Talk:Trinity/Archive 6

message: It is very amazing to me that so far nobody has made the connection between the trinity of the Christian religion and the Theory of Relativity expressed by Albert Einstein.  Compare each of the attributes of the three persons in the godly trinity with each of the three components of the famous formula relating energy to mass, E=mc^2.
E is energy measured in joules (J).  Like the "father" in the trinity, energy is formless, timeless, all present, etc..  Like the "son", who is the physical form of trinity, mass (measured in kilograms (kg)) is the physical form of energy.  The  holy spirit or ghost, is the "person" that makes things happen, as the speed of light squared (299 792 458 m/s squared) is what limits or controls the relationship between mass and energy.
Is the trinity a personification of relativity (E=mc^2)?
Is there a relationship between the trinity and E=mc^2?
Before the Big Bang, there was no space, no time, no mass, no light, nothing, just energy.  Thus, did the 2nd and 3rd persons exist before the Big Bang or like space, time, mass, light, did they come into existence only within the first nanoseconds after the big bang?
Does energy have an intelligence and if so is it the first person of the trinity?
:Maybe the reason is that there is only a very thin connection, if any at all?
:"Formless, timeless, all present etc." are attributes also of the Son (though not of His physical incarnation) and of the Spirit; to describe the Son as the "physical form of the Trinity" stresses only a very limited portion of His being and is, if taken as a description of God the Son, quite misleading. That the Spirit "limits or controls" the relationship between the other two is also wrong, as well as "he makes things happen".
:Essentially, this is similar to many other "parallels" with the Trinity: If we look only at certain, usually very limited aspects and express them in vague enough terms, we can probably construct a "similarity" between any three things and the Trinity.
:As an aside: "to exist before Time came into being" is a rather ... interesting concept. ;) Varana 15:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One issue with this theory is that it is missing an element.  "E" could not equate the Father, but would have to equate to God.  This post would have "Father = Son/Spirit^2", which is not a representation of the trinity.  In my opinion, any attempt to find a good analogy of the trinity in the physical world is destined for failure because the physical world is logical and can be submitted to human reason.  E=mc^2 is logical.  The trinity cannot be submitted to reason and relies upon the mysterious and the mystical.  Jacob 19:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trinity and Relativity 

message: Nice article BTW.  An example of a pagan trinity that came to mind is that of Jupiter, Neptune and Pluto: the rulers over the Heavens (Father), Seas (Son) and the Underworld (spirit). These closely correpond to the greek gods Zeus, Poseidon and Hades. Or another influence could be Roman gods Jupiter (Father), Latona (Mother), Apolo or the Greek: Zeus (Father), Hera (Mother) and Apolo (Son). Any thoughts? --Cplot 07:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Hindu "trinity" of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, which manifest the Brahman (not Brahma) which is the foundational reality, or All that Exists. Kornbelt 7 November 2006
It's one thing to include allusions to Pagan influence, it's another thing to paint it as truth.  You should have included at least a sentence to discredit the link, merely on the basis that there is no public consensus on pagan origins of the trinity.  History is full of coincidences.  The article is unfair to not point this out, because the article is not discussing the influences on other religious faiths like Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Tribal views.
Spinifex00 13:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: A 'group of three Gods' does not make for a correspondance with the Christian Trinity. DJ Clayworth 13:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: unfortunately, Trinity (CHRISTIANITY) kinda makes it impossible to validly reference the pagan trinity, except perhaps as a relevant side-study.  Perhaps you would like to set this up? Locriani 04:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pagan trinity omission 

message: When I looked at the article today I immediately began to question the appropriateness of these long lists of scriptures.  Scritpures necessarily are interpreted in divers ways; there is not simply one, single interpretation.  Just because an individual says a scriptures supports the Trinity does not mean it is a reality.  I have been told by others on other articles that it would be better to quote a theologian who states a specfic scripture provides a specific conclusion.  Would it not be better to quote theologians rather than individual scrptures?  I look forward to your comments.  Storm Rider (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Are scripture references appropriate?

