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.

POV comment

this page shows only the trinitarian point of view Stuart Little

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

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

Mormon classification

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

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

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

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

Non Trinitarian Churches

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

Neutrality of the title

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pagan and Hellenic Origins

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But Arianism was the orthodoxy (or not)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Wikipedia a vehicle for Roman Catholic propaganda?

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

What constitutes a relevant link?

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

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

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

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

oops, (UTC)

Other nontrinitarian monotheistic groups besides Christian groups

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

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

dump from Trinity

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

Jesus is not God

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

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

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

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

Non- or anti- trinitarian

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pagan origin and Pagan basis

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

Removing the Incorrectly Included Seventh-Day Adventists

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church

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

Reference

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC on inclusion of small group

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trinitarian Sabotage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Early Christian

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

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