Talk:Oneness vs Trinity/Archive 1

Page Creation
This was a large section of disputed text from Oneness Pentecostalism. It can be encyclopedic, but has serious NPOV issues. To help maintain a smaller article size for Oneness Pentecostalism, and to work towards cleaning up NPOV issues, and because this is a large enough topic that needs to be placed on an independant page (as opposed to sitting either on Oneness or Trinitarian pages), here it is. I'm personally working on improving the main article at the moment, but I'm by no means abandoning this to the wind. I didn't write any of it, but I'll help clean it up. Anyone that would like to help, it is surely welcome. --DeWayne Lehman 17:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what the issues are here and what is disputed. Until the disputed text is identified I do not understand the NPOV issues. If it is a matter of an editor's own personal bias toward something Oneness present about themselves it should be noted. If it is a historical question then offer a correction so we can test it. If it is a reference problem, again note the place. I have noticed a lot of correcting being done where in the end Oneness are said to believe something they do not. The last entry here was In April nearly eight months ago. I see no real dispute here and believe the tag should be removed. Reckart Sr. Dr Gary 11:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is clearly deficient as it betrays the title by failing to represent any significant Trinitarian responses to Oneness. Trinitarians pose several meaningful challenges to Oneness theology which are never discussed here, such as New Testament texts affirming the presence of Christ with God before the incarnation (John 1:2 "The same was in the beginning with God", 3:17 "God sent his Son into the world", 13:3 Jesus "came from God and was returning to God", 17:5 "give me the glory I had alongside of you before the world existed", and as if to remove all doubt, in Romans 8:3 Paulus speaks of "God sending his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh"). Also the Lord Jesus used plural pronouns "we", "us", and "our" when speaking of God the Father and himself (John 14:23-24, 17:11, 22). In addition, he spoke of himself and the Father as "two men" in John 8:16-18, where the Greek word is "anthropos" meaning "person" (and is frequently translated as such in the KJV). In addition, Paulus writes that the separation of Christ and the Father in person were common knowledge in the early church (1 Corinthians 15:27-29, "it is manifest" or self-evident, cf. 1 Co 11:3). Oneness Pentecostals have powerful theological arguments, but this article represents a strawman attack on Trinitarian and Orthodox Christianity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MJMurphy3 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not a debate page with trinitarians nor is it a page placed here to present the trinitarian theory. It is a page to present "only" the Oneness Jewish view of God within the Christology of Monotheism opposing that formulated in 325AD at Nicaea which became the trinity doctrine. Since this page should present the Oneness view with Jesus being the central object of Deity, tinitarians should create their own page "Trinty vs Oneness" and post their theories. This is not the place for the clashing of doctrinal differences. The arguments of Oneness against the trinity doctrine is not strawman tactics, they are genuine attempts to show and prove where the trinity doctrine is not only contradictory within its self, but how it is contradictory to the simple wording of the Scriptures. Since the trinty was not formalized until 325AD (Father & Son co-joined) and afterward 381AD (Holy Spirit added), it cannot be claimed to be the orthodox faith of the Apostles who never heard of a trinity doctrine of three separate God persons within the one Godhead. The true orthodox faith of the Apostles is Oneness even if many trinitarians cannot grasp this. What is confusing is the misunderstanding of the Jewish use of "Son of God" which never is meant to mean a second God of rank within a plural Godhead. It would be best for all concerned to place what Oneness actually believe here against Trinitarianism and let Trinitarians create their own page what they believe against Oneness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.207.87 (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Um, no. Maybe you need to read a bit more of wikipedia, but the title of this article in no way implies that it is supposed to present "only" the oneness view.  If it was a sub-category of that church, maybe.  If it is simply the oneness view, than it should explain in detail contrasts to trinitarian views, not pick certain examples of trinitarian arguments to provide 'balance'.  That is precisely what strawman arguments are.  And when statements like "Some scholars say "Yah" means Lord but does it really? " are included, the whole thing reads more like an essay (where the writer is investigating the contrast and siding with Oneness) than anything approachign an encyclopedia article.  Take off you Christian hat for a minute, and imagine a curious on-looker findign out that there were debates about Oneness vs Trinity and pulling up this article.  They would see it as an explanation of the two camps, ans that is not what it is.  Merge it, or get some actual NPOV 206.126.163.20 (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite needed
I've just arrived at this article having heard of "oneness" about two links back, not really being able to understand by the other articles how oneness and trinitarianism are distinguishable, and thinking this would be a useful explanation. It isn't. It makes my head hurt. The current article reads like an essay using other Wikipedia articles as though they were references and further reading, which isnt very helpful and its not one for a non-familiar audiences. It would be of great use to this article and related articles if someone who knows what it is meant to be saying went over it and restructured it - I would try, but I wouldn't do a very good job, given my lack of understanding of the oneness doctrine. WA Burdett (talk) 11:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed.Ltwin (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This too is too abstract to mean anything, about the disagreement between Oneness and Trinitarian doctrine.
Trinitarians have form a view of God in describing God in personages. Oneness people describe God as a being who defines himself not one that we define. He is God.

To say that oneness people deny the Trinity is to first say the Trinity is how god describes himself. The word "Tri-une" for example might be a clue that it is a touch confusing to alot of people.

I am working my way dilegently through the Oneness Pentecostal page, but from the UPCI page it is noted that www.upci.org that the UPCI believe mostly what all other Pentecostals believe with the exception of UPCI believe in the Oneness of God.

You can detect a Trinitarian writing about oneness when you see the following.

Oneness people hold that there is "One Person" in the Godhead. Oneness people do not hold to this. They believe that God is not a _person_, but has a personality. God is an omnipotent being where "all things are possible"

DevonSprings (talk) 02:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Do we even need this page? Ltwin (talk) 23:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I can tell you, as a former Oneness Pentecostal and present Trinitarian, this page is mostly told from the POV of a Oneness person and it's not very balanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.153.116 (talk) 03:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This page is needed, however it must be rewritten. The Oneness doctrine is heterectical according to the historic protestant church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.150.138.31 (talk) 15:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Protestants aren't anything but undevoted catholics, Trinity is not in the bible that's enough for me and should be for others to not accept the trinity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.110.56.253 (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)