Talk:Patripassionism

Proposed merger
For the purposes of centralized discussion, please go to Talk:Sabellianism. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

No merger
I am expressing my view on both proposed merged articles for the record. I have not had time to devote to these subjects, had a house fire and lost everything, and am trying to move at present. This article is tagged as having multiple issues and may need a complete rewrite to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Without going into this too deep there was no evidence that supports a possible merger and evidence to suggest a reason to keep separate.
 * A clear connection, other than third party slander, must make a connection that the two articles are related or can be merged without deleterious effects.
 * Patripassionism, as far as I understand, is a belief that because there may be only one God, all other reasoning aside, that if one was to feel pain(suffers) then all would have to, but more specifically a spirit, in the form of the Father "would" feel any pain attributed to the Son, being in the form of flesh.

The articles interest me and I will be able to delve into the subjects more at a later date. Otr500 (talk) 06:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This vehicle can not be used to force or further a possible false venue. Unless a clear connection that a person, now or then, that believed or believes in one God always believed or believes that the Father suffered when the Son did, then the two articles can not be merged under either of the two titles and the proposed merger tag needs to be removed.


 * At the very least there should be a merger of the articles Patripassionism and Patripassianism. Rev107 (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I was inclined to agree as both articles appear to be spelling variations of the same subject. Upon closer inspection both articles have balance issues and parts are misleading or wrong. In fact there are statements that are unsupported, and denied by certain denominations.


 * From the article; "Tertullian was the chief opponent of Patripassionism.", being a belief that one would adhere to the dogma that God feels pain. He might even have been the author of the word. He did attach this word to those that followed the teachings of Sabellius.
 * From the article; "Today Oneness Pentecostalism shares the same beliefs as Patripassionism." This is an undocumented, and according to at least one organization, a false statement or accusation.
 * From the article; "Sabellianism gains attractiveness from its emphasis on there being one and only one God." This term, as I understand, is replaced with labels of Modalism or Monotheism.

Reasoning: I can find no evidence, save Tertullian accusations (and possibly those that followed his belief), that prove a connection that because a person believes in one God, that person would have to believe the spirit of that God would feel the pain of a body of flesh the spirit inhabited, especially if that body was considered God in the flesh. It is amazing to me that a conclusion of "can a spirit (especially of God) feel pain at all" has not been debated. This could lead to the a possible conclusion that the spirit of God, feeling pain, could theorectically also die should the body inhabited die. This thought would certainly be labeled as heresy. Another possible conclusion  that the "Holy Spirit", certainly by Christian standards dwelling in certain human bodies, would be subjected to the same. Now we have a possible conclusion that God is a spirit, the Holy Spirit is a spirit, and both died at a point so there is no more God or Holy Spirit. Yes, this is far reaching (I would hope) but has to make sense to some.

I understand that Trinitarians have a belief in one God (however the Godhead is explained) so Tertullian would certainly label them as Patripassionists or patripassianists.
 * The fact that two statements being known or believed as true can not be arbitrarily linked to another statement, contradicted as false, without proof. If Tertullian's "accusations" had no basis of true fact (historical churches following this belief = names) then it was simply accusations to further an agenda.

Whatever the outcome, it is against Wikipedia standards to attach a name, meaning, or definition, without proof, and most certainly if slanderous and/or contested, to another. At least one denomination claiming over 4 million members deny the accusation as false.

At this point the suggested merge of Patripassionism to Sabellianism is unfounded. I have given reasons but lack responses.

The suggested merge of Patripassionism and Patripassianism will probably be inevitable but both need a lot of work and collaboration. Otr500 (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed the merge request template for Patripassionism to Sabellianism and added a merge request for Patripassionism with Patripassianism. Otr500 (talk) 05:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)