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.

Supporting scriptures: no proof!

The section Supporting scriptures provides a lot of Bible references that allegedly non-trinitarians use to prove this and that. But we don't need those lists of Bible references per se, because none of them prove anything at all, they're just a list of Bible references. We instead need a sourced explanation from non-trinitarians that explain why they should preferrably be interpreted against trinitarism, otherwise we ignorants (and everybody else, who are not anti-trinitarians) will not understand a beep. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 13:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Almost all of those have references from Jehovah's Witnesses publications. I would add it. --Fazilfazil (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Groups

Groups should not part 7. Are groups current ones only? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.79.206 (talk) 14:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC) In the information about Christian Science why is Key not quoted, no wonder some the information on the page is so inaccurate, especially around the nontrinitarian=jews mistakes. "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures" has sold millions and is used by all Christian Scientists. Why are Worldwide Church of God (Armstong followers) not on the list when even their Wikipedia article says that they believe in a family of Gods. Church of Christ do not use the Old Testement and are definitely not nontrinitarian=jews. As over half the groups list is fake why have it. Stop edit wars, Wikipedia is shit.

Pruning the group and people lists

I am shortly going to start removing groups for which there is no citation, and likewise for the people. I also think that anyone who isn't a religious leader shouldn't be listed here. Mangoe (talk) 13:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

After hundreds of years of being suppressed

This is in danger of entering a war and so needs to go to the talk page. Reverters of the text to the current version have consistently referred to the Pope in justifying their reversion. This despite the fact that neither this nor the alternative version mentions the Pope. The current sentance has 4 citations. The first 2 cite Byzantine Emperors who suppressed nontrinitarianism in the Empire. The third cites the Calvinists of the City of Geneva. The fourth, while mentioning the Pope, makes it clear that it was a secular matter for the King of France: "Although the Crusade did not eliminate Catharism, it eventually enabled the French king to establish his authority over the south." All of these tend to support the alternate phrasing of "Civil authorities in Christendom suppressed nontrinitarians in their realms. Today, nontrinitarians represent a small minority of professed Christians.". I move that this phrasing be used instead. Additionally the current one is not neutral enough. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem with stating that civil authorities crushed the religious faction would hide and mislead the reader to think that civil authorities were the reason that the nontrinitarians were destroyed. The same forces that would incite a purely secular government would today cause our own American secular government to weigh against a religious faction, like nontrinitarianism, which simply does not happen (unless the government is being controlled by a trinitarian religious group). The reality is that the trinitarian Roman Emperors worked in lockstep with their trinitarian politico/clergy counterparts in crushing nontrinitarian forces. To state that the crushing was simply secular would be a huge insult akin to stating that the Jewish holocaust was simply the effort of a few inhumane and deranged guards. The reality is, both the Jewish holocaust and the nontrinitarian holocaust were controlled by leaders who had a keen religious and political bent, with a common benefit in crushing opponents to trinitarianism. The article should not mislead one into thinking it was simply a secular force. This would be more appropriate: "Secular governments working under the direction of the trinitarian church succeeded in crushing nontrinitarian Christians, such that today nontrinitarians represent a small minority of professed Christians." Otherwise not mentioning secular is fine; 64.20.197.115 (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem I'm seeing is the implication that the small numbers of modern non-trinitarians is due to this suppression. At the very least we would need a solid citation for that analysis. Mangoe (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The Hitler argument already? Time to walk away from the "debate". Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok how about Kim Jong IL? If you are a Juche follower of North Korea, it is highly insulting to say that there was anything bad about the Kims, that they killed millions of civilians, etc. However, it is true, despite the fact that Juche followers would be highly insulted to have that written. In the same way you are insulted that anyone would list history that does not paint the Trinitarian church in a positive light, even though it is very real and very documented. 64.20.197.115 (talk) 15:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem seems to be more that you are unwilling to allow for the possibility that modern non-trinitarian numbers are small because most people think that the doctrine of the trinity is superior. Mangoe (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure, and a North Korean follower of Juche would say the same thing -- everyone in North Korea spouts Juche philosophy because it is 'superior', despite overwhelming evidence that the opposition was systematically crushed. In this case, we have hundreds of years of trinitarians proudly discussing how they crushed nontrinitarians -- whether it was a series of crusades, purges, enslavements, burnings at the stake of people or documents, etc. 64.20.197.115 (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

