Talk:Christianity

	Archives of older discussions may be found here:	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36

Please begin on Archive 32; several archives were condensed because of size

Western Culture?

Maybe I can be proved wrong on this one but I think it is unfair to say christianity is Western Culture as it is not true, as Arabs were the first christians and even ethiopians.

Secondly, Eastern Christianity was started in the first century and Roman Catholicism (the beginning of Western christianity) was founded as a religion in the fourth century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.140.99 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Originally, looking at your statement, I became a bit alarmed, as I would agree with you. However, the only thing said about Western culture is a category, that is, Christianity is part of the category on Western culture, which is true. But nowhere in the article does it claim that Christianity is a solely western phenomenon; in fact, the section History and origins makes quite clear that this is not the case.

Secondly, I think your facts are a little confused, as claiming that Catholicism started in the 4th century and Eastern Orthodoxy in the 1st century is not true. They both evolved into separate entities from the original church, slowly becoming more formal as the yeares progressed. Also, the area encompassed in the modern day by Arabs had the first believers, but Jews, the first believers did not offiliate themselves with Arabs; it would be more accurate to say Middle Easterns and Ethiopians were the first Christians. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Christianity is definitely not western culture, and should not be mentioned as a part of it [though I have no opinion at this time on the article itself], though it is a hugely popular religion in the west. Secularism seems western culture. Nonprof. Frinkus 20:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Messiah

Does Messiah mean prophet or a god (or form thereof)? It is not clear in the intorduction. Can a person be a Christian and not believe Jesus is a god or one of god's forms? Nonprof. Frinkus 20:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Good questions! Messiah means "anointed one", a Jewish term that meant basically the one to be the savior of the people; originally, this meant the Jewish people, but Christians believe that any believer is the "true Jew." The term Messiah did not originally mean God.

As for the deity question, you've stumbled onto a real ugly one; I've debated for inclusion of this, and it is included in the article, but you'll have to hunt for it. Almost all Christians do believe in the trinity, and trinitarian Christians nearly always believe that non-trinian Christians are not real Christians. However, members of the two main non-trinitarian Christian groups, the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, fiercely contest this categorization, so I guess it's left to you to decide. ;) -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe the literal translation is "dripped upon." MerricMaker 22:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Jesus never identified a "test" or "measure" for being a Christian. The closest I know of is in Matthew[1]. On the other hand, we have examples of what it takes to be saved[2] among many others. Pat speaks true, as I Latter-day Saint I firmly reject all definitions of a Christian that would not have been recognized by Jesus or Peter in their day. When the topic is limited to the words of the Savior, Redeemer, and Messiah, these little distinctions become meaningless divisions that men create to feel good about themselves and the uniqueness of "their church". I would also propose it is not for you to decide; put that judgement in the hands of the King; as for you and me, let us follow the two great commandments and be at peace. Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

And why would we limit the discussion to the words of Jesus? I thought Mormons made the Canon larger, not smaller. A.J.A. 05:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Similar to Catholics, Mormons do indeed have a larger canon; significantly larger. Then again, Sola Scriptura is not a policy of either church. However, I am not sure the conversation of canon has much to do with defining a Christian. A.J.A., you are a committed Christian, do you think that Christ is an inadequate source for defining who his a disciple, follower, or as we say today, a Christian?

This topic of who is Christian has been on my mind lately...of course the numerous times this topic comes up on this article focuses one's mind. I would say that I have changed my mind and I do not possess as narrow a definition as I once did. My conclusion is that a Christian is one who professes to follow the teachings of Christ. I have become progressively more unwilling to draw the line based upon beliefs. I have this quote from a Protestant theologian on my page; it seems appropriate:

"All theologians bring certain doctrinal presuppositions and biases to Scripture as they seek to construct from Scripture their theologies. The true Wesleyan admits this and does not make correct doctrine a condition for salvation. We understand that if our sins are forgiven at the time of our death, we will be taken to heaven, even if our theology is off base a thousand miles. We are Christians if God, for Christ's sake, forgives our sins. He is able to do this only because of the death and resurrection of the virgin-born God-man, Jesus Christ. But we do not need to believe in any given theory of the Incarnation or the Atonement in order to be forgiven through Christ." - J. Kenneth Grider

I think Grider was a very wise man. 10:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Grider's statement does seem accurate, but in my experience, all discussions related to most of Christianity vs. smaller groups tend to surround the part where Grider says "if our sins are forgiven at the time of our death......" ultimatly. Homestarmy 15:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Catholics use the LXX canon, Protestants the Hebrew canon. In both cases, we simply retain a pre-existing canon and add the New Testament.

The canon is relevant because it answers the pseudo-piety of restricting the discussion to Jesus' words. God did not give us Scriptures that consist only of Gospels. He gave us the whole Bible. Did He make a mistake? A.J.A. 17:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Pseudo-piety?!? methinks you seek to offend, but that would assume you are not operating in good-faith.

In the hopes of not feeding the possibly troll-like behavior, I'll bite; use the entire canon (though it is disputed which is the "real" canon). Your logic would seem to propose that using the canon of your choice (take your choice which one) you will come up with a definitive description of a Christain. Of course there should be no ability to interpret your chosen verses differently because it will be crystal clear to all who read them. A.J.A., sometimes I perceive your actions as being combatitive rather than constructive. Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It still surprises me that Jesus would not have been more clear about something that seems so important. If defining being a Christian is so important, would not have Jesus sought to clarify? This get rather comical to me because you can not produce a definition of Christain using the Bible. To obtain the definition you seek you will have to go to post 4th century theologies. It is interesting in acknowledging who thinks this definition has real value and import. Self-profession is inadequate, but one must support a specfic set beliefs, not stated in the Bible, to be recognized a Christian. Not even the Son of God chose that path, what makes you greater than he to play judge? Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Storm, you do realize, when people often say that so and so church isn't Christian, its not always because of lack of adherance to a mere "specific set of beliefs" formed after 400 AD, but often because of radically different beliefs concerning the nature of whom the characters in the Bible actually are. The Son of God chose a path in which He told the world whom He was specifically, so it stands to reason if somebody decides to believe in a "Jesus" whom the Bible doesn't actually talk about, then said person may as well not believe in anybody at all. The same sort of situation can be expanded to God, often resulting in more conflict between church's that leads to mainstream Christianity labelling certain groups as non-Christian. I do believe the person you quote above says "We are Christians if God, for Christ's sake, forgives our sins", and you seemed to agree with him, so was he really a "wise man", or did he consider himself "greater than He to play judge"? Homestarmy 19:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

