for someone not to be an Orthodox Trinitarian. More citations will be provided for each one of the ante-Nicence Fathers, as you wished. Actually, I am the one who has put the most citations in this article.--Vassilis78 (talk) 06:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate you finally being willing to discuss why you have been undoing my edits. What you say has some merit but it is only one way of looking at the situation. In other words it seems to me that you are presenting one way of looking at church history, a way which has been disputed for years,and has been rejected by many more than it has been accepted. As an encylopedic article a presentation of reality should be made in a way that a student studying the subject will get a grasp of both the historical reality, the language, the figures and so on. Throughout this article the Orthodox, historical, offical Christian understanding has been attacked in a way that makes nontrinitarinism seem like the correct perspective and historically accurate. This is simply not the reality of the situation. The term "Christian" has developed over the thousands of years of Church history to have a particular meaning. A Christian is someone who believe in the Triune God. This means a nontriniarian theology may be a good theology, or it may not be, but it is not a "Christian theology" according to the correct understanding of the term as validated by historical precedance. This means that at the least the fact that nontrinitarianism differs from the essentials of historical Christianity as the term has been come to be used should be mentioned for the article to give the reality of the situation.--Ic2705 (talk) 03:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Look at the final section about Controversy of status. What is given is bascially the nontrinitarian viewpoint and it is defended. How is this neutral? Let me get it straight. If a historical, orthodox Christian POV is presented it's not neutral, but if a nontrinitarian view is presented it is neutral? It seems both sides need to be presented because the debate still goes on and no dictionary, encylopedia or scholars have any authority to declare it either way. If anything the default should be to the historical and orthodoxy perspective and certainly not to the minimal nontrinitarinism which has been rejected by Christianity over and over again from the beginning and thus only claims to be Christian with their own authority and precedence. --Ic2705 (talk) 03:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This argument has been hashed over numerous times on other pages, most notably on Talk:Christianity. The established precedence on Wikipedia is that nontrinitarian groups, such as unitarians, LDS, and Jehovah Witnesses, are included as part of Christianity. That's why they are included at Christianity and List of Christian denominations and other higher level pages. That is why these same groups are included under "Christian" groups on pages giving religious demographics for populations. Even on the Christian page, a Christian is "one who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or lives the lifestyle based on the life and teachings of Jesus; one who lives according to the teachings of Jesus." Hmmm, no mention of a required trinitarian theology. More importantly, scholarly reliable sources (such as the Pew Forum's The Religious Composition of the United States) include these groups as part of Christianity. If you can get the editors to agree on those much higher level pages that nontrinitarian theology groups should not be included as a "Christian theology" then we might have something to talk about.

As to the neutrality of this article, I think that there are definite areas that need work, but most of the nontrinitarian views and criticisms of trinitarianism are properly attributed thus satisfying the NPOV requirement, ie the article doesn't say that the nontrinitarians are correct but simply reports that this is what nontrinitarians believe. But stating categorically without citation that nontrinitarian are distinct and outside of Christianity (certainly we can say that they are outside of mainstream Christianity) and that "Nontrinitarian Christianity" is a paradox is an unacceptable lack of NPOV. As an editor said one of the last times this came up over at Christianity, "Can we nip this discussion in the bud? We've had it before. We'll have it again. The shorter it is, the better. We refer to JWs and Mormons as Christians whether they "really" are or not." --FyzixFighter (talk) 06:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice, did it occur to you that it is more important the JWs call themselves Christians? or can prove to themselves they are Christian? - I laugh at people who quote "Our father who art in heaven hallowed by thy TITLE." ha ha ha - Anonymous

Fyzix, has struck the right foundation...it depends upon the definition of Christan. What IC has done is use the definition of 4th century Christianity; a definition that could easily be used to demonstrate that all of the early apostles were heretics because none of them demonstrated a belief in the Trinity. Much of the scholarship of the last 75 years has completely debunked the one time belief that from the time of Christ to the 4th century there was only one doctrine or one Christianity. The facts are that Christianity held many teachings and that there was no "orthodoxy" in existence.

All that is needed to demonstrate the beliefs of patristic fathers is the quote of a reliable source or, if the primary text is absolutely clear, quote the father himself.

Christianity is not defined by individual churches or their doctrines. It defined by those who follow Jesus Christ; believe that he lived, died, was resurrected, and will return. There is no belief, no doctrine, greater than that teaching and that is the definition used to define Christianity.

Within Christianity you have a goodly number of followers who demand belief in the Trinity and in the catholic church. There are others who don't believe in the catholic church or its doctrines. Can one follow Jesus Christ and not be part of the catholic church? Of course, I have yet to hear of anyone being appointed by God to define the sole, absolute teachings of being a Christian.

The sole purpose of this article is to explain what non trinitarian beliefs are, who possesses them and why. I think the article already clearly stated that there is a Trinitarian position possesed by the majority of Christianity. For more information, see the Trinity article. --^StormRider 14:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Nicely said, but this newbie is not going to hear it without a many rounds of policy reminders washing away the tunnel vision. The newbie is ignoring facts that don't suit the tunnel vision reality, for example, "a definition that could easily be used to demonstrate that all of the early apostles were heretics because none of them demonstrated a belief in the Trinity." was an AWESOME point. Oh sure, Newbie is a Christian, of course, but hasn't bothered to read the scriptures sited in the article or s/he would have more respect for people who actually read the Bible. - Anonymous

Storm Rider, I disagree with everything you said. The "scholarship" of the last 75 years doesn't show anything of the sort, except maybe your own chosen scholars. I could bring just as many current scholars that would argue differently. Christians have always known that the development of doctrine was not one straight line, and that is not what good Christian scholars hold. Christians hold that there were variant doctrinal strands but that the teachings of the apostles as defined by the the line of leadership the apostles appointed remained intact and as the centuries progressed the correct (orthodox) belief was defined, defended and handed down. You are also incorrect to say that the definition I use is from the 4th century. This of course would be based on your readings of the fathers. It is true that a clear definition of the Trinity is not articulated but the seminal understanding is surely present in the fathers. In fact the formulators of he Nicene Creed used the Scriptures, the Fathers, and their own ordained leadership to articulate the Trinity. So a more correct way to say it is this: I use the definition as clearly articulated and handed down from the 4th by the leaders of the church who were in the line of the apostles, a definition which has defined Christianity for 17 centuries and continues to do so, and also a definitions which rejected and made unChristian all other articulations of doctrine.

What I find ironic is that you contradict yourself. You say: "Christianity is not defined by individual churches or their doctrines" (which is simply your unsubstantiated claim against the centuries of Christian proclamation). But then you go on to do just that, you give a definition of what you believe Christainity is! The fact is this article is against the historical, theological, and ecclesiastical precedence and it defines Christianity in its own terms as if it has some insight on truth. It is not neutral and this neutrality has been questioned by many, as can be seen by the archives. Likely WP will allow it to stay the way it is because that is usually how it rules on matters as such, but there is no doubt that at the least "nontrinitarian Christianity" is a paradox and a non-existent entity and is akin to saying: A black rainbow. No such thing exist, is is a distinct entity which is in its own category such as: Unorthodox Christian doctrines and sects. This would be not only historically and theologically accurate but also true to current reality. That's what an encyclopedia is supposed to do, present the reality, whether people like it or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ic2705 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

"but there is no doubt that at the least "nontrinitarian Christianity" is a paradox and a non-existent entity and is akin to saying: A black rainbow."
- This is one of the dumbest things I have ever read in a talkpage. This newbie is suggesting that the whole article is a fraud. What utter nonsense; I'll bet Jesus speaks to him personally too. In cases like this I am reminded of one of my favorite quotes of Jesus himself which so-called Christians like this one blank out on: Revelation 3:12
"Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on him my new name." I like reading this one because it is so obvious (4x) that he considers God his God and making a point of it (Ha Ha Ha Ha). But like I said it will all fall on deaf ears with the newbie tunnel vision editor. - Anonymous

RFC on NPOV of article

So our friend User:Ic2705 has stated unequivocally "but there is no doubt that at the least 'nontrinitarian Christianity' is a paradox and a non-existent entity and is akin to saying: A black rainbow." and of course offended, both by his edits and comments, everyone who disbelieves the trinity either as their religion or just as a logic fraud. Does anyone have a comment on this, should we all bow to his idea that this article is a fraud?? - The Almighty G.