So find a source and cite it. Sure, you'll have no problem getting sources to say that the Bogomils and Cathars and JWs were persecuted. It is a lead-pipe cinch, however, that Hitler persecuted the JWs not because they are Arians, but because of their dogged lack of cooperation with the state. And you'll find lots of scholarly sources who will say that it's difficult to tell exactly whether the Cathars were hunted down because they were heretics, or whether their heresy was made attractive as a sign of their rebellion against the authorities. That happened hundreds of years ago, in another country, and in the present I'm sure that the parking lot of the local Kingdom Hall is a fraction of the size of that belonging to the neighboring Protestant megachurch because many more people want to go to the latter than the former. Mangoe (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

There are a zillion sources -- just search for the word 'heretic' in the Catholic encyclopedia, or in the list of 'Saints' who were sainted because they helped eradicate trinitarian 'heretics'. The Maya script was lost for hundreds of years because of the standard Catholic practice of burning opponents religious writings. The nontrinitarians ('Arians' as the Trinitarian Athanasius coined them) used to be found in half the Meditteranean countries -- until over several centures the trinitarians enslaved Vandals, crushed, or converted their kings to their side. If the local trinitarian church is packed, most of those people had parents who went to the trinitarian church, and the whole line of nontrinitarians, as has been pointed out many times, was crushed by trinitarians such that they did not leave children to go to church -- until the modern times, when our country pioneered separation of church and state and protected them from violent control. Here is a link to a map of nontrinitarian countries before they were overtaken: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_526.jpg (everything west of Italy and in North Africa)64.20.197.115 (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Only 1 IP supports the current phrasing. Reverting to NPOV phrasing. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It's meaningful to provide the article with WP:RS sourcing that makes the point that between the alleged poisoning of Arius to the Doctrine of the Trinity Act 1813 the numbers of non-Trinitarians in Europe was supressed by means varying from ethnic cleansing to financial penalty, however I would think that after 1813 the search for sources as to why the total number of non-Trinitarians failed to increase (and probably declined as the Unitarian movement fizzled out) would require a long search in a well equipped university library. Good luck to anyone who can find a source that even comments on the phenomena. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

How can you say that nontrinitarianism has fizzled out? It has grown from 1813, being a suppressed and attacked religion, such that today every community has Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons on bikes, etc out in the public view. In contrast, since America's separation of Church and State has come into force, they have in fact blossomed. And as more people become aware of the holocaust that trinitarians perpetuated on Christians, they will have the opportunity to make that decision for themselves. 24.176.58.127 (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

hey Laurel, did your check from the Church come in yet? Many rational people on here acknowledge that nontrinitarianism was crushed by a combination of secular and church trinitarians working together, but for some reason you want to conceal that or make it into something it was not. Censorship belongs in the waste-bin of history -- cut it out! 69.51.152.180 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC).

Peddle the holocaust theories elsewhere. Or support them with sources. Either would be fine. Laurel Lodged (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