message: "Fulness" was not actually a misspelling (though by now it's a little old-fashioned, I guess...). AnonMoos 14:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivial point

message: Does anybody think it would be a good idea to group together visual symbols of the Trinity all in one place. with some discussion (as opposed to :commons:Category:Holy_Trinity, which is an unannotated heap of unsorted images)?  That place would probably not be this article...  AnonMoos 14:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trinity symbols

message: Since there's been no discussion on the matter in the last three weeks, I will remove the NPOV tag in a day or two... AnonMoos 16:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing NPOV tag

message: There are four groups that have a strong argument against the Trinity. 
*Mormons
*Muslims
*Jehovah Witnesses
*Oneness Pentecostals
Here is the problem.  They all claim that the Trinity is a roman invention created explicitly to debunk the truth of their religion. But they cannot all be right.  The arguement is a statement in silence.
The Trinity itself (and should be clarified in the Article) is regarding the fact that in the Bible Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit interact with each other (not just humanity), and thus have a relationship with each other. That is the essential doctrine. Everything in the Catholic and Trinitarian doctrine eminates from this fundamental fact. Oneness advocates try to redefine the relationship as being one person interacting with "himself" or by playing down one of the two identities interacting...so saying "Jesus was such-and-suching" or "the Father was just doing this or that". 
A living relationship where "he, I, and you" occur, where one speaks of "yours, and mine" and "his" requires more than one person being present. You cannot use a manifestation in the place of a person, becuse the manifestation is merely a mirage. 
The other issue is the erroneous idea of what a person is. A being is not a person, just like a fruit is not an apple, even though the opposite holds true. But Oneness and others argue as if that is the case. They argue that a being is a person, and therefore a singular divine being is capable of being only a singular person. I would agree, except the Bible describes otherwise. "let us create man in our own image" and "The father has sent me" etc. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People, Wikipedia is not a place for arguing over the truth of something. It is a place for writing encyclopedia articles. DJ Clayworth 13:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arguments against Trinity exposed

message: :I think you have the LDS (Mormon) view of the Trinity wrong.  LDS do not believe it is a Roman invention adopted by 4th century Christians as formal policy.  I do believe you will find that we believe that Christainity was influenced by Roman philosophy, but we would also say that the Nicene Creed is a doctrine of man created by the councils of men.  
:I apologize, but the rest of your edit went over my head.  LDS believe that there are three, distinct persons:  God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit/Ghost.  They are separate.  Where we differ is the concept of essence of substance...we simply do not use that terminology and do not have a corresponding concept.  In many ways we would say if it is not in the Bible, then let us use care.  
:Fundamentally, the  Nicene Creed is a doctrine that attempts to ensure that Christians can acknowledge a single God when confronted with three different beings.  It allows for a monotheistic approach to the Father, His Son of God, and the Second Comforter, the Holy Spirit.  On the surface it is very confusing to the uninitiated and to non-Christians.  LDS have a similar confusion, but it may be a bit worse.  The Book of Mormon teaches there is one God, but three beings.  It sounds very similar,  but it is yet different because it does not attempt to describe essence or substance.  Cheers.  Storm Rider (talk) 07:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A troll is as a troll does.  There is no communication here, but you seem to desire to provoke.  Good luck.  Storm Rider (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I was tempted to reply to this thread, but instead I'm going to ask everyone involved to move it to their user talk pages -- or even better, email -- to the extent it's veering in the direction it appears to be. This page is for developing article content, not theological disputes. The article should describe the doctrine of the Trinity as it actually exists without advocating it, just as Nontrinitarianism should describe that doctrine without advocating it. What personal conclusion anyone may have come to in their private interpretation of Scripture is utterly irrelevant. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: LDS

message: In the "Other views of the Trinity" section, the statement the Quran, denounces the term "Trinity" is rather problematic.  Muhammad certainly denounced what he thought to be the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, but he didn't use any special term for Trinity, but rather only the ordinary basic Arabic word for "three" ثلاثة thalatha.  It's doubtful whether a special word for Trinity even existed in the Arabic language as spoken by Muhammad's followers at that time.  In any case, the later standard term ثالوث thaluth (see List of Christian terms in Arabic) certainly does not occur in the Qur'an.  Any Qur'an translation (and all those linked to are very old) which renders thalatha into English as "Trinity" is interpreting, not literally translating... AnonMoos 16:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with Qur'an reference