While I can and do understand that individuals who adhere to nontrinitarian beliefs, like members of the Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists, would reasonably be offended by such statements, and as a trinitarian myself (who doesn't take offense so easily) I very strongly disagree with the comments made, as they seem to ignore a substantive part of the history of Christianity, I have questions whether the phrasing of the RfC comment, and filing an RfC as opposed to, for instance, a wikiquette alert, is necessarily the best course of action to take in this matter. Clearly, however the statements are extremely objectionable, and at the very least the individual making them should be reprimanded for such a clear breach of WP:CIVILITY. John Carter (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

John Carter, you don't know what you're talking about. Seventh-Day Adventists are trinitarian. You have absolutely no room to say otherwise: [url]http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html[/url] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.152.101.44 (talk) 23:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Being a non-Trinitarian Christian is not the paradox, but something else is. As the Anchor Bible Dictionary says: "One does not find in the NT the trinitarian paradox of the coexistence of the Father, Son, and Spirit within a divine unity, the mystery of the three in one." (2:1055) And this paradox, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica (electronic version 2007), took four centuries to come into existence: "Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament [...]. The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. [...] It was not until the 4th century that the distinctness of the three and their unity were brought together in a single orthodox doctrine of one essence and three persons."

This automatically means that, before the 4th century C.E., there weren't any orthodox Trinity and similarly no orthodox Trinitarians as well. And the big question now raising is: The ante-Nicene Christians, who didn't know the orthodox Trinity, shouldn’t be called Christians? This is funny.--Vassilis78 (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The above comments don't make clear just what comments are requested on, so I'll just comment on whatever I feel like.

1. The article is blatantly biased, giving masses of arguments for the NT position & little or nothing of the other side.
2. The account of Arianism seems to me at least misleading if not wrong. Arius held, as I understand it, that Jesus was god (theos) but not God (ho theos).
3. The World Christian Encyclopedia & the Penguin Handbook of Living Religions both include LDS & JW under Christianity, in a category called marginal Christian. [2] also includes them under Christianity, in separate categories.
4. The fact that many Christians don't regard them as such would seem a reasonable candidate for mention.
   Peter jackson (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

All of the comments about the Trinity being a new development in the 4th century are not NPOV they are debated opinions. It is true that a Trinitarian formula was not clear among the fathers, but as the fathers argued from Scirpture prior to Nicea in the Apostles' Creed, Scripture itself shows a Trinitarian perspective. What I find ironic about this entire discussion are all the people who accuse me of bad manners and not a NPOV somehow think they have good manners and a NPOV. Here are the facts: Nontrinitarianism is a debated and heated subject. Any stance on it either way is not a NPOV. IT IS a NPOV to show that historically since before the 4th century up until today the vast majority of Christians as seen in their creeds, councils, and confessions regard Christianity to be belief in the Triune God. This is an historical fact whether you like it or not and not to include it in the article is simply silly.

I maintain that nontrinitarian Christianity is a paradox. It is like saying Monotheistic atheism. It is un-defining the very thing it is trying to define. Let me lay it out for you formulaically: Christianity = belief in Trinity as seen in: Scripture, early church fathers, ALL early creeds and councils, ALL major catechisms throughout the last 17 hundred years, and all confessions by any historical church body. Since historically, Christianity = Belief in Trinity, then to say nontrinitarian Christianity is simply a paradoxical statement. It is the editors of this article which are attempting to redefine Christianity against the historical current, I am merely reprenting the accepted definition of the past 18 centuries. The difference between me and the rest is that I can acknoweledge that my view is not neutral, nor am I attempting to be. I am merely trying to undue the massive unneutrality of this article by putting it in its historical and theological perspective. Your all fooling yourselves to think you or this article have escaped your biases and are being NPOV. Let me make one last thing clear: I am not saying Jehovah's Witness' or any other nontrinitarian sect does not belong to God. That is for him to decide. What I am saying is they are not Christian in the historical sense of the term. Christianity is not a term you can do whatever you want to with, it is an historically movement which has manifested itself culturally, socially, and pedagogically as a Trinitarian monotheism. Simply look at WP's article about the history of Christianity and see that hardly any room is given to nontrinitarian sects. They are simply not included as part of the Christian body. This is a WP precedence. Or look at the article about Christian denominations and see how the diagram does not include nontrinitarian sects.--Ic2705 (talk) 19:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• List of Christian denominations - Bible Student Groups - Jehovah's Witnesses - You obviously haven't even read what you claim to know. GabrielVelasquez (talk)
• "historically since before the 4th century up until today the vast majority of Christians" - I laughed outloud when I read this because, as you know reincarnation is not Christian, and it reads as thought you are some special reincarnation that was there in the 4th century taking a census. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 06:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It is good that you (Ic2705) have acknowledged your POV to be your own biased opinion. Declaring that nontrinitarians are not Christians is obviously a very biased statement. The definition of Christian is quoted elsewhere on this page, and does not include belief in the Trinity. That is actually pretty clear, I think, and reasonably unbiased. If you would like some acknowledgment that Trinitarianism is the orthodox, mainstream view held by the largest Christian churches, I think that is also a clear and factual kind of statement. And it does not imply endorsement of one set of beliefs. Further, (and I admit that I am not only new to the controversy, but just read the article for the first time) it does seem to me that the article could use some citations from those scholars who would argue against nontrinitarianism. But finally, an encyclopedia article should just describe the subject. Presenting it as either the most accurate interpretation, or as heresy, is not relevant.LuxInQuisqueEst (talk) 02:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ic2705, the core of the matter is this. What I believe and you believe has no importance at all for Wikipedia. What has importance for Wikipedia is creditable sources to support what we write in the articles. If we have such, we can add them to the article. If we don't, we can write nothing.--Vassilis78 (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Ic2705, the core of the matter is this. What I believe and you believe has no importance at all for Wikipedia. What has importance for Wikipedia is creditable sources to support what we write in the articles, on the article's topic. If we have such, we can add them to the article. If we don't, we can write nothing.--GabrielVelasquez (talk) 04:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

What are the implications of the phrase "on the article's topic."? Does it mean that sources arguing for the Trinity without explicitly mentioning NT are excluded? Peter jackson (talk) 10:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yea-aah, Exactly. There is already an article on the Trinity you don't need to go everywhere in this encyclopedia to defend that idea, that is not encyclopedic. Remember where you are. You might want to actually read the whole article and whole talkpage before you edit here. There are millions, hundreds of millions of people who call themselves Christian and believe wholeheartedly that the Trinity is devil-spawned. This article is about that belief. If you really want an eye opener go to the verse where Paul says in the later days people will come with teaching of demons and then goes on to list forbidding marriage as one of those teachings: Hello? - This article is not a wake up call for me, I already knew just from looking at the raw Greek copy of John 1:1.
"Ho Theon" is not "theos" but deceptively translated as the same by Trinitarians. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 05:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that most of the sources arguing the other side of the case are banned from this article. Is that your idea of neutrality?