They are listing 4 sources, a mix of Popes and Emperors that attacked nontrinitarian Christians in various ways. If that is not sourced then nothing is - any rational person would recognize that there are secular and Trinitarian Church partisans that participated in crushing their opponents. However, you for some reason want to conceal the role of the trinitarian church in that. 24.176.58.127 (talk) 01:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment I have restored to Laurel Lodge's last edit and left a welcome-anon and a link to WP:3RR on 24.176.58.127's talk page. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Somehow your leaving a note on someone's page skirts the issue here? 69.51.152.180 (talk) 03:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello 69.51.152.180 there are a number of issues here. Another issue would be WP:NPA. The basic standards of WP:etiquette and - in this case - WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:RS should also be applied. As regards the basic premise - that there was persecution and discrimination of Arians and Unitarians 300-1700, that is a historical fact and can be documented by WP:RS in the article. But the edits have to start being done in a way that follows the basic norms of an encyclopedia. I hope you'll understand this. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Octu, I appreciate your attention to etiquette and will attempt to refrain from personal comment. However, it is difficult for some of us who uphold the idea of a free (open) encyclopedia to act as a medium for the censorship and concealment of ideas, as this case appears to be. 69.51.152.180 (talk) 03:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello 69.51.152.180, thanks, okay well maybe we can put the above as water under the bridge and actually start to look for sources that support the immediate disputed edit. The problem with the edit as 24.176.58.127 made it, and the legitimate reason why Laurel Lodged reverted to WP:Status quo, is that the sentence as it stands is (a) unsourced, (ii) WP:Synthesis, in that it takes verifiable fact A (there was persecution of Arians) and verifiable fact B (that there are few Unitarians today) and makes synthesis conclusion C, that B is a result of A. There might actually be some truth in the conclusion in many countries. The reason why there was never a large Unitarian movement in Spain and Italy, for example, is evidently related to full religious equality for non-Trinitarians having come a lot later than 1813 (Britain), but in the context of Boston for example, where in the 1850s non-Trinitarian Protestants nearly outnumbered Trinitarian Protestants suppression is no explanation why Boston only has a handful of non-Trinitarian churches in 2012. So you need to look for WP:V sources if that conclusion C is going to be in the lede. Do you have any books on Unitarian or Arian history after 1800? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Ictu, I think the issue that I would see with Laurel Lodge's edit, where I would prefer 24's edit, is that the LL edit clearly states something that is misleading, that nontrinitarians were suppressed by secular forces. It is clear to all who study the matter, and the citations listed demonstrate, that secular and religious forces worked together in those pogroms that basically eradicated nontrinitarian Christians in Europe and North Africa. A modern anecdotal study of Boston et al without looking at the larger picture of nontrinitarianism which has sprung forth (including Mormons, Jehova's Witnesses, etc.) would perhaps give an incomplete picture as well. Perhaps we should say that 'Early nontrinitarians' were supressed by trinitarians, but have in the past few hundred years been given freedom in Western countries and have slowly grown? 69.51.152.180 (talk) 03:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi 69.51.152.180, just as an aside, have you any particular reason for 24.176.58.127 and yourself not registering? It makes life easier for everyone, it makes your edits less likely to be reverted, and it hides your geographical location.

• A second thing - I am sorry but I personally would choose not to continue discussion if the terms "pogrom" (yourself) or "holocaust" (24.176.58.127) are going to be used on Talk. There is no comparison between the (alleged) poisoning of Arius, crusade against the Cathars, trial of Servetus, expulsion of the Socinians, etc. and the Tsarist pogroms or genocide perpetrated by the Third Reich against the Jews. I take it you have not physically stood in the suitcase room at Auschwitz? If you want to use emotive language please use the term "crusade," which is at least relevant to the Cathars, but better still, find WP:RS sources and use the terms there.
• As far as the numerical decline of Unitarians in Boston and elsewhere in New England and America that is well documented in the standard histories of Unitarianism, see the History of Unitarianism page. According to those historians persecution was not a factor, if anything, according to some, the removal of discrimination may have been a factor.
• As far as Laurel's choice of words, I'm not sure that "civil authorities" is correct in view of the lack of separation of church and state till the 1800s, however academic sources on persecution of Cathars (who were only accused of nontrinitarianism), Bogumils (who in the main may not have been nontrinitarian), give socio-economic and political reasons for their persecution. Socinians, yes, it was mainly a religious reaction of Calvinist and Jesuit elements in the Sejm, though the expulsion of 1658 was not fatal to most Socinians as they found sanctuary in Amsterdam and Cluj-Napoca.

So in sum - what books do you have access to which will provide sources to the question you have posed, is there a causal relationship between persecution/discrimination and the small numbers of nontrinitarians today? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Unrelated question 24.176.58.127, out of interest, when a message is left on an unregistered talk page does the user get an orange box saying "you have a new message" or do you have to manually check your talk page to see? I'm just curious, I assumed the orange message notification appears, maybe it doesn't? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

yes, such a message does appear it appears :) 24.176.58.127 (talk) 04:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's fine the way it is now. I think the IP address should stop it already, and move on. Hashem sfarim (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

History section split early church / post reformation

Seemed a major gap that the "History" section actually had nothing in it about history apart from 4th Century. Added the following stub paragraph.

Following the Reformation

Main article: History of Unitarianism

Following the Protestant Reformation, and the German Peasants' War of 1524–1525, by 1530 large areas of Northern Europe were Protestant, and forms of nontrinitarianism began to surface among some "Radical Reformation" groups, particularly Anabaptists. The Italian humanist "Council of Venice" (1550) and the trial of Michael Servetus (1553) marked the clear emergence of markedly anti-Trinitarian Protestants. Though the only organised non-Trinitarian churches were the Polish Brethren who split from the Calvinists (1565, expelled 1658), and the Unitarian Church of Transylvania (1568-today). Nonconformists and Dissenters in Britain were often Arians or Unitarians, and the Doctrine of the Trinity Act 1813 allowed nontrinitarian worship in Britain. In America Arian and Unitarian views were also found among some Millenialist and Adventist groups, though the Unitarian Church itself began to decline after the 1850s.