A Christian is a (validly) baptized person; baptism comes in three forms: water, blood, and desire. Bad behavior makes someone a sinner, but still a Christian. Bad beliefs make someone a heretic, but still a Christian. Renouncing the faith makes someone an apostate, and that person is still baptized (and hence this is worse that merely being an infidel in the first place). Lostcaesar 21:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I meant more in terms of people who started with "Bad beliefs" rather than being saved beforehand :/. Homestarmy 23:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Homestar, let's stop the logical shenanigans and backflips. I do not play word games with a subject of this magnitude; it is serious to me. The issue you bring up is what the Bible says. I don't know of a church that claims to be Christian that does not base its beliefs upon the Bible. Mormons may have the Book of Mormon, but the only belief that comes immediately to mind not taught in the Bible is the lack of need for infant baptism due to the Atonement of Christ. All of LDS/Mormon doctrine on Jesus Christ and God the Father comes straight from the Bible. As always these conversations eventually turn to mush; this one is no different and we appear to have exhausted any real benefit to the intial editor that posed a question. I see no further need to contribute on this topic at this time. Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Arguing about the definition of "foo" is always a word game. In this case it's an indirect argument about who's really saved, which is why insisting Mormons are too Christian is a hobbyhorse of yours. You still think Wikipedia will somehow make Christians all say "peace, peace". A.J.A. 03:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid Storm that if you really wish me to not use logic when talking about Christianity, then i'm afraid we have reached an impasse, I will certainly not forsake the use of my brain when talking about who is Christian and who is not. The subject is too important to me. If having logical analysis enter the debate turns it into "Mush", I sure hope we have much more mush in the future, I certainly wouldn't want to participate in a debate where no side is allowed to think lest they be accused of being an overactive gymnist. (What with excessive "backflipping" and whatnot). Words have meaning, and using their definitions is no game. If determining the definition of words in the Bible counts as a word game, your church along with all others are just as guilty of playing as everyone else, since we use a Bible which has been translated into another language by looking at the definitions of words. Homestarmy 15:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Too true. Heck, some of us don't even go in for the whole Messiah thing. Instead interpreting it as a byproduct of the Gospel writers' need to keep their movement from dying out by saying that Jesus was the Messiah. Such notions haven't gone away in the last 2,000 years, they ain't going away here. MerricMaker 05:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually Merric, they did go away in the last 2,000 years. They just came back, recently, that's all. And one day they will go away again. Until then, said view gets a few pages on wikipedia =D / Lostcaesar 08:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, Jesus wasn't a theologian and the Gospels are not theological treatises. For Jesus, God is as God does. That having been said "Before Abraham was, I AM", seems to put a pretty clear perspective on the matter.

Secondly, it's arguable whether the Christian conception of Messiah necessitates being God (I would say yes, since the death of Christ is necessary for human salvation). But the Jewish idea certainly doesn't. Slac speak up! 21:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

About the Messiah question: yes, Jesus was, and still is, the Messiah. The Bible refers to Him as the Messiah many times. But what bothers me is that the question of what a Christian really is has come up. The answer to that question is simple! The word Christian means "little Christ", just like Jesus tells us to do, to be like Him. We were created in His image, after all. However, we have sinned, whereas Christ did not. So we must ask Him for forgivness for those sins, and delete them, so to speak. It says in Romans 10 that if you confess with your mouth that you believe in Him as the one true God, your place in heaven is reserved. Being a Christian is plainly: believing in Christ and the sacrifice He made for us, and striving to be like Him. It's sin corrupting peoples' minds that has brought up all this confusion and whatnot that makes Christianity seem so complicated. I think that, sometimes, we try too hard to understand what God wants to see in us; but we need to remember: His ways are not our ways. --Christknight 21:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the question of who is a Christian is not what this section was about in the beginning. However, it is not that simple as you make it and Christian doesn't mean "little Christ". It means someone in some way connected to Christos - just like e.g. a Blairite is connected to Tony Blair. A Christian is a follower of Christ - the problem is that there is disagreement about what that means, as there is disagreement about what he said and did. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction about the meaning of the word Christian. But what Christ said and did is all in the Bible. --Christknight 21:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

But what about John 21:25: "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen" Perhaps not "all", no?

Lostcaesar 21:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, LC, for that point, which I think boils down to "Is the Bible all that Jesus taught and did?" On another level, what do these words spoken by Jesus and recorded in the Bible mean? How are they to be understood? (down sometimes to the actual meaning of a word.) Of course, we can brook and come to terms with some diversity but there is a point where essentials are violated. Of course, there is also disagreement about what these are and what not. In the end, it is not WP's job to define what is and is not Christian. It simply reports on others. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but at what point do we say, "but that's too minor to consider" or "that's not Christian enough for our consideration"? Further, who makes that determination? MerricMaker 22:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That's true; who says? LC, about what Jesus did that the Bible doesn't mention: it doesn't mention them because we don't need to know them to get the point. I mean sure, the Bible doesn't tell us every last thing Jesus did, but it summarizes them. He lived on earth for thirty some years! Not even biographies on people tell every last little thing the person did in their life, only the things needed to get the point across. Str, when the Bible says something, it means what it says. It was writen by God, and I'm sure He wants us to understand, not misinterpret it. Like I said above, we let our sin get in the way of how God wants us to understand what the Bible is saying. --Christknight 23:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Who's a "real" Christian? Can an atheist join this dogpile? On second thought, courtesy suggests I withhold my personal opinion, but how's this for policy: Since Christians fight all the time about who's a "real" Christian, it's our policy to let folks self-identify as Christians and take them seriously. Jonathan Tweet 02:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

If it's any consolation, I find that most of the best theological discussions occur with atheists. If we (Christians, that is) recognize that "God" is a projection of our particular psychology, culture, and history, then wilfully set this aside, what remains? An atheist would say that this indicates an absence, the adventurous Christian would say that this is a perfect place from which to start. So don't worry, there are theistic people out there who are well-aware that "religion" is an advanced coping mechanism. The difference is that we still think there's something in that void, we're just comfortable with a certain degree self-delusion when it comes to our faith. MerricMaker 05:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to respond to what you said there, Merric, and I don't want to start another dispute. It's perfectly okay for atheists to speak out; however, the part about "'religion' is an advanced coping mechanism", I'd say, is way off. --Christknight 20:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

non-Trinitarians

I'm trying to distinguish between two closely related concepts: the Trinity and "Jesus as God." Since the Trinity treats Jesus as God, the concept that Jesus is God is often regarded as identical to trinitarianism. But heresies such as modalism square with "Jesus is God" while not being Trinitarian. Jonathan Tweet 17:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Beside the redundancy I mentioned in my edit summary, your additions were not accurate. Tertullian articulated an explicitly Trinitarian theology before Nicea. A.J.A. 17:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes Tertullian is the first to use the (Latin) word; the concept exists in earlier forms in Greek thinkers. Lostcaesar 21:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

AJA, you schooled me good on Nicea. I follow Luther's advice and "Edit boldly," and I trust I'll be forgiven when I make mistakes. LC, please favor me with a reference for the trinity earlier than Tertullian. Also, anyone know if it's the case that Tertullian's trinity left room for Arianism? Finally, you're probably going to object when I try to add something like "Secular scholars consider the trinity to be an invention of the early Christian church not present in Jesus' own teaching. By this account, all early followers of Jesus were nontrinitarians by default." So I'm just giving you a heads-up now out of courtesy. Jonathan Tweet 00:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

This addition to the Nontrinitarian section got deleted pretty quick.

Secular historians commonly consider the doctrine of the trinity to have developed over centuries[3]. By this account, the earliest followers of Jesus did not adhere to the trinity, at least not as it has come to be understood.

Comments?

It depends on what you'll accept as "the doctrine of the Trinity". I singled out Tertullian because he used (in fact, coined) exactly the same terminology used by all later Trinitarians who spoke any language influenced by Latin. But neither Tertullian nor the Nicene Fathers nor Athanasius nor the Capodocians called previous Christian theology error. Quite the contrary, they percieved themselves as defending the same body of doctrine against new challenges. And the church down through the ages (including those who don't formally accept the Creeds) has agreed with them. Now, if "secular" (secular how?) historians say otherwise, and the early Christians didn't adhere to the Trinity, we're left wondering what exactly they did adhere to. A proto-Trinitarian doctrine? I don't see that that's interestingly different from saying they were Trinitarians who hadn't needed to formulate a precise reply to Arianism yet. If not that, what? A.J.A. 06:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why it was deleted. It was obviously referenced and would seem to be a reference from a reputable web site. I suspect that someone is be overzealous. Whoever deleted should explain themselves. Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The actual quote from your reference to support your statement was: "The doctrine of the Trinity took centuries to develop, but the roots of the doctrine can be seen from the first century." Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I was the one who deleted it, but as per the citation, I think it could use to be reworded. I don't want to get into a 15 page discussion like before on other issues, but it should be carefully worded; it's the part of many Christians' faith (myself included) that the church fathers believed in a form of the trinity, even if they didn't use the word. I personally believe that biblical evidence backs me up, though I haven't the time to prove it. Yes, there were awful debates about its nature in the following centuries, but that by no means they didn't believe in it. Perhaps something like

Secular historians commonly consider the doctrine of the trinity to have developed over centuries[4]. By this account, the earliest views of Jesus varied widely among groups, and were not as strongly expressed as they are today.

