Talk:Nontrinitarianism/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  What constitutes a relevant link? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  dump from Trinity 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Non- or anti- trinitarian 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: POV comment

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: Nope; it's a vehicle for anonymous innuendo. Wesley (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: But Arianism was the orthodoxy (or not)

message: 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)
thread_title:  Other nontrinitarian monotheistic groups besides Christian groups 

message: 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 2:36has reverent submission, fear, of God  Hebrews 5:7-10and is made high priest by God Hebrews 5:10  Johanneum 05:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 (). GabrielVelasquez (talk) 10:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Please stop supporting POVism. Additionally, your comments are getting rather out of hand. Your objectivity in the matter is essentially non-existent at this point. You have made it more than clear what you believe and why you are here-and what you intend to use the encyclopedia for. Unfortunately, you have been breaking policies, and you continue to do so while directly ignoring all helpful suggestion directed towards you. It's become sort of apparent that attempting to explain things to you reasonably is a waste of time- you simply can't see past your biases, specifically when it comes to other editors. Why are you ranting by flaunting some poorly developed exegeses of Biblical verses?--C.Logan (talk) 04:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Maybe because you keep using stupid phrases like "flaunting some poorly developed exegeses" as though you are some Dr.know-it-all, and the Greek speaking editor doesn't know Greek. I presented valid reasoning and you have the bad tact (pick your policy) to call it a rant. Flying-Firetrucks-ofFudge it all. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 05:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't understand the words, don't make fun of them. If you do, then you should be intelligent enough to know that criticizing someone for using complex sentences just makes you look very immature. I'm not going to argue with you on this extremely complex issue, because you seem generally unreceptive when I attempt to explain clearer things (such as simple rules and requirements). Who doesn't know Greek? What are you attempting to say here?--C.Logan (talk) 05:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cute; if you have to ask me what I mean by that then you are the one who doesn't know what "exegeses" means. Secondly, you don't attempt to explain, you use phrases like "you look very immature" which is a Personal attack. Thirdly, "flaunting some poorly developed exegeses" as you put it is just plane bad  Wiki-Etiquite, if you have been here longer than John Carter you should know better by now. It makes me sad to see you act hypocritially man, I'll share a veggie burger with you some time. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 07:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: More to the point Wesley, I do not have to prove the Jesus is not God. Nontrinitarianism is a POV. The POV is that Jesus is not God. You people seem to keep missing this and wasting people time, for the last time: "Nontrinitarianism = Jesus is not God." 20:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you understand what anyone is requesting of you. You may want to ask for clarification, even though you haven't been very receptive to it at this point. Please cease ranting, and start discussing.--C.Logan (talk) 04:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nontrinitarianism isn't a POV. It's a lot of different POVs, namely all POVs other than Trinitarianism: Unitarianism, atheism, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism ... Is there any point to this article? Peter jackson (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So wait, if atheists, Jews, Islamic people and others are nontrinitarianism, than why is nontrinitarianism listed as a Christian denomination? If nontrinitarianism rejects the basic tenets of Christianity, should we not move this article to some other section of Wikipedia?bolinstephen (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus is not God 

message: 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)
replies: text: I can not access the link above, nor any of the links in the appropriate article from the public library interent computers for some reason, and this comment is unsigned. So, would someone please verify that this is correct and the deletion should have been made, because otherwise it looks to me like vandalism. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can access the link. The statement is correct, clearly trinitarian.--JCrenshaw (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing the Incorrectly Included Seventh-Day Adventists 

message: * 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Arianism is undefined and does not fit in the same group as those who state that Jesus is not God