Yeah I know it's not sourced, anyone who feels anything there is remotely controversial add some inline, but it's all such white-bread commonplace material the main point is to provide an umbrella of wikilinks to people to trail off to the relevant articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that it's a very good start. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll check it for s in a couple of weeks in case anyone does ask for them.In ictu oculi (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Protection request

Please change "After hundreds of years of being suppressed nontrinitarians represent a small minority of professed Christians." to "Civil authorities in Christendom suppressed nontrinitarians in their realms. Today, nontrinitarians represent a small minority of professed Christians.". See discussion below: "After hundreds of years of being suppressed" and long list of attacks by 2 unregistered IPs. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, we haven't talked before but I've noted the good job you've done in keeping this and other articles clean. I have reverted IP to your last edit. If you go for page protection you may cut paste this sentence as being a seconding voice. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I've moved this into a section to maintain the organization of the talk page. Celestra (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: This is not the way to request protection for the page. You need to go to WP:Request for page protection and follow the directions you will find there. If you would like help with that, let me know on my talk page. Regards, Celestra (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Celestra. Laurel, will wait on page protection for a moment, pending on whether things settle down. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

"Relative worship" term used by WT, whether editors personally agree or not, it's sourced

Relative worship

To Laurel Lodged (and others who have this problem)

JW literature has used the term “relative worship”. That's just a fact. Whether you're aware of it or not. You’re just giving your own opinion and POV spin of what “worship” would have to mean. WP is not the place for that. Regardless of what you personally think that means or if it’s true or not. WP goes by what is sourced, not your opinion of whether it’s true or not. Their literature has said "relative worship". They have made a distinction between “proskyneo” (given to Christ and the Father), and “sacred service” ("latriea", given only to the Father) That’s their interpretation and explanation. In their Insight book. Again, the point, whether you are aware or not, or agree or not, the WT has used the term “relative worship”. Also, what you seem not to understand or care about is that the word "obeisance" MEANS "worship" or "homage". ("Proskyneo" in Greek was a broad term.) So I actually have no big problem with "obeisance" as that what it means anyway, except for the fact that most people don't really understand (and some never even heard of the word) "obeisance". But the WT has called that "relative worship". But even if you have a problem with that, removing "before ages" or "literal Son" is not warranted at all. That's what the WT says and teaches. Anyway, Trinitarian bias and opinion are not where this WP article should be. Hashem sfarim (talk) 22:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

ADDENDUM

I just restored other editor's words of "obeisance" and "High Priest", as those were valid edits and additions (and accurate, and no one person owns any article, etc). But with elaboration. Again, it's just a sourced fact that the WT itself has called it "relative worship". Whether I personally agree with that view of it, or whether you personally agree, because of maybe a Trinitarian paradigm or bias, is IRRELEVANT. This is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedic article situation. Not a place to give Athanasian or Trinitarian positions. They call it "relative worship" etc, from "proskyneo" being broad, and that's just a fact. But again, I put back "obeisance" and also "High Priest". As those were arguably valid. Regards.Hashem sfarim (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, how is it a "sourced fact", I don't see the source? A quick Google Books search on "relative worship" Watchtower reveals 6 hits, talking about icons and idols. Not about JW worship of Christ. However, I'm less sure what to do about "worship" given that in English it does mean a narrow meaning than in the Bible, you're correct about proskyneo; we don't worship kings and priests these days. Further see Edmond C. Gruss - 2003 The Four Presidents of the Watch Tower Society (Jehovah's Witnesses) Page 104 Gruss isn't a reliable source, he's an Evangelical ex-JW, but what he presents on this page is primary source material showing that JW reading of "worship" has moved from obeisance (which is what the Greek meant) to "worship as God" (which is what it means to most English speakers). In ictu oculi (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

See Worship in Christianity for a full exposition. Contrast the Catholic position on veneration of Mary with adoration of Jesus. The first is not worship while the second is. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Pithily... This section title is ridiculously long, I created a shortened subtitle #Relative worship. The term "literal" was used somewhat loosely; the thought is intact without it. The expression "before ages" seems the kind of interjection which adds nothing to the thought that isn't already there without it (eg pbuh).
Regarding "worship" v "obeisance"...
Curiously, the editor himself acknowledges: "the word "obeisance" MEANS "worship" or "homage""; why then does the editor insist upon the one troublesome word (over any other)?
JW beliefs are to "worship only Jehovah".