You'll have to pardon my poor use of English; that didn't sound right at all, but I was trying to get more of the POV influence across. I hope you get the point. Thanks. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

For me I prefer referencing to be more clear. If the site says: " The doctrine of the Trinity took centuries to develop, but the roots of the doctrine can be seen from the first century", then say "According to religionfacts.com, the doctrine of the Trinity took centuries to develop." To say "secular historians…" is a misrepresentation of the source (can the source speak for secular historians?). To say: "the earliest followers of Jesus did not adhere to the trinity" is again unsupported by the source (though the following clause did help). Ultimately, for me, it is an inappropriate handling of the sources. I don't like sweeping claims that divide and define scholarship based on faction either. I prefer to say X scholar argued Y in his work Z – and that's it. JT, there are many history books that discuss this matter, and you seem interested. I would suggest getting one, reading through it, and contributing useful information from it, properly attributed, to the site. To want the article to say that the Trinity was an invention (by all "secular" historians, because they are the only "real" scholars since faith constitutes "bias", which is what I think lies behind your edits), and thus doing a quick internet search to find what you want to say, is a method that risks exactly what happened above: stretching a source that probably ought not be used by itself anyway.

JT, to answer your question, the earliest evidence constitutes baptismal formulae and doxologies, some included in the NT. Lostcaesar 08:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

LC, I have no doubt that you would prefer that secular challenges to Christian doctrine be portrayed narrowly (that particular scholars or web sites say something, rather than "many secular scholars" or what have you). I prefer the reverse. If it's true that secular scholars commonly say this or that, then it's a disservice to the reader to state the case so narrowly. So my question is: Is it the case that secular scholars commonly contend that the doctrine of the trinity developed over centuries? If so, why state this information more narrowly? And you're being unfair when you characterize me as saying that "all" secular scholars say this or that. As a materialist who considers human knowledge to be limited and provisional (proven every minute of every day on Wikipedia), I'd be a fool to say that "all" secular scholars held any particular POV on this issue. As for baptismal formulae and doxologies, these are compatible with Arianism, which also taught the "trinity" of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. So they hardly count as hard evidence for the trinity as it is currently understood. I'd be happy to state that he version of the trinity popular among its earliest adherents did not include the defining features of the Nicene Trinity and were compatible with ideas that would later be denounced as heresy. Jonathan Tweet 15:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

AJA, You say "A proto-Trinitarian doctrine? I don't see that that's interestingly different from saying they were Trinitarians who hadn't needed to formulate a precise reply to Arianism yet. If not that, what?" I say it was a proto-Trinitarian doctrine that was compatible with Arianism (and with LDS) because it did not specify the equality, co-eternity, same-substance-ness, or three-in-one nature of the Trinity. The proto-trinitarianism of the first followers of Jesus (and maybe not the very first, since the historical Jesus never mentioned the trinity as far as seculars historians can demonstrate) acknowledged the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost but did not spell out their triune nature as later defined. In fact, some early Christian writing depicts Jesus as lesser than the Father and as created (the firstborn of all creation). Thus, the proto-Trinity is sometimes so different from the Nicean Trinity that it would have been denounced as heresy in the 4th century. Jonathan Tweet 15:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Patstuart, thanks for working with me here despite our fundamental differences in worldview. I understand that your faith tells you that the earliest followers of Jesus were trinitarians, but we're sharing Wikipedia with Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, whose faith tells them the opposite. I can accept the idea that beliefs varied widely, but in a section on nontrinitarianism I want to treat nontrinitarianism more directly. We could say, "By this account, the earliest views of Jesus varied widely among groups, were not as strongly expressed as they are today, and included views that would not pass muster as properly Trinitarian by the standards of the Nicene Creed." Jonathan Tweet 15:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

All, I might also be happy with something like this, "Secular scholars commonly assert that Jesus did not teach the Trinity. By this account, his earliest followers were nontrinitarians by default." Jonathan Tweet 15:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It's one thing to say the doctrine (or maybe "understanding" or "articulation") of the trinity developed over centuries. It is another to say "the earliest followers of Jesus did not adhere to the trinity". That is unsupported by the source cited. The historical development of the doctrine of the trinity as understood by different schools I think is a level of detail that belongs on some other page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

All right, we have been through this before but for the newcomers: there is no such thing as a "secular scholar" as opposed to a religious/believing/etc. scholar. A historian is a historian, regardless of the fact that every one has certain beliefs.

Regarding the sentence: "Secular historians commonly consider the doctrine of the trinity to have developed over centuries [5]. By this account, the earliest followers of Jesus did not adhere to the trinity, at least not as it has come to be understood." is clearly OR and POV pushing. Though the first part is indeed referenced, the second part (unreferenced and a certain POV) is an unwarranted inference from the first, even if we didn't knew about the addition: "but the roots of the doctrine can be seen from the first century.", which clearly contradicts the inference.

The Trinity as such is already included in the Trinitarian formula at the end of the Gospel according to Matthew, which makes it at least as old as the year 90. The idea of Jesus being one with the father and of being divine is included in the Gospel according to John, which makes it at least as old as the year 100. Now, the "fineprint" of the relationship between God's oneness and the Jesus' being one with the father is the issue debated and developed throughout the first centuries. Nicaea was a decisive step in that development but it did only conform something in agreement with the the mainstream view (e.g. Tertullian) of the preceding centuries.Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Str, I really do enjoy your comments; it helps greatly to point out that there are only historians. Yes, they may come with a POV, but a good historian writes from as objective a position as possible.

Jonathan, as you can see, writing from a minority position is not the easiest thing to do, particularly when the topic is religious in nature. I support the direction you are going and it should be mentioned in the article. These editors are all good and have a deep understanding of religion; some are certainly more...dogmatic than others. However, they all have demonstrated an ability to work cooperatively. You did well to come to the discussion page first and it is appropriate to be bold. As you continue to edit, I strongly recommend you only edit while providing excellent references for every statement that could be interpreted as unorthodox. Upon doing so, continue to seek input from them. Cheers. Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I think challenges to Christianity should be protrayed accurately and charitably, and this means being specific in regards to references. As per your second comment, my view is that the doctrine of the Trinity developed as it became necessary to respond to heretical teachings with increased percision in articularing the dogma — the doxologies and baptismal formulae are more simple because there was no need to employ highly techincal language until someone (like Arius) came along and tried to provide an interpretation of said beliefs inconsitent with what Jesus had taught to his apostles and what they passed on to their sucessors, the bishops. Lostcaesar 17:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Replying to Jonathan Tweet down here: whether their "proto-Trinitarian" doctrine was compatible with Arianism was precisely the point of the controversies, and the church decided (rightly) that Arianism was not compatible with Scripture or the faith of the church. For example, union with an exalted creature would grant participation in an exalted creaturely nature, but 2 Peter 1:4 says believers partake of the Divine nature. Arianism therefore does not and cannot go as far as Scripture goes. If you want to imply early Trinitarianism was compatible with Arianism, you'll have to show something wrong with this reasoning, not merely mention technical expressions which hadn't been coined yet. That implication, as Str1977 pointed out, is not merely a description of what the source says -- it's your opinion that less articulated forms must be compatible with Arianism, and you must address Athanasius's arguments for why this is not the case. (And even if it were, a failure on the part of a sources to interact with the arguments used against Arianism seriously impeaches that source.)