"hundreds of millions"? Where do you get that from? There are several million LDS & several million JW. Who else in large numbers? Peter jackson (talk) 10:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

you continue to misapply the concept of Neutrality for your own purposes. I don't think you even know what Nontrinitarian means, and you are wasting people's time here with your trinitarian agenda. Get off it, you are never going to get this article deleted because it is a real belief, and article on a real topic. There is a word for people like you who go round and round and don't hear what people are saying to them in reply, they just continue waiting to hear what they want to hear; I'll have to look it up in the DSM-IV . "Banned from this article" - if you understood the concept of an Encyclopedia you wouldn't be asking that question; there isn't any arguing for the "other side" as I keep saying, that's a different article. Who else he asks me, I'm supposed to read the article for him now, what a joke. - GabrielVelasquez (talk) 13:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

"trinitarian agenda"? I'm not even a Christian, Trinitarian or otherwise. Peter jackson (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

TRINITARIAN VANDALISM HERE

This article is suffering more than the usual amount of Trinitarian Vandalism these days. Someone who knows this topic should be watching this article better.
References have been deleted so that portions of the article could later be deleted. THE POINT WAS MADE that references are need to show who uses a given scripture to support this idea against the trinity.
Those kinds of references are needed and important, therefore you can't be letting trinitarians just delete them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nontrinitarianism&diff=next&oldid=342966535
This article is a legitimate belief and references for that belief can't just be swept under the carpet as POV. That accusation shows serious bias or serious ignorance or both.
The later link is the official position of Jehovah's Witnesses, a major Nontrinitarian, and it was the equivalent of a crime here to delete it. 24.79.4.188 (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I have reremoved the links as they do not meet our WP:EL guidelines. Please note that links in the "external links" sections of articles are there because they are specifically not being used to reference the article (or they would be cited appropriately and appear in the "references" section. You are welcome to cite any relevant material in this article to those links and add them as references, but they are not appropriate just as external links. Hit me up on my talkpage if you have trouble formatting the citations. ThemFromSpace 21:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Editors should be more concerned with Wikipedia's policies than with their personal opinions.
The external links to official pages for Jehovah's Witnesses ("watchtower.org") and Christadelphians ("thechristadelphians.org") have been reinstated, per WP:ELOFFICIAL which says, "Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself. These links are exempt from the links normally to be avoided".
--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

There are no official links in articles about philosophical ideas. An official link is directly about the subject of the article, for example in our article about Wal-Mart, there is a link to Wal-Mart's homepage. I have brought this issue up at the external links noticeboard for further evaluation. ThemFromSpace 22:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Threeness

I have removed the phrase "nature, authority, and knowledge" from the manner in which the entities of the Trinity are believed to be equal. Unless there is an important (sourced) reason for asserting these specific aspects of equality, it seems very much like there are three aspects simply to have three of them.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

'first and only'

There seems to have been some confusion about the concept of 'the Son' being the "first and only direct creation". If this is parsed as "first direct creation and only direct creation", the statement is indeed contradictory. However, the statement is meant to be understood as "first creation and only direct creation". Possibly the statement should be rephrased to make the intended meaning less ambiguous.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Not confusing. The expression first direct creation does not necessarily require the existence of subsequent direct creations. Alternatively, a believer in Jehovah might contend that Jehovah is merely "resting" and could resume creation at some unidentified point in the future. Perhaps the statement might work this way: First and only direct creation [to date]...

--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The edit history of the article indicates that some editors have been confused. We shouldn't guess what "a believer in Jehovah" (I'm guessing you mean JWs here, though more broadly this could refer to all Jehovists, or all Christians or even all members of all Abrahamic faiths) "might" believe. It is indeed redundant to say the first of only one thing, but the point is, that isn't the thought it's meant to convey.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

"A believer in Jehovah" would not likely refer to "all members of all Abrahamic faiths" since Abraham himself did not know God by the name from which the maltransliteration 'Jehovah' derives (see Exodus 6:3); moreover Islam, one of "Abrahamic faiths", does not employ the Tetragrammaton in any form, and certainly not in the form 'Jehovah'.JALatimer (talk)contribs) 07:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant. The term refers to the same entity worshipped by all Abrahamic faiths, irrespective of which particular name they give it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Relevant. If I said "believers in HaShem" no one would assume I was speaking about Christians. They would know I was speaking about Jews. If I say "believers in the Holy Trinity" everyone knows I'm talking about Christians, and not Jews or Muslims. The fact that Jews and Christians say they worship the same God (at least on some level) does not make differences in nomenclature meaningless. -- JALatimer (talk) 07:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I already stated that it was a more broad application of the term. Arguing over semantics is superfluous. If a person named Bob changed their name to Bill, some people might still call him Bob, and others might call him Bill. It's still the same entity.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that "believers in Jehovah" is ambiguous. I simply think you exaggerated the ambiguity, and, being argumentative by nature, I commenced a campaign of quibbling against your exaggeration. -- JALatimer (talk) 07:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting reasoning, but the statement is about the past, not about the future. As a point of fact you will find that Jesus is (according to the context/literature) the only, and therefore to say he WAS first is redundant, ludicrously redundant. Not to say that God can't or would not do that again, but let's stick to the referenced literature and not speculate about that future event! It seems absurd the degree you twist this to take it out of context, we are talking about the trinity fraud, not some future "Quadrinity" thing. - 24.78.178.147 (talk) 02:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hypothetical future events are not relevant to the context. The context is that Jesus was the first creation but the only direct creation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Crazy, still stuck in the tunnel vision; it's either contradictory or redundant to say he was the "only" direct creation, and then add that he was the first, as though there are other, and not "only." Why do you still fail to see that? The only way it can be both is if you are counting on future occurrences, which is what is out of context, you have NO REFERENCES for future occurrences, PERIOD.
24.78.167.139 (talk) 08:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Despite the fact that I have specifically indicated that hypothetical future events are irrelevant, you still seem confused. So here is a neutral example of a completely rational use of first and only... 'Bill has two children, Mike and Jenny. Mike is Bill's first child and only son.' As I previously suggested, the existing wording should probably be rephrased to remove the existing ambiguity.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

sure if you change the meaning of what you are saying then of course you can't be wrong, but what I have said in context is correct, First sole creation and only sole creation are redundant and contradictory. It's like saying Jesus was the "first and only" immaculate conception of Mary, there is no second or otherwise it is therefore nonsensical to leave it without the qualifiers. What was there before is that Jesus was the first direct creation of only God, and that suggests OTHER direct creations of only God, and incorrect. 24.78.167.139 (talk) 05:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

CLARIFICATION FOR THE IP ADDRESS TO FINALLY GRASP....

you're misunderstanding. One important point JWs teach is that Christ was the "first" creation of God, IN GENERAL, meaning "first production", as well as the "only" DIRECT, so He CAN be "first" in one sense, and "only" in another....and so "first" should be clearly stated.   Only vandalism or real inaccuracies should be reverted, not good-faith valid additions and edits. (And no need for name-calling and needless edit warring for something like this. JWs teach that Christ was God's FIRST Creation, as well as the "only direct." Not that hard to understand.) Sweetpoet (talk) 11:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not misunderstanding anything, what was there was not what you are describing now more clearly and what was challenged before was nonsensical, It's like saying Jesus was the "first and only" immaculate conception of Mary, there is no second or otherwise it is therefore nonsensical to leave it without the qualifiers. What was there before is that Jesus was the first direct creation of only God, and that suggests OTHER direct creations of only God, and incorrect. If you had read this discussion FROM THE BEGINNING you will notice that the title says "FIRST AND ONLY" sans qualifiers. 24.78.167.139 (talk) 05:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

For some reason you all were very interested in expressing your opinions on this but placing something else in the article that is/was contradictory and unclear. So I have added to the article what you mean to say rather than what you left there while writing something else on the talkpage. "Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus was God's first creation but the only direct creation by God, as God used him to make everything else." as was first admitted at the top, and as suggested for change at the top. Any more adjustments to this clearest expression should be viewed as vandalism. 24.78.167.139 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC).

"Nonsensical" is a bit strong, no? Really, what is this big problem here? It was only "nonsensical" to someone maybe that could not discern what was (easily) meant by both terms in that one sentence. Yes, it's more clear here how I stated it on the talk page, but it could have easily been ascertained also from the brief expression of "first and only direct creation." (I did not join the discussion days ago, as I was simply not around, and I was busy, and was not aware of the discussion going on, until more recently now.)