• Awake!, November 2010, ©Watch Tower, page 21, "Bible emphasizes that we should worship only Jehovah God."
• The Watchtower, May 15, 2008, page 31, "One’s worship—and therefore one’s prayers—should go only to Jehovah God."

Insisting on the particular word "worship" to describe honors due Christ seems very odd when specifically discussing JWs. The word "worship" nudges the reader to infer wrongly, explicitly contradicts JW publications in the most recent half-century or more, implicitly contradicts every JW publication ever, and (this last point is merely an aside) apparently upsets JWs themselves. JW publications acknowledge that others use of the term in a different way than is generally accepted, but it should be acknowledge that the term "worship" has particular theological implications. For now I've left it in, but parenthetically. Oh, here is the only time JW publications since 1950 have used "Jesus","relative", and "worship" in the same paragraph:

• "Hebrews 1:6 relates to Jesus’ position under God. (Philippians 2:9-11) Here some versions render pro‧sky‧ne′o “pay . . . homage” (The New English Bible), “do obeisance to” (New World Translation), or “bow before” (An American Translation). If one prefers the rendering “worship,” such worship is relative, for Jesus told Satan: “It is Jehovah your God you must worship [form of pro‧sky‧ne′o], and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.”—Matthew 4:8-10."--The Watchtower, January 15, 1992, page 23
  

My edits are here.--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

"Relative Worship"

I understand. And that's why I said I have no real problem (technically) with the word "obeisance" as that is the word for "proskyneo" ALSO, and as I said, "obeisance" IS a form of "worship", but also the point is that that's why the phrase "RELATIVE worship" was put in. Not just the word "worship" alone, by itself. There's been confusion for years (even the the Watchtower itself) over what the word "worship" Biblically means. The "proskyneo" sense was broad, where in the Old Testament even King David and Angels got that. In the New Testament only the Father and Son get "proskyneo" properly. But the other word "serve" or "sacred service" is "latria" in Greek, is only clearly unambiguously given to the Father in the New Testament (though some try to debate that unsuccessfully). And THAT is the word that is "only Him" (the Father) in the New Testament. That's the JW thing on that. It's clearly in their "Insight" book. The problem is that today when we think of the word "worship" we tend to think of the HIGHEST FORM of it, rather than the broader "homage" or "obeisance" type stuff. Hence the point of "relative worship". Because JWs acknowledge that it's proper to bow before Christ, but not before Paul or Mary. Hashem sfarim (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Literal ages

"Literal" and "before ages"

You keep removing the words "literal" and "before ages" with truly no warrant at all, to be frank, nor valid WP explanation or anything. I just restored that, and left your other edits alone, per this talk.

But there's ZERO reason to keep removing "literal" and "before ages", as that IS what they clearly teach, and it's not really clearly "already there", as some may not know exactly how or when "son" is, according to the WT, that it was before ages of the systems, before the whole universe itself, the Logos was there already, begotten directly God, and that it was a literal "firstborn" or "first-begotten", and not just a metaphorical title. But that the Logos was literally actually "begotten first" from God. No warrant or valid reason to keep removing that, simply because you may "not like it" or because YOU think it's unnecessary. The thought may not be clearly "already there" to many casual readers. A lot of people think that "Son" is only from Mary. But before all ages of the universe etc is clearer elaboration, and not necessary to remove. It's what they teach and believe. That Christ was created before all systems or ages of the universe. And that it was a literal firstborn situation, not a figurative one. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that my words will persuade the editor, but persuasion is unneeded to remove unsourced material (as I have again). The editor should not reinstate his preferred wording without sourcing it.--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

You dodged everything that I took the time to state and write, and didn't address anything, but simply edit-warred again, and removed true valid words, that you personally (in your obvious Trinitarian bias) "don't like". So your words "unlikely that my words will persuade the editor" are applied actually to you. You're getting annoying now. And disrespectful.

I went through a whole thing of why "literal" is warranted (which you ignored) and "before ages" is true and necessary and clearer, (which you ignored, but just gave out your bias about it), and ignored the points, and reverted again, stuff that's true and accurate, simply because YOU feel it's "unnecessary", which is against WP policy.