message: There are a lot.  I can't imagine that all of them are covered under WP:EL.  I'm taking out some, but someone who knows the article better may want to check and make sure I don't take out anything important. -- Anaraug 08:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the main concern has traditionally been achieving a reasonable balance between different types of links, and making sure that none of them are to idiosyncratic personal polemics, rather than acertaining that each link is individually "notable". AnonMoos 16:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:EL|External links]] 

message: This section could use some cleanup.  First of all, I changed the section title as it was very misleading.  These are not views of the Trinity at all, as most of them reject the Trinity.  "Alternate Views to" is much more accurate.  Another possible title would be "Other Views of the Christian Godhead".  I really do not understand why there is a Dissenting Views section and an Other Views section anyway.  I could understand an Other Views section if it solely described the thirteen or so various views of the Trinity, but it only lists views like Arius, Modalism, LDS, etc which fall under Dissenting Views.
Secondly, some of these views, specifically Docetism, have absolutely nothing to do with the Godhead or the Trinity.  Docetism falls wholly under the umbrella of Christology.  In my opinion it should be removed.  Also, the first sentence states that the list includes the most prominent examples, however the list includes some very obscure examples like "the Urantia Book?".  Maybe I'm just uneducated, but this does not seem very prominent... at least not along the same lines as Arianism, Modalism, or LDS that actually have prominent roles in the development and history of Christianity.  Was there an "Urantian" representative at the Council of Nicea?  
Thirdly, Swedenbourgianism is considered by many to be a form of Modalism.  And in truth, with only slight variations, he was a modalist.  Maybe he could be listed as a prominent example of Modalism along with the likes of Marcellus of Ancyra, Sabellius, Oneness Pentecostals, Miguel de Servet, Praxeas, etc.?  Jacob 17:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I sympathize with you to some extent (especially since the article is so long), but prominent groups which claim to be Christian but deny the traditional "orthodox" doctrine of the Trinity are noteworthy in that respect, and matters of Christology are intimately connected with conceptions of the Trinity. AnonMoos 01:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternate Views to the Trinity

message: I split the section on scripture supporting the Trinity into two subsections, one for verses that portray Jesus as God and others that refer specifically to the Trinity. The verses that portray Jesus as God don't specifically support the Trinity against alternatives such as modalism or the Mormon view of the Godhead. Jonathan Tweet 16:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  scripture and the Trinity 

message: The bit about Gregory of Nyssa added by IP 169.229.36.60 could probably have a place in this article -- but not in the first paragraph at the top... AnonMoos 00:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This person is quite relevant to this article, being the one who is mainly responsible for the doctorine of trinity. how is it that he doesn't have a place in the intro? This article is about a doctorine of which Gregory has a big share, so he deserves being mentioned in the intro. 128.32.47.36 05:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Mainly responsible"? No, I don't think you can single out St. Gregory quite so strongly. There were the other Cappadocians upon whose work his was founded and closely followed, St. Athanasius, and others. The Nicene Creed, the primary statement of Trinitarian dogma, was probably based on a baptismal creed from the area of Jerusalem submitted by Eusebius of Caesarea. Yes, Gregory of Nyssa is a pivotal figure, but he doesn't stand so alone that he must be mentioned in the intro. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Watt does single him out. He says that The Nicene Creed was mainly influenced by him (also others but mainly him) --128.32.47.36 06:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is Watt, and why should I care? Try Pelikan. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  William Montgomery Watt is one of the most prominent scholars of Islam. Please have a look at his page. For example, he has written a chapter in the Cambridge History of Islam. --128.32.47.36 06:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we need an expert in the history of Christianity, not Islam, if we're going to quote reliable sources. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  He is definitely a reliable source. The name of the book is "Muslim-Christian Encounters" where he extensively writes about Islam and Christianity. He himself is a priest anyways. Can you please refer me to the specific WP:RS policy you are refering. --128.32.47.36 06:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is ridiculous to quote (or even cite) a man known primarily for his knowledge of Islam in the introduction of an article on a Christian dogma when Christian scholars are fairly thick on the ground. In any event, the point is that Gregory was not so solely responsible for it that he should be singled out as the one who devised it to the exclusion (in the section) of all others. And once we start to mention the others, we suddenly have a very unsuitable intro. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, and the reliable source section that applies is "Beware false authority" which gives preference to acknowledged experts in the field. If this were an article on Christian-Muslim relations, Watt would be a perfectly suitable source. But that's not what this is. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  Who else was responsible? Could you please name them? --128.32.47.36 06:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did, above. It was far from exhaustive. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Isn't Tertullian generally considered the "Father of the Trinity"?  198.169.188.227 21:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, he was just the first to use the word. (Which isn't quite the same thing. The official position of Trinitarian Christians is that the Trinity was implicit in the Faith from the beginning, and subsequent development simply explicated it.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gregory of Nyssa