But again, to say just "direct creation" without also saying "first" is REALLY unclear and is an INCOMPLETE description of what JWs teach and believe. Jeffro (and others) got it, but you seemed to have trouble with it. UNNECESSARILY.... As I said, and as others have said, JWs teach that Christ was God's "first" creation, AND "only direct" creation. SO WHAT??? What is the big issue?

Why is saying "first and only direct creation" such a hardship for you, and considered by you as "nonsensical" when so many others got the point? meaning "first production", as well as the "only" DIRECT, so He CAN be "first" in one sense, and "only" in another....and so "first" should be clearly stated.Sweetpoet (talk) 06:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

After some consideration, based on the fact that the current wording is obviously confusing some editors, I've removed 'direct' from the sentence. The sentence already specifically states that the son was used to create everything else, which adequately covers the concept of no other direct creations.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

ok, bro, I may agree with you on that to some degree, but I think you made a mistake. In your last edit, you actually LEFT the word "direct' and ended up removing the word "first" (which is an important word that should be clearly stated as a JW tenet). So I reverted your edit because of that. I had a feeling it was just an accident on your part, or something. Again, though, if "direct" is (a bit) redundant because of the point of "used him in making everything else", the word "first" definitely would be needed there to clearly describe the JW doctrine of "first creation". As for the point of removing "direct" because of "used him to make everything else", even if it's a wee bit "redundant", I do feel it's still better to have it just for total total clarity, that the WT teaches that God (the Father) produced ONLY Christ the Son directly, nothing and no one else. But that can maybe go either way. But "first", I would think, definitely needs to be made clear, as the Son of God being the very first in the created order by God, being a JW belief and teaching.Sweetpoet (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

"bro"? Anyway...

I didn't make a mistake. 'First' is redundant here. If the 'son' was used to make "everything else", then the 'son' inherently came first. I don't see any room for ambiguity, and the less wordy statement quite clearly indicates the belief that the 'son' was directly created first, and then was used to create everything else.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

ok, but what was confusing was that you said that you removed the word "direct", not the word "first". You wrote in your comment above: "I've removed 'direct' from the sentence." Maybe you meant to say that you removed the word "first". But that isn't what you wrote (in both your edit comment, and on the talk page here), so that's why I wasn't sure what you meant. You did say that the word "direct" was removed by you, not the word "first". Yet I saw "direct" left, and the word "first" gone. Wasn't sure what was going on.

But anyway, as I said, the JW tenet that the pre-existent Son of God was God's "first" creation is as paramount in their beliefs as the "only direct", and even if one or the other is a bit "redundant" due to the "everything else made through him" point, it should be made very clear to the average reader, who may not necessarily piece the points together. Just my opinion. But whatever the final consensus is ultimately is fine...as long the overall point is not lost or too diluted. thanks.Sweetpoet (talk) 06:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I left out 'first' in my edit, but I think the article would be clearer with 'first' in there. Yes, logically 'only direct' implies 'first', but having first in there feels better to me. Just my opinion.JALatimer (talk) 06:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

SweetPoet, sorry for the confusion, I think my edit summary might have been incorrect (lack of sleep); what I meant was what I actually changed in the article, and as discussed here at Talk. Also, my previous comment above was made after I typed, but before I had saved, my more recent change to the article itself, which might have confused things also. However, JALatimer's comments about the scope of the article are correct, so the relevant part about the 'Almighty' does belong first, meaning some rephrasing for context is required.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Two Objections to Sweetpoet's last edit

(A) This article is about nontrinitarianism; therefore, the discussion in this article of JW belief should emphasize what distinguishes JW's as nontrinitarian. "Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Son of God was the the only direct creation by God, and that God used him to make everything else," is a matter-of-fact statement of JW belief, which does not properly contextualize that belief within the trinitarian-nontrinitarian debate, and therefore does not strengthen this article which is about nontrinitarianism. My introduction of the word "subordination" was intended to make the nontrinitarian implications of the JW beliefs about the "Son of God" explicit from the get-go. As it stands, not until sentence iv do we read explicitly that "only the Father is the "Almighty God."

Hello. I would argue that this article is about nontrinitarian, and not about nontrinitarianism as compared to trinitarianism. While it's true that the label for this grouping of beliefs is indeed prefixed with "non-" in regards to the trinity, the simple fact is, it is a robust subject on its own. The reason this particular name came about for this grouping is because initially those who wrote about nontrinitarianism in the past were themselves Trinitarians. Either way, there's no reason that every point made in this article should have to be compared to Trinity beliefs. But, we can (and should) include content on the comparison between the two in general (I think that exists in some form already). Retran (talk) 22:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe even a discussion on the name itself should be included (but that would be new content, and there's so much that needs to be fixed in this article)?Retran (talk) 22:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

(B) In sentence ii, we read "They cite...Jesus' claim that he had a God over him." They do not just go around citing for fun. They cite for a reason: namely, to support their belief that Jesus is subordinate to God. Use of the word 'subordination' in the first sentence does not make the second setence redundant or "repetitive;" rather it introduces the claim for which sentence ii provides the reputed evidence. -- JALatimer (talk) 07:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Capitalization

I agree with Sweetpoet that "Son of God" should probably be capitalized since it's a title ("Father" is also capitalized in this paragraph and elsewhere). Also, "unique" and "only" is redundant. -- JALatimer (talk)

I can live with that. (As Sweetpoet said, personal pronouns shouldn't be capitalized in Wikipedia articles; but 'son' isn't a pronoun anyway, and is used as a title here.) Quite right about "unique" and "only".--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

See WP:MOSCAPS for policy regarding capitalization of gods, dieties, etc. "Proper nouns and titles referencing deities are capitalized", so I'd concur that it's correct to capitalize "Son of God" (it's a title).Retran (talk) 04:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

the POV issues in the "Modern Christians" section

Hello fellow editors, thanks for the work you've done to this point as this is an article rated of Top-importance. Well, despite our good faith efforts, I feel strongly that the recent spate of reversals (and edits) have caused major WP:NPOV violations to return. I will take a quick stab here in explaining my line of thinking to help us get on what I feel is the right track.Retran (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems that many of the edits and talk page have to do with the use of specific phrases, terminology, and whether such-and-such idea is conveyed. Since that is the case, I argue that this is the WRONG place to spend our energy in a religious article. It leads to what amounts to declarations of an ecclessiastical meeting: where editors are deciding what terms and doctrines are important enough to each religion, carefully trying not to offend or raise disputes with each other. Wikipedia is NOT a soap-box, it's not a place to make or promote ecclesiastical declarations, or a place to promote particular religious ideas, or even a place to argue establish the basis for particular doctrines/beliefs.Retran (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The material that should be included in the "Modern Christians" section should be written to comply with Wikipedia's WP:NPOV neutral point of view policy. Especially important to editors would be WP:NPOV#Religion: "Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs".... this includes the OMISSION of information that might only be relevant to adherents or from a promotional/apologetic angle. Retran (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

We editors need to be brave enough to leave out and omit details that do not accomplish what should be our goal in this section. I feel our goal in this section is to describe the Alternate Views of Modern Christians; it's perfectly okay (and I would said important per NPOV) to leave apologetic material regarding these viewpoints. We need only to describe the viewpoints; and then when needed for clarity, "[what motivates] those who hold these beliefs and practices, but also account for how such beliefs and practices developed"... The only way we are going to be able to write about motivations and development is to use THIRD PARTY sources, we CANNOT rely on primary sources for this. If an editor already has an understanding of motivations, and development, such understandings should be written only when they can be cited to reliable sources. Retran (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