Reference to Mormonism here is merely anachronistic.

Origen, while influential in many ways, is not a typical representative of early Christian faith. A.J.A. 21:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, how about this: "According to the Jesus Seminar, Jesus did not claim to be God and did not teach the trintiy[insert references here]. By this account, Jesus was a nontrinitarian, as were his first followers." It's just two little sentences, it's narrowly construed, and Christians can readily dismiss this information as a sad reflection of our ungodly times and the depths to which Satan had brought academia. Jonathan Tweet 02:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not good, because many many people don't believe that, in particular a good chunk (if not most) of Christendom. Inserting a doctrine according to what some people decided at a seminar is not good, especially if it doesn't have secular or non-secular consensus. I could just as easily say, "According to Focus on the Family, the trinity was a concept clearly taught by Jesus, and non-trinitarian groups are therefore non-Christians." LC's proposal way up there was the best: "The doctrine of the Trinity took centuries to develop, but the roots of the doctrine can be seen from the first century". -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The section that is being proposed for the edit is nontrinitarians. Why is there any issue with the edit? Most of you feel that nontrinits are not even Christian! Further, the Jesus Seminar was not just any old seminar, but a group of 200 academics skilled in the New Testament. If the references support the statement we do not just willy-nilly throw it out because we "believe" the statement to be false. This falls under WP:NPOV and should be added without further conflict. Is the statement an accurate reference? Does the statement enhance the section? Is it a view that is held by a significant academic group that are also nontrinits? Please let's just forget our personal doctrinal sacred cows and approach this topic from an objective position. This one section is not about making orthodox Christians happy and written in a manner that maintains their comfort.

Jonathan, could you possibly pull back the "Jesus and his disciples were not T's" statement, unless it is a direct quote? If it is a direct quote, it should be allowed; if not, strive to not make it as offensive to those on the other side. Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Storm Rider, I don't have a quote of the Jesus Seminar saying that Jesus was not a trinitarian. The JS's first big book, The Five Gospels, is about what (they think) Jesus said, not how that squares with certain doctrines that may or may not have developed after the Great Apostasy. I've got the JS's book that describes Jesus' claims to be God or the Messiah as inauthentic, and a web site [6] that summarizes the findings, including that Jesus didn't claim to be God. I think it's fair to say that if Jesus teach his followers that he was God, then that discounts him (and his very first followers) as a trinitarians. (I won't bring up here the nontrinitarian Bible verses that also demonstrate that NT writers didn't equate Jesus with Elohim.) I don't understand why trinitarians would find this statement offensive. It's terse, but I'm trying to be concise so that the concept doesn't get more space than it deserves. I'm not offended when an article says "Christians think atheists are going to Hell" because it's a plain fact (that Christians believe it). Christians shouldn't be offended if I write that certain scholars says Jesus wasn't a trinitarian. That's also a plain fact. There's current scholarship that depicts Jesus and his first followers as not trinitarian. I'm trying to state it without overstating it or rubbing it in. If you feel as though you can rewrite it so that it has the same content but doesn't rile people as much, that would be a big service all around. Jonathan Tweet 06:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

File:Paul verhoeven.jpg

Skilled New Testament scholar Paul Verhoeven

It appears that Jonathan Tweet is grasping at straws to get Jesus/the Apostles/early Christian somehow listed as non-Trinitarians. No, that's not okay, length and dissmissibility notwithstanding.

We're not required to include everything that can be referenced.

Storm, from now on I'll call you a Morm. A.J.A. 06:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

AJA, I thought that I had been very clear about my convictions. If not, I will be perfectly clear. I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; a Mormon. I have been a life long student of religion, both Christian and many, many others. As an editor of WIKI I strive to promote articles that are not written from a position of "truth", but rather NPOV and balance. Having said that, I acknowledge that I have an opinion and my views can be colored by them. I also can be short of patience with others. I particularly have a problem with other editors when I feel they are not being fair about acknowledging their own convictions and how it affects their editing. You, more than others, have seen my shortcomings because they have been directed at you in the past. Sometimes I think you confuse what you view as truth and the purpose of WIKI. It is okay for WIKI to "say" things that are not within your parameters of truth. It will not change the reality of your truth, but it will allow others to share the reality of their truth. This topic is not "owned" by any Christian or group. I digress. If you want to call me Mormon; feel free, but I would prefer Latter-day Saint or LDS for short.

You are correct, just because it is referenced we are not forced to use it. However, if it adds and improves the article we certainly have a good reason other than our own convictions for rejecting it. Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to call you a Mormon, I want to call you a Morm. If I can be a Trinit, you can be a Morm.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a discussion forum. It is therefore not a place to for people to "share the reality of their truth". Nor a place for people to try slipping in memes about Jesus not being Trinitarian, whether for secular reasons or Morm ones. Categorizing Jesus as a non-Trinitarian, even with attribution, is POV. I'd rather delete the section altogether than include Jesus in it. A.J.A. 06:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me see if I can bridge this thing. The birth of the term Trinity rests with Tertullian. The concept of the Trinity reached its earliest form through the work of the Cappadocian fathers. However, the Bible canon exists as it does today because it was found over time to be a good collection of texts. Similarly, the Trinity developed over time and Christian theology grew around it over time. While we can be aware that Trinity is an organizational framework, we must also remember that it is the apparatus through which most Christians experience their faith and attempt to understand God. It is not the only way in which one might approach God, it is a method. To say that God exists as Trinity is not unlike the ancient Jews saying God lives in the holy of holies. It is, like all frameworks, an attempt to encompass something which far too expansive to be contained in a theory. But we try anyway, and should continue to do so. To say "God is Trinity" limits God, to say that God is anything limits God. In applying these frameworks, the framework must never become greater than the reality it is designed to highlight. It is then that you have an idol on your hands. MerricMaker 06:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

AJA, I am not categorizing Jesus as a nontrinitarian. I am merely reporting that the Jesus Seminar portrays him as a nontrinitarian. It is a fact that the Jesus Seminar so reports him, and it is relevant to the history of nontrinitarianism. So far no one has pointed out an error in this formulation: "According to the Jesus Seminar, Jesus did not claim to be God and did not teach the trintiy[insert references here]. By this account, Jesus was a nontrinitarian, as were his first followers." Since no one's pointed out an error (other than that they disagree with the Jesus Seminar), let's put it in the text. Alternatively, I'd also be happy with "According to the Jesus Seminar, Jesus was a mortal who did not claim to be God and did not teach the trintiy[insert references here]. By this account, Jesus was a nontrinitarian." As an attempt to accommodate trinitarians, I'd even settle for something like "According to the controversial Jesus Seminar, Jesus did not claim to be God and did not teach the trintiy[insert references here]. This account, viable only after rejecting much of what the Gospels record Jesus as saying, portrays Jesus as a nontrinitarian himself." That's a spin job, but I can live with it. Jonathan Tweet 14:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not clear to me that the opinions of the Jesus Seminar are notable enough to include on this page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Tom, then let's keep the reference short, like maybe two sentences. Jonathan Tweet 14:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's put it somewhere else, like Trinity or Nontrinitarianism. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The sentence "According to the Jesus Seminar, Jesus did not claim to be God and did not teach the trinity" seems like an accurate representation of the source. The phrase, "By this account, Jesus was a nontrinitarian, as were his first followers" is a non sequitur (why couldn't his first followers be Trinitarians?). The phrase is relevant to the section on non-Trinitarians. If we deem the JS a scholarly and notable source, then there is no obstacle to the first sentence's inclusion. It seems clear that the JS is notable. The standard of scholarship, however, is I think worthy of discussion, and this would be a good discussion to have all across the board since it affects certain other articles. The notability of the JS, to my knowledge, is more like "infamy" in that they are despised by "Conservative Christians" and, in my opinion, relish in that fact and take it as a badge of honor. None of the history books I have read have referenced the JS. However, other than this observation I must admit my ignorance concerning the JS in general, and do not at present consider myself knowledgeable enough to evaluate their level of scholarship (though the fact that they consider the Gospel of Thomas on par with the canonical Gospels insofar as historical sources are concerned is a sign of poor scholarship to me). Lostcaesar 14:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