message: I need information on the direct distinction between the Catholic and Protestant Holy Trinity. It would be helpfull if this was included in the article, but any help would be appriciated.
72.20.223.208 20:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information Request 

message: The section Main Points of Dissent appears to contain a quote of something, ipsissima verba, complete with numbered footnote references in brackets.  If that's so, is this material copyrighted?  Or is it original to the article, after all; incorrectly pasted into the edit window perhaps?  At least the text should be cleaned up, removing the artifacts of its original source or fixing its footnote links if they are correct - I can't tell.  The section also betrays doctrinal distinctives of certain relatively small non-trinitarian sects, which others would not regard as "Main points".  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dissent section: "Main points" 

message: This article is far too long.  In particular, the "dissent from the doctrine" section seems disportionately long.  Absolutely it is right to point out that people dissent from Trinitarianism and provide a brief detail of the most common reasons for dissent, but in-depth details about every way how and every reason why people dissent should either be placed in (1) articles about those people (or churches/denominations) or in (2) the nontrinitarian article.  Pastordavid 20:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Dissent from Doctrine, above. I intend to expand the lead section of that section, and then remove all the remaining material, leaving a concise and fair summary. Jonathan Tweet 15:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out (exactly why I like to post in discussions before editing some articles).  I think that sounds like a great plan, and very balanced -- especially if you put a "main article: nontrinitarianism" header on the section.  Thanks for undertaking that task.  Pastordavid 16:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length 

message: I removed the following paragraph, because it does not meet the scholarly standards or tone of the surrounding section.  It does contain some discussion of a significant passage; however, it is more relevant to Christology, rather than theology proper:
: Conclusions about how best to explain the association of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit with the one God developed gradually and controversially. Christians had to reconcile their belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ with their belief in the one-ness of God. In doing so, some stressed the one-ness to the point of considering Father, Jesus and Holy Spirit as merely three modes or roles in which God shows himself to mankind; others stressed the three-ness to the point of positing three divine beings, with only one of them supreme and God in the full sense. Only in the fourth century were the distinctness of the three and their unity brought together and expressed in mainline Christianity in a single doctrine of one essence and three persons. Some Christians still debate the differences found in the New Testament, where Christ declared "I and my Father are one," but also prayed on the cross, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani" (My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?), which is often explained that first sentence refers to Jesus' divine nature and the second one to his human nature; another explanation is that the prayer on the cross quotes Psalm 22:1 in order to name the entire Psalm, interpreted as prophesying Jesus' crucifixion; most mainstream Christians take the view that the prayer comes from Jesus's anguish at being temporarily separated from the Trinity "mystic oneness" in order that he could take the punishment for sin on behalf of all mankind; and still others (not the mainstream view) say that it is a ridiculous notion that this man is yelling at himself that he is abandoning himself.
— Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted paragraph 

message: The new additions add much detailed argumentation for an article on a relatively general topic.  Would the editor consider creating a separate article?  In my opinion, the new material should be reverted or moved to a new article, assuming that it is not a copyvio. In addition, the neutrality of the arguments could be improved.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 05:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was plagiarized.    I reverted some of the same material myself a few days ago, and from the same user too, although he seems to have located some new material. It's pretty easy to locate via Google. It's mainly ripped directly from dedicated JW sites. TCC (talk) (contribs) 10:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lengthy treatment of proof texts 