ORIGINAL RESEARCH IS NOT ALLOWED, it can be CHALLENGED and REMOVED. Article text that is not backed up by reliable sources can also be CHALLENGED and REMOVED.Retran (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I should have made this better clear when I performed the edits, but I tried to avoid having to go into each change as there was so many and it seemed to be so certain to me that other editors would understand the direction I was going. Thanks, and I look forward to the future discussion.Retran (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you're talking about, as I DID "explain" everything I did quite clearly and sufficiently. Check the Talk Page as well as my edit comments. Also, you removed whole important parts of various "Christian" groups' descriptions. With the untrue excuse of "POV". None of the stuff on the Creation Seventh Day Adventists, JWs, or Oneness, etc was "POV", but simply provable and documented and cited and stated things by the groups themselves. There was NO "original research" per se. These things have been cited and sourced. But regardless, none of the stuff was really "POV" or biased statements at all. But simply neutral and documented and objective points. peace... Sweetpoet (talk) 02:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's what I'm talking about: on one of the edits your summary was "no valid reason to remove "unscriptual and pagan" as that IS how Oneness Pentecostals view the "trinity" doctrine, (I have the books that clearly say that) and this article is "Nontrinitarianism"..." But your explanation seems to be a non-sequitur in regards to the issues I've brought up. I stated that it doesn't matter what THEY think's important. That in and of itself doesn't mean its notable enough for inclusion. The standard we have to rely on for notability is inclusion in notable 3rd party sources that treat the relevant subject matter. Instead, you seem to be furthering my initial point, that you're getting the phrasing and statements directly from the organization with an interest in promoting those beliefs. It's not notable just because "they" say it is. The POV reasoning is valid and holds up. We need to focus on describing the beliefs/practices, motivations, and historical context. Not just repeating apologetics. Retran (talk) 04:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

it DOES matter what the specific group thinks of a position if it's in the context as to WHY the group is rejecting that very position. It's called giving the REASON for something. And there's NO taking sides, but simply stating the REASON why such and such group is either accepting or rejecting a specific doctrine or position. For example, did you even see the Jehovah's Witnesses article? You see TONS of that. Like why JWs reject hell-fire or Christmas, because THEY view it as "pagan or unscriptural". THAT'S STATING WHAT THE GROUP ITSELF STATES OR BELIEVES.......but for the purpose contextually (sighs) of stating WHY. Whether the position is valid or not, it's the stated reason, and it's important. Wake up already, and stop dismissing CONTEXT. Sweetpoet (talk) 04:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Retran, I really liked (for the most part) and appreciated your recent edits. And I concur with your statement that "we editors need to be brave enough to leave out and omit details that do not accomplish what should be our goal in this section." -- JALatimer 02:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm not sure why you would appreciate Retran's wholesale unwarranted destruction and removal of valid objective complete and important descriptions and details, with the nonsensical unreasonable and UNTRUE excuse that they were "POV" when they were not, and how he did not demonstrate in any way AT ALL how they were supposedly "POV."

I have made arguments for why in general the content I modified was NOT objective. POV violations need to be taken seriously, especially on an article of this importance. An article is not simply to be added to and phrases changed until those with interests in the topic are satisfied; all text needs to be critically examined and each sentence challenged. It was not reckless, in my view, and it's important we don't simply revert back to POV content. Retran (talk) 04:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why you're siding with him, with his reckless removals. Whether he has a point in what he said here on the talk page or not, his nonsense on the article was over-reaching, unnecessary, and even disrespectful. These things were NOT "original research" or "POV", as these were things either stated by the groups THEMSELVES, OR...are stated as how OTHERS view them. Without taking sides necessarily one way or the other. Creation Seventh Day Adventists do NOT hold to the Nicean Trinity doctrine.

Let's start with "stated by the groups THEMSELVES"... That's a problem. We don't go by what the groups say THEMSELVES; nor should encyclopedic content simply repeat phrases and points and apologetics. We should not use terminology simply because the group THEMSELVES uses it. We need to use terminology that is clear to the real-world audience. These religious pages are not like a classified section of an encyclopedia where each faith get's to have the terminology and treatment that their leaders/apologists say is best to use. When you include content and justify the inclusion of content based simply on the fact a group themselves uses it, you are in danger of promoting that group. We need to describe the group, and we should not (as a general use) use that group's resources as source citation either. Third party treatments on the subject.Retran (talk) 04:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I am challenging the inclusion of phrasing based on the fact the group itself uses it. If a group itself uses the terminology, how do you KNOW that's the most relevant way to describe the belief (because it could be tainted by the promotional intent of that group). If you're making a judgment call that the primary source is reflective of the beliefs, intents, motivations in practice, that there's original research! Primary sources might be appropriate to use for things like citing the number of books an organization advertises on its own website... things that are just plain docile fact like that. But otherwise, it's extremely problematic. These terminologies can have special meanings that are only (or best) understood by those experiencing the groups' beliefs firsthand... something that the general reading public can be assumed NOT to have experienced.Retran (talk) 04:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

And Oneness Pentecostals THEMSELVES have said that the Trinity doctrine is not in the Bible and is from pagan philosophy. So to remove those IMPORTANT points as somehow "POV" is really reckless and destructive and makes no good editorial or logical sense. Nothing that was removed was proven to be biased point of view. They were just documented things stated by the very groups themselves. Case closed. Sweetpoet (talk) 03:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the oneness pentecostals say it's not in the Bible and that its pagan. Labeling a religious doctrine as "pagan" is a pejorative and it has no place in an encyclopedia. Any group could claim nearly anything they disagreed with as "pagan" and have it included in wikipedia under the standard Sweetpoet proposes. And, what makes you so certain that these are "IMPORTANT" points? What are you using to justify their notability? If it's anything besides a 3rd party source, then it can be challenged and removed (per WP:NPOV). Just b/c a group calls something "important" doesn't mean we have to repeat it here. In this case, repeating that that the Bible doesn't support the Trinity, and that it's "pagan" adds little understanding to Oneness's beliefs and practices, and simply places undue emphasis on how they promote their viewpoint. And just for disclosure, I'm not Christian so I have no "dog in the game" one way or another re. trinity.Retran (talk) 04:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not "siding" with anyone. It is my hope that we can all be on one side and work on this together. And to do that, we're going to have to leave the case open. -- JALatimer 04:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedias can state how a group views a certain doctrine IF THE WHOLE ARTICLE IN THE ENCYCLOPEDIA ITSELF IS DEALING WITH THAT VERY SUBJECT IN THE FIRST PLACE. The article ITSELF is not taking sides about what is "pejorative" or not, but it's IMPORTANT AND EVEN NECESSARY to state why a certain group (per the section in the article) is rejecting that doctrine in the first place. Leaving out the "WHY" of something is irresponsible and incomplete. And that's where the "groups themselves state this" point comes in as important, because it's only giving the REASON why a certain group may either accept or reject a certain doctrine or position.

I think YOUR OWN BIAS shows a little bit, as an editor, and being over-scrupulous and uptight, and overly-restrictive, where WP policy actually, instead of getting respected and followed, gets actually disregarded.

"POV" is NOT simply pointing out how a certain church views a certain doctrine IF THAT CERTAIN GROUP VIEWS THAT CERTAIN DOCTRINE THAT WAY.

all that's called is SIMPLY REPORTING A FACT. Without taking sides as to whether the specific position is true or valid or not. Did you even see, for example, the Jehovah's Witnesses article? As just an example... Did you see ALL the stuff in there that's stated of how JWs reject things like hell-fire and Christmas BECAUSE THEY THEY THEY THEY view those things as "pagan and unscriptural"? And it's WARRANTED, because JWs DO view those things as pagan, etc........and so the REASONS (documented reasons) for the rejection of certain things should be clearly unambiguously stated. WITHOUT TAKING SIDES AS TO THE POSITION IS CORRECT OR NOT. And that was NOT done in the Oneness Pentecostals part at all. You got issues, it seems....and you need to stop this already.

