![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Gosh! I'm just trying to fix this page and the Trinity page to fulfill the criteria for acceptable articles. This deletion attack is coming too fast!! Said: Rursus ☻ 14:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I find the quotes useful. I don't think they should be removed. -- Observer99 ( talk) 00:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure Arianism was around in the Third Century, certainly not under that name. Tertullian was writing against Monarchians and Patripassians in Ad. Prax. Arius wasn't around until about Nicaea in the forth century. Therefore the heading is wrong, I think. Perhaps better would be "Third Century: Trinity against Monarchianism/Modalism and Pagan Polytheism". John H Percival ( talk) 12:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I just, to my surprise, discovered that I once upon a time created this page as a way to cleanup Trinity, but the article is still a quotefarm. Since there is some interest in keeping these citations, the final fate of the article would be some description on the evolution of the trinity concept containing these citations, but the article still needs the text describing how trinity evolved. Does anyone know of any authors describing the trinity concept? There should be such (>1980 years of debate!). ... said: Rursus ( bork²) 12:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The article title, Trinity of the Church Fathers doesn't work very well for me, and I see the authors have not managed to work in into the text of the lede. On those bases, I contend that a different title might work better - Basis of the concept of a Holy Trinity, for instance. Or something better than that, but something which conveys the subject matter better than the current title does. -- Tagishsimon (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Jpacobb ( talk) 22:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
FYI 2 Kor 13:14 was deleted from my Bible by my national Bible commission (www.bibeln.se), who claimed it was inauthentic. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 15:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
As it stands the lead section fails to meet the requirements of WP:MOSINTRO: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." Jpacobb ( talk) 14:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. No consensus supporting the move. (closed by a page mover) (non-admin closure). Anarchyte ( work | talk) 08:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Trinitarianism in the Church Fathers → Trinitarianism and the Church Fathers – While I am not opposed to use of the name of the author or category of authors to refer to their works (I have read this kind of language many times in Ehrman), I worry most of our readers would see this title as confusingly referring to the Church Fathers themselves, as though implying they had Trinitarianism somehow inside of them.. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 10:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Two questions: 1) The article (fallaciously) automatically seeks to dismiss the Trinitarian interpretation in the Church Fathers and automatically assumes that these "in fact" were "unitarians". But which one of the hundreds of unitarian sects were they?
2) Why all the pretentious unitarian replies are from Dale Tuggy. The article seems a propaganda to this person. -- 190.43.26.35 ( talk) 10:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I know I’m responding to you three years later, but I totally agree. The article doesn’t delve deep enough into the explicit Trinitarian statements of the ante-Nicene Church Fathers (only presenting what could be considered the more “contentious” passages), and contrarian citations Of Dale Tuggy and others in this article are just bovine. Walter71861 ( talk) 03:30, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Gosh! I'm just trying to fix this page and the Trinity page to fulfill the criteria for acceptable articles. This deletion attack is coming too fast!! Said: Rursus ☻ 14:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I find the quotes useful. I don't think they should be removed. -- Observer99 ( talk) 00:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure Arianism was around in the Third Century, certainly not under that name. Tertullian was writing against Monarchians and Patripassians in Ad. Prax. Arius wasn't around until about Nicaea in the forth century. Therefore the heading is wrong, I think. Perhaps better would be "Third Century: Trinity against Monarchianism/Modalism and Pagan Polytheism". John H Percival ( talk) 12:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I just, to my surprise, discovered that I once upon a time created this page as a way to cleanup Trinity, but the article is still a quotefarm. Since there is some interest in keeping these citations, the final fate of the article would be some description on the evolution of the trinity concept containing these citations, but the article still needs the text describing how trinity evolved. Does anyone know of any authors describing the trinity concept? There should be such (>1980 years of debate!). ... said: Rursus ( bork²) 12:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The article title, Trinity of the Church Fathers doesn't work very well for me, and I see the authors have not managed to work in into the text of the lede. On those bases, I contend that a different title might work better - Basis of the concept of a Holy Trinity, for instance. Or something better than that, but something which conveys the subject matter better than the current title does. -- Tagishsimon (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Jpacobb ( talk) 22:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
FYI 2 Kor 13:14 was deleted from my Bible by my national Bible commission (www.bibeln.se), who claimed it was inauthentic. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 15:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
As it stands the lead section fails to meet the requirements of WP:MOSINTRO: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." Jpacobb ( talk) 14:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. No consensus supporting the move. (closed by a page mover) (non-admin closure). Anarchyte ( work | talk) 08:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Trinitarianism in the Church Fathers → Trinitarianism and the Church Fathers – While I am not opposed to use of the name of the author or category of authors to refer to their works (I have read this kind of language many times in Ehrman), I worry most of our readers would see this title as confusingly referring to the Church Fathers themselves, as though implying they had Trinitarianism somehow inside of them.. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 10:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Two questions: 1) The article (fallaciously) automatically seeks to dismiss the Trinitarian interpretation in the Church Fathers and automatically assumes that these "in fact" were "unitarians". But which one of the hundreds of unitarian sects were they?
2) Why all the pretentious unitarian replies are from Dale Tuggy. The article seems a propaganda to this person. -- 190.43.26.35 ( talk) 10:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I know I’m responding to you three years later, but I totally agree. The article doesn’t delve deep enough into the explicit Trinitarian statements of the ante-Nicene Church Fathers (only presenting what could be considered the more “contentious” passages), and contrarian citations Of Dale Tuggy and others in this article are just bovine. Walter71861 ( talk) 03:30, 17 July 2022 (UTC)