Talk:Trinitarianism in the Church Fathers

message: I'm not sure Arianism was around in the Third Century, certainly not under that name. Tertullian was writing against Monarchians and Patripassians in Ad. Prax. Arius wasn't around until about Nicaea in the forth century. Therefore the heading is wrong, I think. Perhaps better would be "Third Century: Trinity against Monarchianism/Modalism and Pagan Polytheism". John H Percival (talk) 12:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trinity against Arianism 

message: I just, to my surprise, discovered that I once upon a time created this page as a way to cleanup Trinity, but the article is still a quotefarm. Since there is some interest in keeping these citations, the final fate of the article would be some description on the evolution of the trinity concept containing these citations, but the article still needs the text describing how trinity evolved. Does anyone know of any authors describing the trinity concept? There should be such (>1980 years of debate!). ... said: Rursus (bork²) 12:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotefarm indeed!

message: The article title, Trinity of the Church Fathers doesn't work very well for me, and I see the authors have not managed to work in into the text of the lede. On those bases, I contend that a different title might work better - Basis of the concept of a Holy Trinity, for instance. Or something better than that, but something which conveys the subject matter better than the current title does. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Recognising that Trinitarianism was formalise in the fourth century and, before that, there were different views about the "godhead", perhaps "Concepts of God in the Church Fathers" would be a more accurate title. --Woofboy (talk) 14:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two good reasons for not changing the title of this article.  First, it was created in September 2007 as a "sub-article" of the main one on the Trinity in accordance with wiki guidelines to keep very detailed materials out of an "overview article" when they began to produce an imbalance in the parent article and to extend its length unduly. The present title reflects this purpose. Secondly, the suggested title is far more wide-ranging and would require a great deal of additional material to cover the ground adequately.Jpacobb (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem with the article title

message: # The article page uses  for long quotations which goes against the recommended use
# The references are also floating loose rather than attached to the quotes.
# There are also links in section titles which goes against recommended linking procedures.
Jpacobb (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format clean up 

message: FYI 2 Kor 13:14 was deleted from my Bible by my national Bible commission (www.bibeln.se), who claimed it was inauthentic. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 15:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a discrepancy in the numbering of the verses at the end of 2 Corinthians.  In the Vulgate and catholic translations which follow its numbering the words "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ ... you all" constitute the 13th verse with "All the saints salute you" being tagged on to verse 12. The TR makes "All the saints salute you." verse 13 and what follows verse 14. In many traditional translations, this was followed by a note which varied greatly in detail but in substance said "The end of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (written from ....)(by ......)".  More details of this subscription can be found in Metzger's A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (United Bible Societies: 1971).  I can find no evidence for the omission of the words "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ ... you all" from any modern version and suggest that the Bible commission's findings refer to the subscription or alternatively t the omission of the word "amen" which some manuscripts add after "you all" (again, see Metzger). Jpacobb (talk) 17:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Nonexisten

message: As it stands the lead section fails to meet the requirements of WP:MOSINTRO: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." Jpacobb (talk) 14:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a go. --Woofboy (talk) 10:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inadequate lead section