Seriously. I think you're not really clear what true POV is, and your putting your own hyper-sensitive spin on what it is. And you dismiss the "groups themselves" point and conflating when it's not warranted to go by that and when it isn't...(double face-palm), sloppily, FORGETTING THAT THE CONTEXT IN THAT PARTICULAR ARTICLE CALLS FOR THE "how the groups themselves state it" is important. Re-examine your thinking on this, bro....for real. Your removals were disrespectful, unwarranted, and unnecessary. And if you keep doing it, that is edit warring. Those things you recklessly uptightly removed were IMPORTANT DETAILS AND SIMPLY OBJECTIVE DOCUMENTED FACTS OF EXPLANATION.....end of story. Sweetpoet (talk) 04:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary

• 'namely' closer to 'videlicet' than 'specifically'
• Gk. text does not capitalize "Father", etc.
• removed POV "explicit"..."of sub-ordinance to the Father"; also, "sub-ordinance" is not a word
• Nicene creed was in fact (not in opinion or statement) adopted approx 300 years after...
• took out 'on earth': seemed a bit 'theological'
• reinserted "completely" as this is an important theological point: for example, Arius seems to have thought of Jesus as sharing the divine nature to a degree, but not completely (God, but not as God as God)
• substituted "essence" for "substance"
• "each others'"-->"each other's"
• "doctrine of the..." instead of plain "Trinity"
• Removed reference to Rastafarians as per flag by Jeffro -- JALatimer 02:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Developing a set of guidelines to help us proceed

Retran, while I agree that this article is not a place to draft ecumenical joint statements and that our purpose should not be to "please different editors", I think you may underestimate the importance of "specific phrases, terminology, and whether such-and-such idea is conveyed" in an article that concerns religion, not despite POV concerns, but especially in light of NPOV. It seems to me what we want is to accurately (but also concisely) "describe the Alternate Views of Modern [nontrinitarian] Christians"; we want to do that, as you said, in a way that is neutral, verifiable, and non-original; and we want to keep the article free of anything that is not directly relevant. There is going to have to be some hemming and hawing over terms (for example, the debate a while back over "first" and "direct", etc., approached silliness at times, but I believe it stemmed from a genuine concern to accurately convey JW belief), but hopefully we can do that here on the talk page.

I don't think there should be much hemming and hawing over terms; we should be using plain language to describe beliefs/practices, and we can get that from 3rd party source material. If its not in 3rd party source, and it's notability as a practice/tenent is not established in 3rd party source, it can be challenged and removed. I think the hemming and hawing should be over clarity. The times we include terms with special meanings to denominations should be rare and be justified in the text itself (based again on source). While it may be challenging to be concise while avoiding these novel terms and customized apologetic points, that's the whole purpose of the editing process. I'm just saying, if we include a term, we have to be darn sure it doesen't appear as if the article is stating the term is the best one to use, and if we include an apologetic point, a biblical citation, etc, that likewise need to be certain the text doesn't read as if it's establishing those ideas as fact. It's extremely hard in THIS section to include those apologietic references and novel terms without introducing POV problems; that's becasue the length each major religous group gets is a few sentences at most (and that's probably a good thing noting the snaking length of the article already). Maybe another point of talk here should establish the goals we want for the Modern Christian subsection? For example: Do we want to take the effort to make a list of the notable apologetic positions each group uses, and go through the effort of backing up the fact they are indeed used and notable in 3rd party sources, and if we were able to do that, would it give any one religious group undue emphasis due to lack of info on the others?Retran (talk) 04:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking that therein lies the problem; it would be fascinating to explain each nontrinitarian group's particular apologetic emphasis, and explain their terms, but maybe its not needed for the article?Retran (talk) 04:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

And feel free to pound me if you feel I'm STILL off track regarding the novel phrases.Retran (talk) 04:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The kind of hemming and hawing I support is this: If I say, 'Baptists believe that the Eucharist is only a symbol,' a lot of issues immediately arise. Firstly, words have denotative and connotative meanings. 'Eucharist', frankly, has high church connotations, so its use in a statement about Baptist belief is suspect. On the other hand, if I replace 'Eucharist' with 'the Lord's Supper' (the normal Baptist term), perhaps we miss that 'Eucharist' and 'Lord's Supper' are historically and practically related. We also mangle what appears to be the point of the original sentence, an implied contrast between people who believe the 'Eucharist' is 'only a symbol' and those who don't. The phrase 'only a symbol' is itself loaded, as it implies certain things about the meaning of 'symbol' that a lot of Roman Catholic and Orthodox theologians would have a problem with. Historically, you had Berengar of Tours saying the Eucharist was a symbol and therefore not real. Then you had the Roman Catholic Church saying it was real and therefore not a symbol. And then you have the Eastern orthodox saying it's both a symbol and real.

I'm not going to say my hypothetical sentence was a bad one or a good one, or offer a proposed 'solution'. The point I'm trying to make is just that language itself is inherently complicated and muddy (and fascinating), and that especially in religion it's sometimes downright controversial. Philosophically speaking we worry that our words can never true-ly express the objects we are seeking to describe. What I think is cool about wikipedia is that we have this process whereby we "edit" each other, and thereby we hope to get a little closer to the truth. That's the sort of hemming and hawing I like. It will have to happen, occasionally, if we want to accurately and neutrally describe people's beliefs. I hope that makes a little (if not a lot of) sense. -- JALatimer 04:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I feel I now understand the kind of terminology discussions we should be having thanks to your explanation... in WP:NPOV#Religion"Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader.";... the real bugaboo (besides hashing out what term is relevant in a particular context as you say in the hem-haw) is that "conversely, should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy". I really would like to find these reliable and notable sources. Is it appropriate to use 1st party in the terminology case (if we did, how could we avoid the undue sympathy editors are cautioned against?)?

It is my hope that everyone who is currently engaged in editing this article can collaborate here on a set of 'guidelines' or some such to help us proceed.

Here are a few possible ones to start:

1. Positive statements about a group's beliefs should generally be preferred to negative statements/comparisons. For example, "X believes Y" not "X rejects Z".

2. We should err on the side of blandness and avoid disputative language. For example: "X believes Y" or "X rejects Z" but not "X believes Z to be heretical".

a)(Plagiarizing Retran) Information that might only be relevant to adherents or from a promotional/apologetic angle should generally be omitted.

3. What should be preferred to how (tendency toward the apologetical) or why (tendency toward the speculative). See Retran's comment above: "that it's 'pagan' adds little understanding to Oneness's beliefs and practices, and simply places undue emphasis on how they promote their viewpoint" (emphasis mine). -- JALatimer

Thanks again for the constructive contribution to this discussion! Also, maybe we can get ideas for the goals of section: (what kind of info should be contained regarding each group, how long each section should be, if it's okay for one group to have longer treatment than others due to availability of info, etc)Retran (talk) 04:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Please help me out. Everyone usually has some idiosyncratic principles, little maxims, opinions about style, etc., your own little operating manual. What I'm suggesting is that we air those out here so we can all get a sense where we're coming from and work together better. (And avoid edit warring!) -- JALatimer 04:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedias can state how a group views a certain doctrine IF THE WHOLE ARTICLE IN THE ENCYCLOPEDIA ITSELF IS DEALING WITH THAT VERY SUBJECT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

The article ITSELF is not taking sides about what is "pejorative" or not, but it's IMPORTANT AND EVEN NECESSARY to state why a certain group (per the section in the article) is rejecting that doctrine in the first place.

Leaving out the "WHY" of something is irresponsible and incomplete. And that's where the "groups themselves state this" point comes in as important, because it's only giving the REASON why a certain group may either accept or reject a certain doctrine or position.

Without taking sides as to whether the specific position is true or valid or not. Did you even see, for example, the Jehovah's Witnesses article? As just an example... Did you see ALL the stuff in there that's stated of how JWs reject things like hell-fire and Christmas BECAUSE THEY THEY THEY THEY view those things as "pagan and unscriptural"? And it's WARRANTED, because JWs DO view those things as pagan, etc........and so the REASONS (documented reasons) for the rejection of certain things should be clearly unambiguously stated. WITHOUT TAKING SIDES AS TO THE POSITION IS CORRECT OR NOT. And that was NOT done in the Oneness Pentecostals part at all.

you dismiss the "groups themselves" point and conflating when it's not warranted to go by that and when it isn't...(double face-palm), sloppily, FORGETTING THAT THE CONTEXT IN THAT PARTICULAR ARTICLE CALLS FOR THE "how the groups themselves state it" is important.