message: 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 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for your comment, AnonEMouse. I suggest we consult the most reliable encyclopedias on the issue, and see which nontrinitarian groups they list or deem important, and just use that sample. Regarding the number of members, that article only mentions the existence of "under 25" as I recall. However that is not the issue here - let's consult reputable encyclopedias on "nontrinitarianism". Colin MacLaurin (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As we've done for all the other entries on this list?  Clearly, the articles on each of these groups, when they exist at all, are being used as the source material here - since there is no "encyclopedia on nontrinitarianism" that would apply here.  The argument you are taking up at this point is the very reason why the WP:NOT#PAPER official policy was written.  Material, as long as it can be verified, is perfectly allowable on Wikipedia even if it does not exist in "reputable" encylopedias.  This is also the reason why editor consensus is such a key element of Wikipedia; it eliminates individual biases and allows for a fair representation of existing information. I know that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is generally an AfD phrase (to avoid) but come on now... your interest in getting that particular entry off this page is causing a clear double-standard in your comments.  At least you've dropped that "seven members in 1999" nonsense (for now); although you are still misquoting your source.  The newspaper states that one congregation in St. Joseph, TN was "less than 25 members" in 1999.  Your inability to deal objectively with this topic (and your frequent misquoting of sources is a case-in-point) is the very reason I asked for this RfC. ◄Zahakiel► 04:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, there does seem to be at least websites for branchs of the church in Kenya here and Canada here, which might serve to indicate that the body in question does have members beyond Tennessee. Neither gives any numbers so far as I can tell, though. The fact that the body in question is seemingly notable enough for a wikipedia page would to my eyes seem to establish enough notability to make it reasonable to have the group listed, provided it's status as nontrinitarian can be established, which doesn't seem to be particularly questioned. I could however see that, if the body in question were to be seen to be inactive or no longer extant later, then there could be cause to remove it if only active groups were listed. Under those circumstances, it might even make sense ultimately to remove the separate page altogether. And, if for whatever reason the separate page were to no longer exist later, then the separate listing might be open to question as well. John Carter (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, for what it's worth, there are specific cases where numbers aren't known, because the denomination in question, if it is a denomination, doesn't keep records. the Vineyard movement had no official records of any kind, so there would be no way to say that they qualified for inclusion anywhere on the basis of "numbers". Other groups, particularly splinter groups which haven't yet formalized separation, would also be impossible to have numbers cited for them. The Nigerian heresy is one such group. Numbers often aren't available for current groups, and certainly aren't often available on defunct groups from the early years of Christianity, so that particular standard of measurement would be problematic in a lot of cases. John Carter (talk) 20:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is the case here.  Although there are separate congregations, there is no central registry or conference that holds data about the local churches.  Also re: the status as non-Trinitarian, there is a source included in the article, a "Directory of Sabbath Keeping Organizations," (or something like that) which specifically lists the group as being non Trinitarian, so that's never been in dispute. ◄Zahakiel► 21:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC on inclusion of small group

message: " 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)
replies: text: What are you talking about? Where did I add that to anything? I have a feeling that you don't know how to read diffs: the column on the left displays the editor of the last version, not necessarily the contributer of the highlighted information. Read the previous diff to see my contribution- the text Duffer removed (rightfully) was not added by me. Please familiarize yourself with the system before making accusations.--C.Logan (talk) 04:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I once again very sincerely urge the above editor that repeated use of perjoratives is a violation of WP:NPA, and that it is possible for him to be blocked and/or banned should he continue to indulge in such behavior. John Carter (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is getting rather out of hand. Gabriel has, on multiple occasions, misread policy, pages, and so on. This isn't so bad, but he seems to be determined to vilify those who disagree with him, (even when they take the care to explain the issues) and at that, he uses faulty interpretations as ammunition. If it does continue, I'll make a notification- disagreements are fine, but this is bordering on trolling.--C.Logan (talk) 04:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Gabriel, please provide the diff in which I added the information which Duffer removed. I would really be intrigued to see it. I've tried to explain what I think may have been a reasonable misunderstanding by you, but you just chug along with your unsubstantiated rant. Please do show me this diff, because I think it would be very elucidating.--C.Logan (talk) 04:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He can't, because it was actually Jonathan Tweet who added the content here. Such spurious and demonstrably false accusations as has been made above are not only an explicit failure to assume good faith, but are also demonstrably false. I once again sincerely urge the editor in question to conduct himself more in accord with wikipedia standards. John Carter (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can prove it and I will prove it and in doing so prove you false, a dangerous lier. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I very certain now that even you are a party to this bias and impedance of improving this article. You directed the very valid accusation above to a complete different user and a completely different set of circumstances when what I was refering to is right there at the top of the section. Duffer1 deleted C.Logan's hypocritical edit of adding what looks like his own opinion about Jehovah's Witness. I don't even know what diffs are and you are using that against me to play games, to fain ignorance, whne all you have to do is check history. Your biased defence of your pet-user (your own usertag) is coniving and irreprehensable. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The link you provided is for earlier this year. This change indicates that the content was first added in December, 2006. While it is, remotely, possible that your statement could be defensible, in saying that he "added" it, it would be more appropriate to say that he "restored" it. I believe your own statements, however, are still continuing to be in violation of WP:NPA, and that you are capable of facing sanctions on that basis. Should your comment on Mr. Wales' talk page be ignored, as I believe it may well be, by him, I believe that there is a very serious risk that some lesser parties may see fit to sanction you for your continuing unacceptable conduct. John Carter (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Early Christian