LC, let's drop the reference to Jesus' first followers since it's hypothetically possible that they believed in the Trinity even though Jesus never preached it. My latest stab: "According to the controversial Jesus Seminar, Jesus did not claim to be God and did not teach the trintiy[insert references here]. This account, viable only after rejecting much of what the Gospels record Jesus as saying, portrays Jesus as a nontrinitarian himself." FTR, the JS doesn't consider Thomas to be equal to the four gospels, It considers Thomas to be superior to the mostly ahistorical Gospel of John. The historical inferiority of John is a common theme in Biblical scholarship. Jonathan Tweet 15:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that if any reference to the Jesus Seminar is included it should go in the criticism and controversy section.

JT: Your claim that it's relevant to the history of non-Trinitarianism is exactly the problem: that claim is implicitly made simply by including it. The Jesus Seminary itself is notable only for the attention the media gave them in the late 20th century, hardly relevant to the history of non-Trinitarianism. So if it's relevant to the history of non-Trinitarianism, it's because you're classifying Jesus as part of that history. Even stating the attribution, you're just implicitly endorsing the source as an accurate description.

LS: Their procedure involves dropping colored balls into a tub. A.J.A. 18:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

More from Aminz

Aminz has made some additions and though I think that these are much too detailed for this overview article on all of Christianity, I can live with them on grounds of factual accuracy and NPOV. However, the following I excised:

The position of unorthodox Christians and heretical Christians under Muslim rule was in most respects better than that under the Christian rule.

Apart from using the unword "unorthodox" at all and also side by side by the synonymous "heretical", this information is completely irrelevant as

• this sentence deals with the situation under Islamic rule and not with Roman rule
• we cannot and should not single out this one for comparison (some notes on non-Christian persecution of Jews would certainly be in order then, wouldn't it)
• if we did we would also have to say something about the orthodox Christians
• intra-Christian persecution for heresy is not the topic of this section but dealt with later in the "by Christians" section. Heretics were not persecuted for being Christian but for being heretics (and, contrary to Aminz' view, being a heretic means being a Christian, albeit one with the wrong doctrine)

All these considerations of course fall apart once we set our sights at making Islam look better for apologetic reasons. But this is not what WP is supposed to do.

Finally, the version completely erradicates any mentioning of active persecution of Christians under Islam. This must and will be rectified. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Str1977. I'm a bit unsure why you removed a referenced statement, while saying "why this material which is referenced after all was removed is beyond me." Were you referring to an earlier edit that I missed in the history? Justin Eiler 00:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Str1977, okay. I will start another paragraph and explain the blood thirsty-ness, exclusiveness, and savage behaviour of orthodox Christians in power towards non-orthodox christians (call them heretics if you wish). --Aminz 00:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This issue is already covered. Conciseness is a foreign word to you, isn't it! Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean "There was some persecution of Christians after the French Revolution during the attempted". Huh. It wasn't *some* persecution and it wasn't only after French Revolution. --Aminz 01:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Str1977, in your latest edit, you deleted a reference to Muslim violence against Christians being rare, an assertion that was referenced. Do you take issue with the reference? Jonathan Tweet 00:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, good luck, and keep your head down. The folks watching over this page are good at what they do. For my part, a section on "persecution" on the Christianity page ought to cover persecution of Christians by Christians. There's a fair bit of material there. Maybe you can get the Protestants to help you with persecution of Protestants by Catholics and the Catholics to help you with the reverse. Jonathan Tweet 02:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

There is of course a whole page on Persecution of Christians. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Christians persecuting heretics is irrelevant to this section. Neither is this section about making one group look good or bad. It doesn't even need to say whether persection itself is bad. I myself think we might be better to drop the whole section. If it is too specific to be included in the gloss on the history of Christianity then it doesn't need to be said here. Lostcaesar 07:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Jonathan, this issue is already covered in the section, in another subsection (though originally there were no subsections). One can see it this way or that way, but that is the way the editors of this article structured it a long time ago and I think it the better choice, as those persecuted heretics (I use that term, Aminz, because it is concise .. in the article we may have to look for ways to dePOV it) were not persecuted because of their Christianity but because of intra-Christian disputes.

Justin, we can look for ways to include the "rareness", in which there is some truth though the wording downplays the persecutions that did occur, but certainly not in a sentence that is more concerned with the rareness than with the actual persecutions.

I also restored the logical sequence: we first talk about social and legal disabilities, about restrictions on religious practice, then on the symbolic nature of some disablities and then about the (however rare) persecution. We must not jump around talking about this and that and then about this again.

Aminz, I don't understand your remarks about the French Revolution. This sentence talks about the FR and the persecution associated with it (and the some was a compromise) and not about later events. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Christians persecuting heretics doesn't belong in "persecution of Christians." It belongs in "Persecution by Christians." Given that the topic of this article is long, and the issue of persecution is narrow (though important), I'd like the Persecution section to contain more material with fewer words. One paragraph or list for "of" and another for "by." Currently, this section doesn't point out the formative nature of martyrdom in early Christianity and doesn't mention the expulsion of Jews from Spain or the Inquisition. I'd like to trim the section down, hit more topics, and let the reader explore details on other pages. Jonathan Tweet 14:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with JT; Lostcaesar 14:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

JT, I am all for "more material with fewer words", which is actually why I opposed Aminz' edits in the first place. Increasing downtoning and downplaying passages for Islam requires some corrective passages as well to keep the whole thing balanced and accurate and suddenly the section is bloated.

A treatment of "the formative of martyrdom" is more than welcome. However, the expulsion of the Jews is too singular an event to deserve a mentioning, while the "anti-Jewish violence" in general is already mentioned. As for the Inquisition, it is also already addressed implicitely via the surpression of heretical groups, but if you wish the Inquisition can be named explicitely.

As for trimming the section down, my first idea would be to throw out the Hypatia example, which is really overkill but unfortunately is dear to many editors of an atheist bent.

LC, some explanations for my corrections:

• The Jewish exception might not be relevant (either here or in the Theodosius sentence in the history section) but without it the sentence is factually wrong.
• I removed the reference to Roman law as in general Roman did not actually do that.
• I restated that Christianity was declared illegal, possibly by Nero and definitely by Trajan, to include all these persecutions prior to Decius, who started a whole new kind of persecution.
• I removed the term "sporadic" as it is inaccurate: apart from the several big waves of persecution, Christians had to deal with the threat all the time. Also inaccurate was that the persecution of Diocletian was the big exception to only local persecution. Decius and Valerian's persecutions were just as universal.
• The part of treason I took out because it onsidedly took the Emperor's position that this actually was treason. Those persecuted would have different things to say. I don't think that this was your intention, LC.

It is unfortunate that lately, on many occasions and various sides an apologetical note has entered WP. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not so sure the sentence is factually wrong without the clause about the Jews. The Jews only got this exemption after being persecuted themselves. I remember Philo's little story about the treatment of Jews at Caligula's court.