How the "groups themselves" state it IS less important compared to what 3rd party notable experts write about the groups expression of the belief. While the section may deal with describing that group, to avoid promoting that group/group's belief's it's important to take a critical view of their assertions; relying instead on 3rd parties. In consideration of WP:RSUW, perhaps the purpose/goal of the article's text should be to describe the beliefs/background/context, the article does not have a responsibility to list a groups apologetics, unless you can support a particular inclusion is crucial to understanding some aspect of the groups beliefs/motivations/background/etc in the first place. Retran (talk) 06:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Those things that were recklessly uptightly removed were IMPORTANT DETAILS AND SIMPLY OBJECTIVE DOCUMENTED FACTS OF EXPLANATION.....end of story. Sweetpoet (talk) 04:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

"The article ITSELF is not taking sides about what is "pejorative" or not"... How can we be sure from an editing standpoint its not, when we include contentious terms and use them the same way they are used in apologetics? It seems like that IS taking sides when the use of the inclusion of the label is not justified in the text. This article is about Nontrinitarianism, but we still should exercise caution that we don't promote it (or any one groups particular expression of it). Retran (talk) 05:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Irrationality

Jeffro77, please see my edit summary above concerning "completely". I will also clarify myself here: "Share" and "share completely" are not logically identical. 'Sharing' implies distribution, but not necessarily equal distribution. I do not think the clause "the persons of God are claimed to share a single divine essence" is significantly less 'awkward' than "the persons of God are claimed to share completely a single divine essence"; so I would put the concept back in. But perhaps the best thing would be to simply leave it at "...irrationality." Would this work:

"Trinitarians say that "the doctrine of the Trinity is [...] a deep mystery that cannot be fathomed by the finite mind."[7] Nontrinitarians counter that this "mystery" is actually an inherent irrationality, where the persons of God are claimed to share a single divine essence (Gk. ousia), and yet not to partake of each other's identity." ? -- JALatimer 04:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The word order, "to share completely a", seems like an awkward way of avoiding a split infinitive. Aside from that, the presumed irrationality is already clear in that something can "share a single [thing]" at all and yet not "partake of each other's identity", so completely becomes redundant. I'm not sure I agree with striking it out the phrase altogether.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I must admit I'm just too tired and lazy to think about this right now. That's probably more than half of why I cravenly advocated cutting out the whole clause. I'll just let you deal with it. -- JALatimer 06:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that's what I'm thinking, just leaving these clauses out unless what they convey is so crucial to understanding an idea, that its worth the time it would take to make a brief critical treatment/explanation/background regarding the contentious label taking the effort to use 3rd party notables, etc. I think that's along the same lines as what you're saying?? Again, thanks for your efforts and time on this. Retran (talk) 06:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Guideline # 2

'no valid reason to remove "unscriptual and pagan" as that IS how Oneness Pentecostals view the "trinity" doctrine, (I have the books that clearly say that) and this article is "Nontrinitarianism"'

Which of the following sentences is best?

• 'Baptists believe that the Eucharist is only a symbol.'...............or.................
• 'Baptists believe that those who adhere to the real presence are carnal minded.'

Both are technically true. -- JALatimer 05:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't bothered to follow what the argument here is, but of those two statements, the first is best. It is more appropriate to say what a group's own beliefs are, rather than what the group thinks about others.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The (rhetorical?) question was meant mostly for Sweetpoet, but I'm glad you answered. Obviously, I agree. The second sentence clearly is not NPOV, even if it's true. And the fact that the first sentence is technically less 'informative' than the second in no way lessens the first's comparative desirability, in my view.

This is directly analogous to Sweetpoet's contention about "unscriptual and pagan" above. In my mind, that it's true, and that its removal constitutes a (technical) net loss of information, is not a valid argument for its inclusion.

Here's another hypothetical. What if multiple secondary sources reported that Berengar of Tours suffered from bad body odor. Should I then change the opening sentence of his article to "Berengar of Tours (c. 999–January 6, 1088) was a very stinky French 11th century Christian theologian..."? -- JALatimer 05:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Saying "Set A says Concept B is pagan" is not quite the same as "Set A says Set B are pagan because they believe xyz". Your first example above simply asserts that Set A (Baptists) believes something about a concept, but the second example asserts Set A's opinion about Set B because of their belief. The first usage is fine, the second isn't.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I like where you're headed with this, I would just like to emphasize (as I did below) my feeling that the contentious nature of the label would need to be discussed closely to its usage in the text in order to avoid having a reader unknowingly take in POV.Retran (talk) 06:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

What the sentence in question says is "Oneness Pentecostals reject the Trinity doctrine as pagan and unscriptural". And what I am suggesting is that this sentence is essentially giving "Set A's opinion about Set B because of their belief". But let me change the original hypothetical to be more clear (I acknowledge the original analogy was imperfect):

Which of the following sentences is best?

• 'Baptists believe that the Eucharist is only a symbol.'...............or.................
• 'Baptists reject the doctrine of the real presence as carnal minded and unscriptural.'

Option 2 is still bad. -- JALatimer

Better presentations of option 2 would include:

• Baptists reject the doctrine of the real presence, which they believe to be carnal minded and unscriptural; or
• Baptists believe that the doctrine of the real presence is carnal minded and unscriptural.

To extend this to the phrase in question, it would be more appropriate to say something like, "Oneness Pentecostals consider the Trinity doctrine to be pagan and unscriptural."--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Your second hypothetical would be easily dismissed as an irrelevant ad hominem attack.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Well it should be, but someone could say 'but it's TRUE and there is no VALID REASON FOR REMOVING IT and you are in clear violation of POV by trying to hide the FACT that he was STINKY to suit your own pro-Berengarian tendencies. how can you unilaterally remove something TRUE and FACTUAL!!!!!!!!! why don't you just remove "French", huh? I mean, that's not RELEVANT how is his ethnicity RELEVANT anymore than his STENCH!!!!!!!!' -- JALatimer 06:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Bravo! That appears to be a great summary of a line of reasoning we've had to face in the discussion here.Retran (talk) 06:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding this hypothetical, it should be clear why we would not need to pander to such an obvious lapse of relevance.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, in a discussion about a concept (or its antithesis), a notable group's view of that concept (e.g. that the concept is 'pagan') is directly relevant to the discussion, whereas your second hypothetical example makes a completely irrelevant statement outside the context of the hypothetical subject.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like to point out that relevance is just one criteria to be weighed. Contextually relevant statements may still be problematic in other ways (though if it's irrelevant it's pretty certain to be inappropriate). Just like the factual basis of a statement is only one criteria. Relevant and true statement's can still be NPOV violations.Retran (talk) 06:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Would WP:WTA#Contentious_labels apply here to "unscriptual" and "pagan"?Retran (talk) 05:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

'Not a word' would apply to "unscriptual". Aside from that, it depends on what is actually stated. It is not contentious labelling to say "Set A considers concept B to be unscriptural and pagan", but it may be contentious to say "Concept B is unscriptural and pagan."--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Lexicographical issues aside, I feel strongly that the hypothetical statement "group A considers group B to be "unscriptural and pagan" is problematic per WP:WTA#Contentious_labels. That's because, it's written there on the screen, to be read, without any critical treatment of the label, and a reader without knowledge on the topic would likely never realize the contentious nature of the label (making it a POV problem). I see the possibility for specific times when it would be okay for the inclusion, so long as the text includes the critical treatment of the contentious label for the reader.Retran (talk) 06:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It also seems to me that if we don't generally banish this kind of language we have little defense against someone who wants to come in and add 'but group B denies this, citing...' and so on. I just really hate the whole everything-must-be-a-debate-to-be-neutral thingy. -- JALatimer 06:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a great point you've articulated there, indeed. And all that back-and-forth would make the article even more snaking and unorganized.Retran (talk) 07:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

If it is phrased according to a group's belief (since the entire concept is about entities whose existence is unproven and thus far unprovable anyway), there is no need to say that group B denies group A's belief, because it is a plain statement of fact that group A believes something, and group B's belief can similarly be stated as a plain fact.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

WHY THE BAPTIST EUCHARIST EXAMPLE FAILS....