message: I have removed the quote above from the article for the following reasons. While the quote does say, "Believe in God. Believe also in me," or words to that effect, that does not mean that the source is necessarily differentiating himself from God. It is two separate statements, and can just as easily be read as saying, "You should believe in God, and you should also believe my statements" or "Believe in God, and believe in me as an incarantion of God". Neither of the admitted interpretations above is even remotely close to formally indicating that the two entities cannot be one, but simply drawing a distinction between an "abstract concept" of God and a person who may or may not be an incarnation of God. John Carter (talk) 15:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This, again, being the reason why Wikipedia requires secondary sources for interpretive analysis of primary sources. It is far too easy to read the text any which way (typically such readings are guided by POV and preordained conclusions)- and this is especially true with religious texts, such as the Bible and the Qur'an. For inclusion in the encyclopedia, such interpretation requires a reliable source to support the fact that such a view is not the editor's alone. Thank you for pointing this out, John.--C.Logan (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  John 14:1 

message: :: Your implementation is rational but reasonable only if you are prepared to allow for all 27 groups or denominations (list in article /where applicable) in your X+Y=Z formulations, or better  "X1+X2+X3...X27 use interpretation of Y1 to support their belief Z1." Perhaps more practical is "Verse Y1 is viewed as meaning Z1 by groups X1 & X2 & X3... X27" or some such variation.I might add that Z1, Z2, Z3, etc. would be the dimensions of the Nontrinitarin position, and so the whole article could be reformated logically to follow this Z(n) list, then followed somewhere (not forgetting history, etc.) in the article by your associated formulation. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with the above, is, ultimately, that the WP:NOTABILITY of each verse as used by each group would have to be established, and that might be more than a little difficult. Also, I'm not entirely sure that just the 27 listed are all that do qualify for inclusion on the basis of notability, just that they're the only ones listed yet. If that is the case, then the lists would become even more weighty than they already are. Also, in all honesty, this page probably isn't supposed to be as much a summary of the chapters and verses the various groups use to advance their positions, but rather to discuss Nontrinitarianism in general. In so far as the verses used are particularly important to any given group in their advancing the nontrinitarian position, then certainly they can and should be included, but we would probably want to ensure that the other content regarding how these groups advance their position should receive as much due weight as possible as well. My own personal favored option would be to have a basic introduction to nontrinitarianism in general as it has developed over time, including biblical and other quotations and citations as relevant, and then, where indicated, adding group-specific sections thereafter to indicate any significant additional information which is basically unique to that particular group. John Carter (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Improvement" formulation

message: The article has some mistakes and needs citations and bibliografy. I will do my best as my schedule permits.--Vassilis78 (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: improvements

message: Some people speak on behalf or against the Trinity without knowing what the Trinity is. In order this to be coped with, I insisted on a longer introduction.
Because when we speak about the Trinity, we don't just speak about three things or persons. There are some very specific details in the original and classic doctrine of Trinity that cannot be put aside and which are usually unknown to people who have not studied the Church Fathers. Some people must also understand that the Trinity doctrine is a doctrine of the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church, and it is based on specific arguments that have to do with the (Greek) cultural environment of the 3rd and 4th century C.E. People who try to re-establish and re-define the Trinity doctrine out of this context are anachronistic and very possibly in disagreement with the original and classic dogma that prevailed in the last 15 centuries.
--Vassilis78 (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * Amen brotha. Watch this guy, he's yet another Trinitarian trying to "fix" this article. GabrielVelasquez (talk)
Jayjg, how can we define untrinitarianism if there is a diversity of opinions among trinitarians? So, due to this diversity, which occurs mainly in the Protestant world, we have to be specific of what Trinity we are talking about, that is, we have to put a benchmark. Capito?
Hence, what is our benchmark? When the article talks about ancient anti-trinitarians as Arius, Ebionites, Marcion, Modalists, Adoptionists etc, we are not talking about any sort of Trinity that Protestants invented in the last two centuries, but we are talking about the classical and original doctrine of Trinity that was established by the first four Ecumenical Councils of the united then Catholic and Orthodox church. This traditional doctrine is based on the philosophical principles of the classical theism about the transcendence and absoluteness (immutability, timelessness etc) of God, and these principles are accepted by the Orthodox, the Catholic and the traditional Protestants. So, we are talking about the 80-90% of nominal Christendom. Capito again?
--Vassilis78 (talk) 07:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Your changes mostly described the attributes of God, not specifically the Trinity, and since different Christian groups define the Trinity in different ways, it's best just to give what they all agree on (three distinct persons in one being) and leave the rest for the link. Jayjg (talk) 02:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Intoduction