As per Roman law, I suppose it depends what you count as constituting Roman law, but I would think Trajan's reply to Pliny would constitute legal precedent since at this time imperial fiat was akin to law. Here I think we are saying the same thing, but you prefer "declared illegal" — any difference there is splitting hairs.

Were persecutions sporadic? There is evidence that Christians worshiped publicly without much harassment at times, depending on local circumstances, but I suppose we need not get into that here. As for treason, all I meant to say was that those put to death were done so under the charge of treason, i.e. disloyalty to the State. This is merely the reverse of refusing to worship the emperor, which as you know was a social mechanism of cohesion and unity in a very sprawling and diverse empire. In other words, failure to worship the gods entailed calamities like earthquakes and plagues, and thus such an act was a public threat — understood in terms of the imperial cult it was treason.

All that said, I don't mind any of your edits. I was just trying to make it a little more readable, and none of your changes affected that. Really I wanted to comment here to make sure that there was not some historical fact that I was unaware of (and if there is, please call it to my attention; and I thank you for reminding me other the universal persecutions pre-Diocletian).

However, in close I do want to raise the point that I feel the sentence on the Edict of Milan is a dated treatment of the material. There was a decree prior to that edict which also made Christianity legal, if I am not mistaken, and in my understanding of the secondary sources the edit is no longer given that sort of watershed status as it once was. Thoughts? Lostcaesar 18:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• The Jews were exempt because they were not Romans (until Caracalla). This exemption was threatened at times but it was accepted when the Jews like all other free inhabitants of the Empire received citizenship. However, the illegal status of Christianity was law at least since Trajan (who actually only confirmed an earlier practice in his rescript to Pliny).
• With Roman law, I meant that the duty for every subject to sacrifice to the Emperor or the gods was non-existent in traditional Roman law. Of course, Trajan's rescript made Christianity illegal (> Roman Law) and Decius' edict made sacrifices compulsory (> Roman Law).
• "sporadic" in my opinion means very rare and scattered and I don't think that is accurate.

I also want to say that I agree with your aiming at readibility and once in a while such clean ups are needed, after all this back and forth between different editors. My corrections were indeed just that: corrections to an otherwise valuable edit.

As for the "Edict" of Milan, I think it is accurate to say that it ended the persecution (with the exception of that under Licinius 324), which puts it contrast to the edict of Galerius, which issued toleration but was later disregarded by Galerius' sucessor. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. I was referring to Jews not merely in Palestine, e.g. those in Alexandria (like Philo) who were persecuted before the exception was given — I don't know how this relates to the Constitutio Antoniniana. Lostcaesar 19:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking about them too. The Exception is a matter of practice based on the Jews being a different people with different customs. But of course the issue of whether this extended to Jews outside their homeland was controversial. As for the Constitutio it made all free inhabitants of the Empire Roman citizens. After that no one could say the Jews are a different people from the Romans - however, at that time, the exception was well accepted. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

non-Trinitarians

- I'm trying to distinguish between two closely related concepts: the Trinity and "Jesus as God." Since the Trinity treats Jesus as God, the concept that Jesus is God is often regarded as identical to trinitarianism. But heresies such as modalism square with "Jesus is God" while not being Trinitarian. Jonathan Tweet 17:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC) - :Beside the redundancy I mentioned in my edit summary, your additions were not accurate. Tertullian articulated an explicitly Trinitarian theology before Nicea. A.J.A. 17:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC) - ::Yes Tertullian is the first to use the (Latin) word; the concept exists in earlier forms in Greek thinkers. Lostcaesar 21:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC) - :::AJA, you schooled me good on Nicea. I follow Luther's advice and "Edit boldly," and I trust I'll be forgiven when I make mistakes. LC, please favor me with a reference for the trinity earlier than Tertullian. Also, anyone know if it's the case that Tertullian's trinity left room for Arianism? Finally, you're probably going to object when I try to add something like "Secular scholars consider the trinity to be an invention of the early Christian church not present in Jesus' own teaching. By this account, all early followers of Jesus were nontrinitarians by default." So I'm just giving you a heads-up now out of courtesy. Jonathan Tweet 00:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC) - This addition to the Nontrinitarian section got deleted pretty quick.

-

Secular historians commonly consider the doctrine of the trinity to have developed over centuries[7]. By this account, the earliest followers of Jesus did not adhere to the trinity, at least not as it has come to be understood.

- Comments? - - ::It depends on what you'll accept as "the doctrine of the Trinity". I singled out Tertullian because he used (in fact, coined) exactly the same terminology used by all later Trinitarians who spoke any language influenced by Latin. But neither Tertullian nor the Nicene Fathers nor Athanasius nor the Capodocians called previous Christian theology error. Quite the contrary, they percieved themselves as defending the same body of doctrine against new challenges. And the church down through the ages (including those who don't formally accept the Creeds) has agreed with them. Now, if "secular" (secular how?) historians say otherwise, and the early Christians didn't adhere to the Trinity, we're left wondering what exactly they did adhere to. A proto-Trinitarian doctrine? I don't see that that's interestingly different from saying they were Trinitarians who hadn't needed to formulate a precise reply to Arianism yet. If not that, what? A.J.A. 06:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC) - - :I don't understand why it was deleted. It was obviously referenced and would seem to be a reference from a reputable web site. I suspect that someone is be overzealous. Whoever deleted should explain themselves. Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC) - :The actual quote from your reference to support your statement was: "The doctrine of the Trinity took centuries to develop, but the roots of the doctrine can be seen from the first century." Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC) - ::I don't think I was the one who deleted it, but as per the citation, I think it could use to be reworded. I don't want to get into a 15 page discussion like before on other issues, but it should be carefully worded; it's the part of many Christians' faith (myself included) that the church fathers believed in a form of the trinity, even if they didn't use the word. I personally believe that biblical evidence backs me up, though I haven't the time to prove it. Yes, there were awful debates about its nature in the following centuries, but that by no means they didn't believe in it. Perhaps something like

- ::

Secular historians commonly consider the doctrine of the trinity to have developed over centuries[8]. By this account, the earliest views of Jesus varied widely among groups, and were not as strongly expressed as they are today.