This is the problem that you and Retran, I believe, keep missing, and how your example of the Baptists fails a bit. You're forgetting (in a way) that this article ITSELF by its very nature is about ANTI-TRINITARIANISM. ("Nontrinitarianism" just being a nicer way of saying it.) Meaning that your hypothetical example is not telling us where such statements would be located. If the article itself is about CHURCHES WHO REJECT TRANSUBSTANTIATION etc...then giving a more elaborated reason as to why may be helpful and even needed.

If this article itself is about CHURCHES WHO REJECT THE TRINITY DOCTRINE, simply naming the church and simply saying they do, without giving that specific church's own contention and reasons for it would seem a bit lacking. Information would be missing. This article is not about "Churches" in general, but specifically the angle of why certain groups oppose the Nicean Athanasian Trinity doctrine, and their claims against it. In other words, Retran and you, in my opinion, are ignoring overall context of the whole point of the article, to some degree. Sweetpoet (talk) 07:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

Can we put a MiszaBot on here? The talk page is rather long. -- JALatimer —Preceding undated comment added 06:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC).

"Groups themselves say it" does not mean promoting that group's position (and why in context it's NOT "POV")

Simply stating that JWs or Onenesss Pentecostals reject the Trinity doctrine without giving SOME explanation as to what their own reasons for rejecting it are would seem irresponsible, half-baked, sloppy, and incomplete. POV does not mean that THEIR OWN VIEW can't be stated objectively, as long as there is no tone that WP is agreeing with that specific view.

I'm VERY careful in articles to remove POV. I've done it many times, like in one article (that I will NOT name), recently, where someone was obviously promoting, by his wording, the Greek Orthodox Church. You should have seen me...You would have been PROUD of how I removed or re-worded his BLATANT POV wording with it. Meaning that it went beyond stating what the Greek Orthodox church believes or teaches, but was putting the spin that that church was correct and good for believing it, or claiming to hold to something.

The point is that REAL "POV" in articles and phrasings I have NO tolerance for on WP articles. But I have to say, with all due respect, that what you removed from the Nontrinitarianism article was NOT technically actually biased "point of view" or promoting anything.

It's not WP's fault that Oneness Pentecostals view the Trinity doctrine as "pagan and unscriptural". And in the context of an article that is supposed to be DEALING with why there even IS "Nontrinitarianism", it's obvious and logical that giving the REASONS (whether you like the wording of the reasons or not) why those specific groups reject the doctrine, THEIR OWN STATED REASONS, is something that kinda needs to be done.

Giving the "why" in that context especially, as neutrally yet as factually and boldly as possible, without agreeing with said reason, is important to give a thorough account to readers of what's going on. Simply stating controversial things objectively contextually is NOT "promoting" anything. That's what I meant by saying "hyper-sensitive". Going too far with the scrupulosity of "POV" even when it's not REALLY there will actually detract from articles. And readers will be left lacking, as to the "why" of certain matters, controversial or not..........and I have a right not to like that kind of thing if I'm trying to contribute effectively to Wikipedia. I'm against REAL "POV". Not the imagined kind, that is simply stating reasons for things given by the groups in question....peace out. Sweetpoet (talk) 08:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

In articles, it is of course appropriate (and often necessary) to add why a group believes or doesn't believe a particular thing after making a plain statement that they hold such a belief, and I don't think anyone has said otherwise. What is problematic is asserting a group's negative view of a different group's beliefs, or asserting opinions as if they were establish facts. E.g. Non-trinitarians reject the Trinity, which they consider pagan is ok, but The Trinity is a pagan teaching or Non-trinitarians say Catholics are pagan for accepting the Trinity are unnecessarily confrontational.

It is very odd that someone would so adamantly refuse to name an article where they did something good.

(By the way, one space after a period is fine, though two can be used for monospaced fonts; there's not really any reason for four or more.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
WHY THE BAPTIST EUCHARIST EXAMPLE FAILS.... This is the problem that Latimer and Retran, I believe, keep missing, and how Latimer's example of the Baptists fails a bit. They're forgetting (in a way) that this article ITSELF by its very nature is about ANTI-TRINITARIANISM. ("Nontrinitarianism" just being a nicer way of saying it.) Meaning that his hypothetical example is not telling us where such statements would be located. If the article itself is about CHURCHES WHO REJECT TRANSUBSTANTIATION etc...then giving a more elaborated reason as to why may be helpful and even needed. If this article itself is about CHURCHES WHO REJECT THE TRINITY DOCTRINE, simply naming the church and simply saying they do, without giving that specific church's own contention and reasons for it would seem a bit lacking. Information would be missing. This article is not about "Churches" in general, but specifically the angle of why certain groups oppose the Nicean Athanasian Trinity doctrine, and their claims against it. In other words, Retran and Latimer, in my opinion, are ignoring overall context of the whole point of the article, to some degree. Sweetpoet (talk) 09:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Closing Sweetpoet's redundant block duplicated from #Proposed Guideline # 2. Please don't paste the same blocks in separate threads.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC) yeah, I know. I wasn't sure where to put that thing. I guess it's more suited in that other thread then. Sweetpoet (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC) It clearly belongs in the same section as the example that it specifically addresses.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Systematic removal of the word TRINITY and other vandalism

24.78.167.139 (talk) 14:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

"Trinity" removal

• The title of the article is non-TRINITARIAN and there should be no effort to simply remove the word TRINITY
  with some duality formulation simply to tone down the anti-trinity theme.

Apologetics is the article

• I would say the current tactic of using the excuse "removed apologetics" appears to me to be a vandalism tactic.
  The whole article is about a belief and therefore apologetics apply.
  

no, it wasn't a vandalism tactic. check my edit record. they were edits made in good faith which resulted in an edit war, which I did not participate in the least. Nobody owns this article. I'm wondering who is writing his anonymous accusation? Stating "apologetics apply", and "apologetics is the article" is simply not true. This is a collection of information about nontrinitarianism. It's not an a placeholder for apologetic claims different nontrinitarian groups might publish/promote/etc. When notable, relevant, and not placing undue weight material from a primary source might be the only way to convey a certain point... but per WP guidelines, editors are to avoid primary sources. -- Retran (talk) 11:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Your comments read like some irrational rant given that you ignore the fact that this "collection of information about nontrinitarianism" is supported by famous people and religious organizations that believe it. You are dead wrong that it is only information anyway, this is like religion, something that people believe, and the idea that it is mearly information shows you have no business editing here because you evidence that you don't understand the whole point of the article, to represent a real belief, "Nontrinitarianism." There is no article without references because the encyclopedia does not allow articles on an opinion, and you think people are so stupid as to let you remove the references so you can then say there is no point in the article. It is a laughable joke that you have edited and been allowed to edit here at all; You are another subversive trinitarian trying to undermine this article, that's all. 24.78.167.139 (talk) 05:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"I've found it interesting to remove POV entrenchment from an article," - I pulled this from your profile and I hope this is not the BS excuse for your edits here. The idea that this article is a POV under the Wikipedia policy is insane because this article doesn't represent one persons POV is represents an belief system of many individuals and organizations. It is your view that this article and its references are not notable that is the POV. 24.78.167.139 (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and while you mention "anonymous," as if you personally are really the anime character "Retran." 24.78.167.139 (talk) 08:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)