Also, your objection now makes no sense and is not consistent. You say now it shouldn't be done "without sourcing it", but before you said it was "not necessary because it was already there". The thing is sourced in general, that that's what is meant and taught by them. That the "begetting" was literally "first", and also that it was "before" the universal ages. It's clearer that way, and is sourced in general.

I took the time to go over the matter, and write a bunch of stuff, respectfully and thoughtfully, and deal specifically with the points, and with your objections...and you didn't even care.

You're NOT supposed to revert or remove again, when it's still in Talk and without discussing it over more in Talk, or getting full consensus maybe (even if the consensus is arguably wrong, that has not even been reached yet.) You just simply reverted again, in rude arrogance. And totally ignored everything I took the time to write and deal with. Not cool. And against WP policy and standards. Keep it up, and I'll maybe bring this to another page. I'm serious. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Do not restore "before ages". It is entirely ambiguous, and readers should not be expected to be familiar with this special term, nor should they be expected to refer to the Talk page to find out. Use generic terms to say what you mean. If the special term is particularly significant to the belief, the special term needs to be briefly clarified in prose.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It might be ambiguous to some, but it is what is meant, before universal worlds and systems, and if that's the case should be elaborated. As I said, there should be a consensus, before removing (accurate) terms (even if they might be sort of ambiguous to some), in Talk. And if there is consensus (whether I personally agree or not), then that should be honored. But it seemed like only one or maybe two (biased) editors had an issue with it. But since you (who I know are more objective) seem to have an issue with it as well, and consensus may be building (if no other editor wants to chime in anywhere or not aware of the discussion) then I will not engage in edit-warring, per policy. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying it can't be used at all, though I'm not aware that the specific phrase is so important to the belief that it needs to be. In general, if a term "might be ambiguous to some", it should be explained or replaced. On face value, before ages is ambiguous in meaning and awkwardly phrased. The phrasing comes across as ostentatious, as does before universal worlds and systems. It seems like, in this context, it's intended to mean before the creation of the universe, which would be much clearer. If the phrase "before ages" is especially important to the subject, refer to it in quotes (perhaps providing the context of the original usage), indicating a source, then briefly provide the meaning in generic terms.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

To be honest I can't see the point of "before ages" or this teacup editwar. So JWs have Arian Christology and teach preexistence of Christ. Fine. Please someone find a source that says that and link it. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Literal begotten

In the article, I have emphasized the word "first"; this should tend to clarify that Jesus is not considered to have been "begotten" in a literal way.--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

That's the problem here. You're not understanding that they DO consider the "begotten" to be "literal". Because that IS how the WT considers it to be "in a literal way". This is about how THEY word things, and interpret it to be, NOT how YOU like it or think it should be. Your trinitarian bias is not the place for this article. This matter was already discussed days ago, and some changes and removals were already made. But this part is not valid or necessary. The WT considers a "literal" begetting to be just that. And they have worded it as "first-begotten" (or first-born) as being literal, not figurative or metaphorical. The paragraph is supposed to be how THEY word or view things, not how you do. (Or Trinitarians in general.) Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Both the above sound a little WP:ORish without sources. AuthorityTam, I've restored your edit because of Hashem sfarim SHOUTing in edit summary but all the same is there a source for this? and even if there is, why not just link to more detailed description in the JW article? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

You actually reverted because of (wrongly perceived) "shouting" and no other real reason? (Only two words had caps, not the whole sentence) Are you for real? Number one: I was not shouting. That was one or two words in caps for emphasis, not shouting. Because edit comments don't allow italics, otherwise I would have used that. But that is regardless, because that is no valid WP reason to undo an edit, simply because of "shouting" in an edit comment, that in this case wasn't even meant as that. Stop being disrespectful...I'm serious. Your bias is obvious now, but if you think I'll put up with the nonsense, you're sadly mistaken. You disrespected me. I won't forget that. Keep it up. And it'll be elevated, and it'll get ugly. You did not really look one iota at the merits of anything, but in bias, undid the thing, simply because you didn't like how I put a couple of caps in an edit comment. Not cool, and not WP valid. Hashem sfarim (talk) 01:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Hashem sfarim, it's not an issue of bias - I don't know enough about JW Christology to have any idea why you and others are edit warring on that line. I note only that YOU have SHOUTed in CAPS above, where italics is possible. And as reqards the rest please see WP:Talk page guidelines and links from there to Etiquette, Edit summaries and other helpful WP guidelines. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No sir, was not shouting at all. One or two words in all caps in an edit comment that won't allow italics, where the rest of the comment was not in all caps, is not shouting. I did not mean at such. But as an italics substitute. For real.