- ::You'll have to pardon my poor use of English; that didn't sound right at all, but I was trying to get more of the POV influence across. I hope you get the point. Thanks. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC) - - For me I prefer referencing to be more clear. If the site says: " The doctrine of the Trinity took centuries to develop, but the roots of the doctrine can be seen from the first century", then say "According to religionfacts.com, the doctrine of the Trinity took centuries to develop." To say "secular historians…" is a misrepresentation of the source (can the source speak for secular historians?). To say: "the earliest followers of Jesus did not adhere to the trinity" is again unsupported by the source (though the following clause did help). Ultimately, for me, it is an inappropriate handling of the sources. I don't like sweeping claims that divide and define scholarship based on faction either. I prefer to say X scholar argued Y in his work Z – and that's it. JT, there are many history books that discuss this matter, and you seem interested. I would suggest getting one, reading through it, and contributing useful information from it, properly attributed, to the site. To want the article to say that the Trinity was an invention (by all "secular" historians, because they are the only "real" scholars since faith constitutes "bias", which is what I think lies behind your edits), and thus doing a quick internet search to find what you want to say, is a method that risks exactly what happened above: stretching a source that probably ought not be used by itself anyway. - - JT, to answer your question, the earliest evidence constitutes baptismal formulae and doxologies, some included in the NT. Lostcaesar 08:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC) - - :LC, I have no doubt that you would prefer that secular challenges to Christian doctrine be portrayed narrowly (that particular scholars or web sites say something, rather than "many secular scholars" or what have you). I prefer the reverse. If it's true that secular scholars commonly say this or that, then it's a disservice to the reader to state the case so narrowly. So my question is: Is it the case that secular scholars commonly contend that the doctrine of the trinity developed over centuries? If so, why state this information more narrowly? And you're being unfair when you characterize me as saying that "all" secular scholars say this or that. As a materialist who considers human knowledge to be limited and provisional (proven every minute of every day on Wikipedia), I'd be a fool to say that "all" secular scholars held any particular POV on this issue. As for baptismal formulae and doxologies, these are compatible with Arianism, which also taught the "trinity" of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. So they hardly count as hard evidence for the trinity as it is currently understood. I'd be happy to state that he version of the trinity popular among its earliest adherents did not include the defining features of the Nicene Trinity and were compatible with ideas that would later be denounced as heresy. Jonathan Tweet 15:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC) - - :AJA, You say "A proto-Trinitarian doctrine? I don't see that that's interestingly different from saying they were Trinitarians who hadn't needed to formulate a precise reply to Arianism yet. If not that, what?" I say it was a proto-Trinitarian doctrine that was compatible with Arianism (and with LDS) because it did not specify the equality, co-eternity, same-substance-ness, or three-in-one nature of the Trinity. The proto-trinitarianism of the first followers of Jesus (and maybe not the very first, since the historical Jesus never mentioned the trinity as far as seculars historians can demonstrate) acknowledged the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost but did not spell out their triune nature as later defined. In fact, some early Christian writing depicts Jesus as lesser than the Father and as created (the firstborn of all creation). Thus, the proto-Trinity is sometimes so different from the Nicean Trinity that it would have been denounced as heresy in the 4th century. Jonathan Tweet 15:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC) - - :Patstuart, thanks for working with me here despite our fundamental differences in worldview. I understand that your faith tells you that the earliest followers of Jesus were trinitarians, but we're sharing Wikipedia with Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, whose faith tells them the opposite. I can accept the idea that beliefs varied widely, but in a section on nontrinitarianism I want to treat nontrinitarianism more directly. We could say, "By this account, the earliest views of Jesus varied widely among groups, were not as strongly expressed as they are today, and included views that would not pass muster as properly Trinitarian by the standards of the Nicene Creed." Jonathan Tweet 15:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC) - - :All, I might also be happy with something like this, "Secular scholars commonly assert that Jesus did not teach the Trinity. By this account, his earliest followers were nontrinitarians by default." Jonathan Tweet 15:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC) - - It's one thing to say the doctrine (or maybe "understanding" or "articulation") of the trinity developed over centuries. It is another to say "the earliest followers of Jesus did not adhere to the trinity". That is unsupported by the source cited. The historical development of the doctrine of the trinity as understood by different schools I think is a level of detail that belongs on some other page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC) - :All right, we have been through this before but for the newcomers: there is no such thing as a "secular scholar" as opposed to a religious/believing/etc. scholar. A historian is a historian, regardless of the fact that every one has certain beliefs. - :Regarding the sentence: "Secular historians commonly consider the doctrine of the trinity to have developed over centuries [9]. By this account, the earliest followers of Jesus did not adhere to the trinity, at least not as it has come to be understood." is clearly OR and POV pushing. Though the first part is indeed referenced, the second part (unreferenced and a certain POV) is an unwarranted inference from the first, even if we didn't knew about the addition: "but the roots of the doctrine can be seen from the first century.", which clearly contradicts the inference. - :The Trinity as such is already included in the Trinitarian formula at the end of the Gospel according to Matthew, which makes it at least as old as the year 90. The idea of Jesus being one with the father and of being divine is included in the Gospel according to John, which makes it at least as old as the year 100. Now, the "fineprint" of the relationship between God's oneness and the Jesus' being one with the father is the issue debated and developed throughout the first centuries. Nicaea was a decisive step in that development but it did only conform something in agreement with the the mainstream view (e.g. Tertullian) of the preceding centuries.Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC) - ::Str, I really do enjoy your comments; it helps greatly to point out that there are only historians. Yes, they may come with a POV, but a good historian writes from as objective a position as possible. - ::Jonathan, as you can see, writing from a minority position is not the easiest thing to do, particularly when the topic is religious in nature. I support the direction you are going and it should be mentioned in the article. These editors are all good and have a deep understanding of religion; some are certainly more...dogmatic than others. However, they all have demonstrated an ability to work cooperatively. You did well to come to the discussion page first and it is appropriate to be bold. As you continue to edit, I strongly recommend you only edit while providing excellent references for every statement that could be interpreted as unorthodox. Upon doing so, continue to seek input from them. Cheers. Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC) - - I think challenges to Christianity should be protrayed accurately and charitably, and this means being specific in regards to references. As per your second comment, my view is that the doctrine of the Trinity developed as it became necessary to respond to heretical teachings with increased percision in articularing the dogma — the doxologies and baptismal formulae are more simple because there was no need to employ highly techincal language until someone (like Arius) came along and tried to provide an interpretation of said beliefs inconsitent with what Jesus had taught to his apostles and what they passed on to their sucessors, the bishops. Lostcaesar 17:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC) - - Replying to Jonathan Tweet down here: whether their "proto-Trinitarian" doctrine was compatible with Arianism was precisely the point of the controversies, and the church decided (rightly) that Arianism was not compatible with Scripture or the faith of the church. For example, union with an exalted creature would grant participation in an exalted creaturely nature, but 2 Peter 1:4 says believers partake of the Divine nature. Arianism therefore does not and cannot go as far as Scripture goes. If you want to imply early Trinitarianism was compatible with Arianism, you'll have to show something wrong with this reasoning, not merely mention technical expressions which hadn't been coined yet. That implication, as Str1977 pointed out, is not merely a description of what the source says -- it's your opinion that less articulated forms must be compatible with Arianism, and you must address Athanasius's arguments for why this is not the case. (And even if it were, a failure on the part of a sources to interact with the arguments used against Arianism seriously impeaches that source.) - - Reference to Mormonism here is merely anachronistic. - - Origen, while influential in many ways, is not a typical representative of early Christian faith. A.J.A. 21:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC) - - :OK, how about this: "According to the Jesus Seminar, Jesus did not claim to be God and did not teach the trintiy[insert references here]. By this account, Jesus was a nontrinitarian, as were his first followers." It's just two little sentences, it's narrowly construed, and Christians can readily dismiss this information as a sad reflection of our ungodly times and the depths to which Satan had brought academia. Jonathan Tweet 02:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC) - That's not good, because many many people don't believe that, in particular a good chunk (if not most) of Christendom. Inserting a doctrine according to what some people decided at a seminar is not good, especially if it doesn't have secular or non-secular consensus. I could just as easily say, "According to Focus on the Family, the trinity was a concept clearly taught by Jesus, and non-trinitarian groups are therefore non-Christians." LC's proposal way up there was the best: "The doctrine of the Trinity took centuries to develop, but the roots of the doctrine can be seen from the first century". -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC) - ::The section that is being proposed for the edit is nontrinitarians. Why is there any issue with the edit? Most of you feel that nontrinits are not even Christian! Further, the Jesus Seminar was not just any old seminar, but a group of 200 academics skilled in the New Testament. If the references support the statement we do not just willy-nilly throw it out because we "believe" the statement to be false. This falls under WP:NPOV and should be added without further conflict. Is the statement an accurate reference? Does the statement enhance the section? Is it a view that is held by a significant academic group that are also nontrinits? Please let's just forget our personal doctrinal sacred cows and approach this topic from an objective position. This one section is not about making orthodox Christians happy and written in a manner that maintains their comfort. - ::Jonathan, could you possibly pull back the "Jesus and his disciples were not T's" statement, unless it is a direct quote? If it is a direct quote, it should be allowed; if not, strive to not make it as offensive to those on the other side. Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC) - :::Storm Rider, I don't have a quote of the Jesus Seminar saying that Jesus was not a trinitarian. The JS's first big book, The Five Gospels, is about what (they think) Jesus said, not how that squares with certain doctrines that may or may not have developed after the Great Apostasy. I've got the JS's book that describes Jesus' claims to be God or the Messiah as inauthentic, and a web site [10] that summarizes the findings, including that Jesus didn't claim to be God. I think it's fair to say that if Jesus teach his followers that he was God, then that discounts him (and his very first followers) as a trinitarians. (I won't bring up here the nontrinitarian Bible verses that also demonstrate that NT writers didn't equate Jesus with Elohim.) I don't understand why trinitarians would find this statement offensive. It's terse, but I'm trying to be concise so that the concept doesn't get more space than it deserves. I'm not offended when an article says "Christians think atheists are going to Hell" because it's a plain fact (that Christians believe it). Christians shouldn't be offended if I write that certain scholars says Jesus wasn't a trinitarian. That's also a plain fact. There's current scholarship that depicts Jesus and his first followers as not trinitarian. I'm trying to state it without overstating it or rubbing it in. If you feel as though you can rewrite it so that it has the same content but doesn't rile people as much, that would be a big service all around. Jonathan Tweet 06:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC) -