message: I removed the following: "The Bible does not include a description of God that codifies the doctrine of the Trinity as articulated by mainstream churches today. "Encyclopedia of Religion", Vol. 14, p.9360, on Trinity/>  <ref> Oxford Dictionary of the Bible on Trinity  " 
First, because it is POV. This article is about what Christians believe and many of us, scholars included, see the doctrine of the Trinity in the Bible. That position must be documented according to WP:NPOV. Second, encyclopedias are seen in the academic community as of lesser value than articles, dissertations and books. To argue as has been above that a person is not a top notch scholar because they have not written for one (does anyone know of an Encyclopedia article by Stephen Hawking? Albert Einstein? John Dominick Crossan?) or that simply because someone has written for one makes them the ultimate authority is just nonsense. Encyclopedias, even the best are the summary of a good researcher or sometimes a scholar.
Second, it is simply not needed.The paragraph as it now stands does a fairly good job of it. May I suggest we refine it? --CTSWyneken(talk) 18:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the statement as it stands now, and I certainly agree with your comments on Encyclopedias (all the more so, regarding Wikipedia). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unacceptable, POV statement removed 

message: Can someone who knows what they are doing better than me, please fix the notes of this article. Taa --Just nigel 10:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes need fixing 

message: Tom Yoder Neufeld, (Th. D. Harvard) Ephesians. Believers Church Bible Commentary.   Waterloo, Ont. ; Scottdale, Penn. Herald Press, 2002.  
</blockquote>"For through him we have access—both (hoi amphoteroi) in one Spirit—to the Father" (2:18). In this terse sentence, the whole Trinity is present—Son, Spirit, and Father (Barth, 1974:267). At this stage of Christian theological development, there is no fully developed
notion of the Trinity, but the building blocks are present.</blockquote> --CTSWyneken(talk) 22:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes on the Trinity in the Bible 

message: My reading of John is that the only foundation of the trinity found in it is the idtentity of Jesus as God, the identity of the Father and Son. When I changed the last line of the lead to specify that this was the foundation being referred to, the edit was reverted. Is there something in John that I missed, such as identifying the Holy Spirit as God or use of the trinitarian formula? If so, I'm eager to be educated. If not, then the lead should reflect which foundation we're talking about (Jesus = God). Jonathan Tweet 19:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I'm thinking of the same edit as you're talking about, the change was reverted because the statement was far too over-simplistic. "Identity of the Father and the Son" is a gross misstatement of Trinitarian theology, and it's based on far more than John -- although of course John 1 is crucial. We cannot base this article on our own reading. That would be original research. It must instead be based on the readings actually employed. If you can find and cite a reputable source that places the foundation for the dogma as squarely in John as you say then we can include it, but this is probably a minority opinion and should not be in the intro unless it can be shown to be the generally accepted idea. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's already a ref for the sentence, but I don't trust that the sentence is a faithful summary of the referenced material. Can anyone actually look it up and quote the cite? Jonathan Tweet 01:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  foundation in John 

message: I have to wonder about the relevance of this section to the article. Is it likely that anyone reading this article would be interested in such a thing? It's also a bit vague and difficult to understand. It just doesn't seem to fit in the flow of the article at all. BenC7 02:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  This section seems disjointed and/or out of place.  If we are discussing similarities with other systems of belief, we could go on and on and on.  Jacob 05:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Similarities in the 16th-century Jewish Kabbalah" section 