If the whole comment (literally every single word) was in all caps, you might have a point, as that would basically be shouting for real. But when 95% of the sentence is normal size, and literally just one or two words are in caps, then it's hasty to think it's "shouting". Edit comment fields don't allow italics, otherwise I would have used that. (Even so, to undo a comment really on that (wrongly perceived basis alone) seems a bit strange and disrespectful. As far as the actual merit of the situation itself, it's just a fact that JW literature uses "first-begotten" for the pre-existent Christ, and they believe it's literal. Hashem sfarim (talk) 01:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

So either you or Authority Tam find a secondary WP:RS please. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, see this is the thing, and I mean this seriously. Tam definitely has some personal doctrinal bias in that he personally feels that "begotten" can't imply or indicate a beginning. But Arius and JWs believe the opposite. That a literal "begetting" MUST imply a beginning as a true "bringing forth". Whether I agree or not with that assessment, or Tam, etc, does not really matter. Because it's how JWs themselves officially view the matter in that regard, and that paragraph is about their position of how that works. By the way, I know why the edit comment field won't allow italics. Because the whole field is italics!!! LOL....... Hashem sfarim (talk) 02:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Well I'm glad you're LOLing. Maybe that's a good sign. Though above charge of "personal bias" isn't okay, see WP:NPA. But again, one of you please find a source. I would add a tag either way, but am not sure which version is the status quo.In ictu oculi (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I don't usually throw around that charge so easily. The problem is that I arguably have at least some evidence, and when it becomes obvious, I have to be honest. It's fairly clear that Tam has some in some sense bias (not that that's always a bad thing necessarily, but just as a matter of fact, we all have certain prejudices or leanings or pre-understandings of what or what is not, or how things mean this or way or that). It's obvious that he has Trintarian LEANINGS, if I may say, and when he says (by his own words) that the JW view of "begotten" is not "literal", that says a lot. And I was trying to correct the notion that the JW view of "begotten" or "first-begotten" is "not literal" to them. As it actually is "literal" to them, and that actually is the point. They believe it was a true bringing forth as a true "Son". The fact that Tam was even trying to remove the word "Son" you'll say does not show "bias"? Or at the very least misunderstandings or mis-representations of the JW official view, because of Tam's probable doctrinal biases, leanings, or pre-conceptions...of what Christ's "Sonship" has to mean to him, or what "begotten" has to mean to him, according to Nicean Trinitarianism? It becomes obvious after a while, and there's nothing so terrible in pointing it out. Though I do agree one should be careful. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 02:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

You say that, but to the best of my ability I've tried to never use the word "bias" on a WP Talk page, of anyone; if I can do it, so can others. Good luck with finding a source. I'm off now. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph already says they believe Jesus is the "only begotten". In an article about non-Trinitarianism, in a list of groups introduced with an explicit statement that the groups that follow do not believe Jesus to be God, it is unnecessary to re-itereate that JWs don't believe Jesus is God. The paragraph also already states that they believe Jesus was God's only direct creation, making the claim of 'first-begotten' redundant and intuitively contradictory.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Right, but if you notice in AuthorityTam's last edit there, he put "first" in quotation marks (as in questioning the literalness of it somehow), and even removed the word "Son" from that part of it. And questioned whether "begotten" even is "literal" to JWs. So yes, there was definitely some unnecessary redundancy in a sense, as the previous sentences made the point arguably clear enough of "Son" and "first", but it becomes obvious (one it could argue) that not every person understands that so clearly, hence why further elaboration was done to maybe make it even clearer, to those who view "Son" and "begotten" only with a Nicean or Trinitarian lens or filter. So it could go either way, in a special case as the JW case. But yes, I do agree that sometimes less is more, and that things should be kept succinct and brief, as long as it's clear enough. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 02:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam probably put the quotes on "first" because JW literature consistently states that Jesus was God's only direct creation, and that everything else was created by means of Jesus (through some unstated process, which is out of this article's scope). It is generally not necessary to specify a unique thing as being first, and it is clearly stated that they believe all other creation happened afterwards.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