-

File:Paul verhoeven.jpg

Skilled New Testament scholar Paul Verhoeven

- It appears that Jonathan Tweet is grasping at straws to get Jesus/the Apostles/early Christian somehow listed as non-Trinitarians. No, that's not okay, length and dissmissibility notwithstanding. - - We're not required to include everything that can be referenced. - - Storm, from now on I'll call you a Morm. A.J.A. 06:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC) - ::AJA, I thought that I had been very clear about my convictions. If not, I will be perfectly clear. I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; a Mormon. I have been a life long student of religion, both Christian and many, many others. As an editor of WIKI I strive to promote articles that are not written from a position of "truth", but rather NPOV and balance. Having said that, I acknowledge that I have an opinion and my views can be colored by them. I also can be short of patience with others. I particularly have a problem with other editors when I feel they are not being fair about acknowledging their own convictions and how it affects their editing. You, more than others, have seen my shortcomings because they have been directed at you in the past. Sometimes I think you confuse what you view as truth and the purpose of WIKI. It is okay for WIKI to "say" things that are not within your parameters of truth. It will not change the reality of your truth, but it will allow others to share the reality of their truth. This topic is not "owned" by any Christian or group. I digress. If you want to call me Mormon; feel free, but I would prefer Latter-day Saint or LDS for short. - ::You are correct, just because it is referenced we are not forced to use it. However, if it adds and improves the article we certainly have a good reason other than our own convictions for rejecting it. Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC) - :::I don't want to call you a Mormon, I want to call you a Morm. If I can be a Trinit, you can be a Morm. - :::Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a discussion forum. It is therefore not a place to for people to "share the reality of their truth". Nor a place for people to try slipping in memes about Jesus not being Trinitarian, whether for secular reasons or Morm ones. Categorizing Jesus as a non-Trinitarian, even with attribution, is POV. I'd rather delete the section altogether than include Jesus in it. A.J.A. 06:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC) - - ::Let me see if I can bridge this thing. The birth of the term Trinity rests with Tertullian. The concept of the Trinity reached its earliest form through the work of the Cappadocian fathers. However, the Bible canon exists as it does today because it was found over time to be a good collection of texts. Similarly, the Trinity developed over time and Christian theology grew around it over time. While we can be aware that Trinity is an organizational framework, we must also remember that it is the apparatus through which most Christians experience their faith and attempt to understand God. It is not the only way in which one might approach God, it is a method. To say that God exists as Trinity is not unlike the ancient Jews saying God lives in the holy of holies. It is, like all frameworks, an attempt to encompass something which far too expansive to be contained in a theory. But we try anyway, and should continue to do so. To say "God is Trinity" limits God, to say that God is anything limits God. In applying these frameworks, the framework must never become greater than the reality it is designed to highlight. It is then that you have an idol on your hands. MerricMaker 06:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC) - - :::AJA, I am not categorizing Jesus as a nontrinitarian. I am merely reporting that the Jesus Seminar portrays him as a nontrinitarian. It is a fact that the Jesus Seminar so reports him, and it is relevant to the history of nontrinitarianism. So far no one has pointed out an error in this formulation: "According to the Jesus Seminar, Jesus did not claim to be God and did not teach the trintiy[insert references here]. By this account, Jesus was a nontrinitarian, as were his first followers." Since no one's pointed out an error (other than that they disagree with the Jesus Seminar), let's put it in the text. Alternatively, I'd also be happy with "According to the Jesus Seminar, Jesus was a mortal who did not claim to be God and did not teach the trintiy[insert references here]. By this account, Jesus was a nontrinitarian." As an attempt to accommodate trinitarians, I'd even settle for something like "According to the controversial Jesus Seminar, Jesus did not claim to be God and did not teach the trintiy[insert references here]. This account, viable only after rejecting much of what the Gospels record Jesus as saying, portrays Jesus as a nontrinitarian himself." That's a spin job, but I can live with it. Jonathan Tweet 14:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC) - - It is not clear to me that the opinions of the Jesus Seminar are notable enough to include on this page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC) - - :Tom, then let's keep the reference short, like maybe two sentences. Jonathan Tweet 14:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC) - ::::Let's put it somewhere else, like Trinity or Nontrinitarianism. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC) - - ::The sentence "According to the Jesus Seminar, Jesus did not claim to be God and did not teach the trinity" seems like an accurate representation of the source. The phrase, "By this account, Jesus was a nontrinitarian, as were his first followers" is a non sequitur (why couldn't his first followers be Trinitarians?). The phrase is relevant to the section on non-Trinitarians. If we deem the JS a scholarly and notable source, then there is no obstacle to the first sentence's inclusion. It seems clear that the JS is notable. The standard of scholarship, however, is I think worthy of discussion, and this would be a good discussion to have all across the board since it affects certain other articles. The notability of the JS, to my knowledge, is more like "infamy" in that they are despised by "Conservative Christians" and, in my opinion, relish in that fact and take it as a badge of honor. None of the history books I have read have referenced the JS. However, other than this observation I must admit my ignorance concerning the JS in general, and do not at present consider myself knowledgeable enough to evaluate their level of scholarship (though the fact that they consider the Gospel of Thomas on par with the canonical Gospels insofar as historical sources are concerned is a sign of poor scholarship to me). Lostcaesar 14:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC) - - :::LC, let's drop the reference to Jesus' first followers since it's hypothetically possible that they believed in the Trinity even though Jesus never preached it. My latest stab: "According to the controversial Jesus Seminar, Jesus did not claim to be God and did not teach the trintiy[insert references here]. This account, viable only after rejecting much of what the Gospels record Jesus as saying, portrays Jesus as a nontrinitarian himself." FTR, the JS doesn't consider Thomas to be equal to the four gospels, It considers Thomas to be superior to the mostly ahistorical Gospel of John. The historical inferiority of John is a common theme in Biblical scholarship. Jonathan Tweet 15:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC) - - I think that if any reference to the Jesus Seminar is included it should go in the criticism and controversy section. - - JT: Your claim that it's relevant to the history of non-Trinitarianism is exactly the problem: that claim is implicitly made simply by including it. The Jesus Seminary itself is notable only for the attention the media gave them in the late 20th century, hardly relevant to the history of non-Trinitarianism. So if it's relevant to the history of non-Trinitarianism, it's because you're classifying Jesus as part of that history. Even stating the attribution, you're just implicitly endorsing the source as an accurate description. - - LS: Their procedure involves dropping colored balls into a tub. A.J.A. 18:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)