message: This whole paragraph:
:Many Christians begin to learn about the Trinity through knowledge of Baptism. This is also a starting point for others in comprehending why the doctrine matters to so many Christians, even though the doctrine itself teaches that the being of God is beyond complete comprehension. The Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed are structured around profession of the Trinity, and are solemnly professed by converts to Christianity when they receive baptism, and in the Church's liturgy, particularly when celebrating the Eucharist. One or both of these creeds are often used as brief summations of Christian faith by mainstream denominations.
seems to be written from a Roman Catholic perspective and does not present an accurate worldwide view. I think it should be removed altogether. BenC7 03:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been removed. BenC7 00:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I won't oppose the removal of the paragraph, because the substance remains in the section.  However, I wonder what you meant when you said it "does not present an accurate worldwide view"?  The creeds are structured around this profession, and they were designed for this purpose, as the section goes on to say.  They are also used this way in those Protestant denominations that still use them. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 05:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It assumes that Christians go through some sort of catechism or training program before they are baptized. They may do this in the RCC, but I don't know of any other church that does it. People in most churches are not required to have perfect theological knowledge before they are baptized. The person may be asked questions to see if they are sincere, but wouldn't be grilled on Do you believe that God is a trinity?? I certainly doubt that in most countries where Christians are persecuted that there would be such a formal 'indoctrination' (per se) before a person gets baptized. I would say most people come to a knowledge of the Trinity through their general growth as a Christian, not during a specific time. (Someone else removed the paragraph, BTW). BenC7 09:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You may be unaware that in most traditions, especially in countries where Christians are persecuted, catechetical instruction is emphasized for adults coming to baptism and for children coming to communion.  Even where this is absent in non-confessional churches, a "credible profession of faith" is expected - usually something along the lines of "Do you accept Jesus as your personal savior? I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (or some comparable formula).  While they may not actually use a traditional, written "canon" or "symbol", according to which a profession of Christian faith is deemed credible, these definitions are implicitly assumed even in such a minimal profession.  This has nothing to do with "perfect theological knowledge", or being "grilled" on the completeness of understanding.  It's simply a measure taken, in order to emphasize that the terms in which we are to live are the same as those into which we have been received into the fellowship of believers, by baptism.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Baptism as the beginning lesson" section 

message: I think this phrase implies that the subject is fictional; like "In The Lord of the Rings..." or "In Greek mythology...".  It should be changed to something like "According to Christianity..." or "Christians believe...".  Anyone agree?  Gert2 02:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "In Christianity..." 

message: On January 31, I removed this external link which was added by IP 141.238.33.58.  I still do not feel that it meets WP:EL, but I have reposted it on the talk page so that the original editor can make his/her case for it, and the other editors of the page can respond.  Thanks -- Pastordavid 18:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: I think there is a contradiction between what the article says and what W.Fulton in the "Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics"(1924) says:"The term 'Trinity' appears to have been first used by Tertullian, while the corresponding Greek term 'Triad' appears to have been first used by Theophilus the Christian apologist, an older contemporary of Tertullian." 136.152.147.250 02:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is exactly what the article says, so what's the problem? It so happens the Greek word preceded Tertullian's use of the Latin word, which Fulton doesn't address one way or the other except that it's possibly implied in that Theophilus is identified as the older of the two. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: Contrary to one persons POV NOT most christians are trinitarian.
true most sects of the Catholic Church are Trinitarian but ask many of these members individually and you'll be surprised to learn that they do not believe that doctrine.
many choose to actually believe Christ who said that his father is greater than he is
(John 14:28)
“. . .YOU heard that I said to YOU, I am going away and I am coming [back] to YOU. If YOU loved me, YOU would rejoice that I am going my way to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am.”
rather than believe the nicene council which put Christ as an equal to God the Father.
here a link is provided to the Catholic Encyclopedia Trinity Dogma page Kljenni 14:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Klenji, as was indirectly discussed with you on the Talk:Christian page, and on the Talk:Christian cross, please do not attempt to rewrite Wikipedia to conform with JW doctrine. Justin Eiler 15:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, that dog won't hunt.  Whether or not they grasp the philosophical intricacies, most people (All Roman Catholics, Anglicans, and Lutherans worldwide, also the majority of Methodists, Presbyterians, and Reformed) confess either the apostles' or nicene creed every Sunday, which is an adhesion to Trinitarian doctrine.  -- Pastordavid 15:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Most ordinary believers not completely understanding all of the esoteric philosophico-theological ramifications of the doctrine of the Trinity has always been true -- and is not confined to churches following "orthodox" Trinitarian doctines. AnonMoos 23:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do You Speak For Most Christians?