That's true, but JW literature (from what I've seen and researched) also says things like "firstborn" and "first creation of God", etc. Which, though, as we said, that specific paragraph on JW belief (in contrast to traditional co-equal Trinitarian belief and doctrine) does make it fairly clear enough, the "only direct" as you mentioned, as well as the point of "first" begotten. I was only saying (since there seemed to be a wee bit misunderstanding or maybe confusion over the word "begotten", because of maybe Nicean pre-understandings and views of the term) that it may have needed some slight further elaboration or clarity. But again, "first" and "direct creation" are important points there, and I do agree that it is stated adequately enough. Hashem sfarim (talk) 06:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The word "literal" often gets speakers and writers in trouble. My understanding had been that JWs believe Jesus to have been literally "first" but not literally "begotten" (the literality implying "copulatorily conceived"; compare this JW ref:
* "Jesus is God’s Son. God does not need a literal wife to produce such sons."-The Watchtower, June 15, 1994).

When JW publications use the term "literal" in reference to Jesus, they typically do so in connection with his human incarnation and human relations (for example,
* "Jesus [was] born a natural Jew, a literal descendant of Abraham."-The Watchtower, February 1, 1989).
However, JWs do not altogether reject the term "literal" when describing JW beliefs about God "begetting" Jesus:

• "[God] identified his Son, who was named Jesus and who literally descended from heaven"-The Watchtower July 15, 1987, page 31

--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Christians who "don't care either way" worth mentioning?

What do editors think of this both as copyedit and if so, suitability of webpage source. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Non-deification of Jesus would seem to be out of scope.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, not WP:RS anyway.In ictu oculi (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Redundancy

There is some obvious overlap of some of the information in the Forms of nontrinitarianism and Alternative views sections. Is there a good reason for this? If not, those groups already listed in the first section do not also need to be listed in the second section. The criteria for inclusion in one or the other also seems ambiguous.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

As no one responded to this section, I have since removed the redundancy by merging the sections. It could still do with some improvement, and there may be other concepts that are not yet included.

On a separate matter, I'm not sure that Islam is really so much non-Christian nontrinitarianism as independant of Trinitarianism but having an opinion about the Christian doctrine. Similarly, other groups that do not deify Jesus at all (including atheists, as well as theists who believe Jesus was only a typical human) would seem to be outside of the typical description of nontrinitarianism which generally involves 'the Son' having some kind of 'spirit' form. Otherwise, the article would need to cover all nonchristian forms of monotheism as well as many forms of polytheism, and it would be impractical to do so.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Mainstream Christianity might well categorise JWS as being independant of Trinitarianism but having an opinion about the Christian doctrine. Do JWs deify Jesus? Isn't Jehovah alone worthy of adoration according to JWs? Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The removal of duplication is good, and a welcome change from the buzz of activity over the JW paragraph. It really would be good if that could be sorted out, with sources, on the relevant JW article, and let this article settle to more major problems. Jeffro77 I have restored Dawn Bible Students to their own place, merging them into the tail of the Rutherford movement is anachronistic. And please everyone - can we use mainstream sources, tertiary sources like Melton, a bit more? Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

LaurelLodged, your implied comparison with my comments about Islam is irrelevant, because JWs are not outside of (unorthodox) Christianity. Please don't attempt a specious argument that JWs are not Christian, as the basis for such argument is that they don't accept the Trinity, which would be a fairly redundant argument to make at this article in particular. In answer to your specific question, yes, JWs do deify Jesus. Specifically, in their translation of John 1:1, they refer to Jesus as "a god".--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, no problem with your edit to separate the DBS; in fact, with the extra refs I prefer it. Though I don't think it's necessary to break alphabetical order.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Was it alphabetical? Okay,.. I didn't notice. Chronological might be better. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I would tend to prefer the latter, with an overall division into early/medieval/modern groups. Mangoe (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I did not say that JWs are outside unorthodox Christianity. My comments referred to how they are viewed by mainstream Christianity. To juxtaposition them with Islamists is valid in that it invites the question, "Why would an Islamist be excluded but not a JW seeing as they share the same views on the trinity?". Regarding your reply to my specific question, is the John 1:1c reference proof that JWs deify Jesus? Is not Moses also called a god? Are not the Judges called gods? Are not the melak (angels) also called gods? Yet nobody includes Moses in their Trinity. The Judges are not included in any pantheon that I know of. So is this really deification in the sense that mainstream Christians would understand the term or does it put Jesus more on a par with Divus Augustus? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)