Talk:Binitarianism

message: What baffles me are the repeated statements by COGwriter, with all due respect, that "scholars believe..."; what scholars?  Who?  There are lots of "greats" in the field of Biblical scholarship and Church history...which ones support the view that the early Church was binitarian?  It smells to me like a violation of the "No original research" rule.  I believe that was uninetntional on the part of COGwriter and that he {or she?) meant well, but we need, I think, a few supporting names...and they better be big ones, because we could cite loads of scholars with different positions.  KHM03 11:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Many modern scholars are concluding that the Bousett view of unitarianism for the early church is in error and that the binitarian view is more supported by scripture and early church writings.  My article cites several scholars--I could add more and more, but that only makes the article longer--it adds little or nothing to the content.  FWIW, I also do not believe that one always needs to have 'bigger names' as that smacks of suppression of minority views by those supporting majority views--but I do believe, for example, that Larry Hurtado is recognized as a big name now. COGwriter.
I would take issue with your "many modern scholars" statement, but, nevertheless, I certainly accept Hurtado as a legitimate scholar.  I don't want to suppress minority views, but we need to make sure they are presented accurately...as minority views which the bulk of academia (or the Church, in this case) repudiates.  KHM03 17:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:NOR]] 

message: I was wondering if someone (COGwriter ?) could explain to me how binitarianism differs from adoptionism; it seems to me to be a 20th century version of that ancient idea.  Thanks for any help.  KHM03 14:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused. When you say that "He was fully God before and after His incarnation" but earlier say Jesus was "not fully God", does that mean binitarians believe that Jesus was first fully God, then became incarnate and thus lacked certain divine powers, then became again un-incarnate thus regaining all divine powers? Would this regaining have happened at his death, resurrection, ascension, or at some other time? This is quite a new idea to me, and I want to understand it properly. This is also something that could possibly be better spelled out in the article. Thanks. Wesley 16:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adoptionism 

message: I went through the body making changes throughout.  Doubtless, I've made mistakes especially where I touched the CoG view.  But I hope that the Trinitarian view, at least, is more accurately and plainly represented. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Revised body

message: I removed the Melito section.  The argument was weak.  Suggesting that since Melito never wrote explicitly or at length about the Spirit is proof a binitarian view is weak logic.  The section also claimed that since he referred to the Spirit as "Lord", he believed Jesus=Spirit.  This is untrue; we call the Holy Spirit "Lord" in the Nicene Creed, the creed of Christendom, which is firmly and deliberately Trinitarian.  KHM03 17:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: KHM03's point was (I think) that since the Holy Spirit is called "Lord" in the Creed, earlier writers might very well have meant the Holy Spirit when they said "Lord" as well. Of course "Lord" is used at times to refer to Jesus Christ, or even to God the Father; the term is ambiguous and subject to interpretation, which I think is what you're getting at. Wesley 16:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Melito 

message: Should we put this into the Gnosticism category?  The article mentions three Gnostic sects (the Paulicians, Albigensians, and Bogomils) which apparently were all binitarian.  Does this seem to be a gnostic doctrine?  KHM03 18:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Binitarians believe that they are Christians and not Gnostics, thus I believe that putting binitarians into that category (without ALSO having them in the Christianity category) is not a NPOV.  Binitarians rely on no Gnostic writings that I am aware of, and specifically teach against early pre-Gnostics such as Simon Magus, Meander, Marcion, Valentinus, etc. But I do not object to your comment pointing out that some Gnostics held a dualistic view. COGwriter
Fair enough.  KHM03 20:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Gnosticism 

message: Moved them down to be a section of their own at the end of the page, since they weren't doing any good as a big indigestible lump at the top of the page, and I don't really feel like dealing with them in detail. AnonMoos 20:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I eliminated the section altogether; it was nothing more than a poorly written rehash of stuff already found in the article.  KHM03 20:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: IP 12.76.136.139's edits

message: This paragraph does not seem a suitable conclusion for the entire article, but rather smacks of one last "hit and run" attack on the CG7 and COGs. It seems condescending and severely distorts the theological view of these groups concerning their belief that God is offering humans eternal life within the "God Family" and His purpose for doing so. Again, a more well-rounded summation of the article would have a more NPOV, and would conform better to Wikipedia policies.
12.37.35.209 01:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusion section

message: This article needs much more referencing.  As it stands, it appears to be original research synthesising information to forn new conclusions. Aleta 03:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research essay

message: The Godhead is frequently presented as two persons in scripture, not one or three. A clear and early example is from Agur in Proverbs 30:4 
Who has ascended into heaven and descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has wrapped the waters in His garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name or His son's name? Surely you know!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erman 1958 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Binitarian formulas 

message: Substituted at 09:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: There are two gods for all time. This is the fourth testament. I am. You are. 2600:387:C:6C16:0:0:0:6 (talk) 03:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am who am.