User talk:MServetus

Welcome!

Hello, MServetus, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Samw 04:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes on User page

Hi, I'm a little confused - you chose a name after a non-trinitarian and offer some praise of him in your user page, make edits that lean toward questioning the Trinity, and yet you have those two quotes supporting the Trinity also on your user page, which seemingly contradict your other statements and edits. Could you clear up my confusion? Thanks. --Oscillate 04:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Swedenborg is a modalist. Your honest question shows the general misunderstanding by most regarding the doctrine of Modalistic Monarchianism. We do not deny the existence of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We disagree with their evolution into "separate and distinct Persons". Emmanuel's quote shows that the One God is "Father from eternity", became the "Son in time" meaning when God manifested Himself into flesh, and is the Holy Spirit for the purposes of Christian regeneration. Trinitarianism believes in 'One What' (the substance of God) and 'Three Who's' (three separate and distinct persons). Modalism believes in 'One Who' (the eternal God) and 'Three What's' (God's primary manifestations in relation to man's salvation). Hopefully this clarifies the quote for you.Jacob 05:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The quote by Tertullian shows his own admission that the majority of Christian believers during his day, the "simple ones" of whom I claim membership, rejected the doctrine of the Trinity. Of course, Tertullian did not believe in the Trinity as it exists today. He believed the Son had a beginning and was not co-eternal with the Father.Jacob 05:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, thanks. --Oscillate 05:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be obliged if you could privde a reference for Tertullian believing that the Son had a beginning. Jonathan Tweet 21:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tertullian, Praxeas, and the Trinity

Jacob,

funny that in your main user page, your should put this:

"The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned,) who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world's plurality of gods to the one only true God." ~Tertullian, Against Praxeas"

Funny because it is, on Tertullians part, a declaration against the thickness of the "simple", who reject the "dispensation of the Three in One" because it conflicts with their "rule fo faith" (an obvious reference to the Apostles' Creed, quoted by Terullian as many as three times in its ancient form, see Apostles’ Creed: the Old Roman Creed as quoted by Tertullian (c. 200).
--Miguel de Servet 18:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And? I don't see your point. It is not the "simple" that you should focus on. It is the "who always constitute the majority of believers" that you should look at. It has always been so with the religious elite to look down upon those deemed too "simple" to understand their philosophical doctrines like Trinitarianism. I am thankful that Jesus came to those of us who are simple.

And what is your love affair with the Apostle's Creed. Why do you insist upon looking at extra-Biblical sources for your system of beliefs? Just because Tertullian quoted it does not mean a thing. Will you be a Montanist as well? St. Thomas looked at the risen Christ and proclaimed unambiguously "My Lord and My God!" Maybe you should start with believing what the REAL APOSTLES actually wrote before relying upon some later Apostle's (falsely so-called) Creed. Jacob 03:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk: Trinity

I felt that it's probably best to continue this discussion on talk pages, rather than on talk:trinity. I have mentioned this in talk:trinity, alongside two comments that I wanted to make publicly - firstly, I wanted to clarify that the quotes you used weren't actually things that Mark said, and secondly to state that I no longer believed that you had intended to launch a personal attack (my original complaint), and to apologise for any offense caused. I do think that there are enough things that our conversation has brought up for it to be worthwhile for us to continue this conversation on user pages, though.

You state:

I disagree with you that a statement like "anyone who disagrees with me has denied Christianity" adds to the overall discussion or is appropriate.

You don't - I agree that those kinds of statements are wrong. The thing is, that's not the kind of statement that was made.

I also disagree that what is said of a person's philosophy has to apply to that individual personally. The idea that "anyone who disagrees with me has denied Christ" seems arrogant and small-minded. That is my opinion of this train of thought and should not be taken to mean the person is arrogant and small-minded. I chose colorful language to reflect my displeasure at the comments. Remember... arrogant applied to the comments and small-minded applied to the train of thought, which I described as a cell. This is called literary license and you can find it in any book by Mark Twain. If you choose to apply it personally to that individual then that is your decision and your right.

Firstly, I think it's really unfair to characterise what Mark says as "anyone who disagrees with me has denied Christ." He stated that anyone who denies trinity is not a Christian. You may disagree, and indeed I disagree with him, but that's a disagreement about the content of the term "Christianity", rather than about the status of Mark's judgement. I really don't think it's fair for you to characterise him in that way - and especially not for you to use quote marks in doing so, thereby implying that that's actually the words he used. (Although I'm sure that you didn't use them with the intention of that kind of deception, it could easily be interpreted in that kind of way.)

Secondly, I am glad that you weren't intending to criticise Mark as a person, and I really do regret any offense that I caused you by stating that you were. However, I do think that the language that you used tends to the . After reading this comment, I asked two people "if someone says that a statement is arrogant, are they implying that the person who says that statement is arrogant" - both said yes (although one of them responded, "yes, normally.") I did so in a neutral manner, not referring to this conversation, which both were not familiar with, and not indicating which side was correct. Their response indicates that, although as you say it was not your intention, it is a statement that is easily interpreted in that way, and I would suggest that in the future you bear that in mind, since the purpose of language is to communicate meaning to as many people as possible. Again, I am sorry for any offense caused by my misunderstanding of your meaning.

(By the way, I'm interested in what your comment in your first post, "Maybe you should come out of your cell of small-mindedness and join the rest of us." meant if it wasn't supposed to imply that Mark was in a "cell of small-mindedness", and therefore small-minded? Can you see how it could quite easily be interpreted as a personal insult, and that it probably wouldn't be the most helpful comment to get across what you were actually saying?)

However, everything you are accusing me of applies to the statement "Non-trinitarians are not Christians."

What I have accused you of is personal insults. I must say that I was wrong to do so, seeing as it seems that you were just using sloppy language. However, that is not a personal insult by any understanding of the term. Plenty of people do not find being called a non-Christian offensive, because they are not Christians - Christian is a descriptive, value-neutral term.

Furthermore, that is not what Mark said. His statement was considerably more subtle.TheologyJohn 18:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TJ, I give you a lot of credit and understand each point you have made. However, I don't give Mark' comments as much credit as you do. I believe he said denying the Trinity is to deny Christianity. I take that to the next logical step which is denying Christ. I am a modalist and believe completely that Jesus Christ is God in flesh (as you do). I just happen to believe that Jesus is all of God in flesh and not just God the Son in flesh. God the Son is unbiblical, but son of God is quite Biblical, but that's another discussion. There are many elements of the Trinity that I disagree with, but several of my closest friends are devout Trinitarians and I would never call into question their faith. My comments to Mark were purposeful and intentional as I have found this mindset to be prevalent in some Christian circles. I have a tremendous amount of distaste for this line of thinking and say so when I see it.

"Maybe you should come out of your cell of small-mindedness and join the rest of us."

This statement is probably more subtle than you give it credit for. The cell of small-mindedness refers to a mindset and not a person. We are all prisoners of our mindset. If I am prejudice, I am a prisoner to my prejudice. If I am an atheist, I am a prisoner to my atheism. Personally, I am a Christian and consider myself to be a willing prisoner to my Christianity. This means that my world view is colored and influenced by my belief in Jesus Christ. And for someone to intimate that my non-trinitarian belief is akin to denouncing Jesus Christ gets under my skin. Jacob 20:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]