This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

→

"Nontrinitarian" qualifier

NOTE: The thread of this topic was previously spread over 3 subheadings on this discussion page. All comments have been merged under this one subheading. NO COMMENTS WERE DELETED. --DannyMuse 05:47, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It seems that it is unneccessary to put this description here wher it is dealt with later in the article. It seemed frivolous to have it in the introduction. We might as well describe JEhova's Witnesses as a nontrintarian, politically neutral, religiously isolated, morally strict, biblically adherant, evangelistic... you get my point? Anyway, if you want the Non T qualifier so much I'll leave it alone, can't say if anyone else will though. george m

Doesn't seem unnecessary to me, whoever you are. Wesley 03:04, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Usually the "disputed" note is put up when there is an actual dispute. Is it disputed that this group is not Trinitarian? What are your grounds for adding the "disputed" notice? Mkmcconn — 06:12, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

I didn't put the disputed messasge in, it was the "administer". georgem BTW is that person an admin or just using a play on words?

I revert the lead sentence to include "Nontrinitarian", not because Jehovah's Witnesses describe themselves this way, but because this important qualifier renders neutral the claim that they are Christian. Mkmcconn — 22:17, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

-- It is not necessary. The 3nd paragraph already notes they are not trinitarian.

And the first paragraph says that they are Christian with a difference - so I'll remove it from the third paragraph. This qualifier explains why it is controversial to call them "Christian" at all. To those who care about such things, it is the most important thing about them, and explains a great deal. To those who care nothing about such things, it barely registers as being "helpful" (as Gary D puts it). To those for whom it is a problem to call them "Christian", it is not a problem to call them them "nontrinitarian Christian". Mkmcconn — 21:51, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't yet know whether I care about it or not. Somebody explain to me (and the rest of WP's readers) its significance. Why is it controversial to call JWs "Christian" at all? How does the "nontrinitarian" qualifier alleviate that? Help! Hoo! Whoa! I'm sinking in a pool of insider code and shared but unspoken premises! Throw the poor reader an exegesical life preserver! Glurb...Glug...Blub... --Gary D 22:09, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

When someone denies belief in the Trinity, it goes to the heart of what Christianity is, boiled down: the salvation revealed in Jesus Christ. They are saying that the salvation that they are looking for is not the one other people who call themselves Christians are looking for. From there, they may differ in a thousand other ways, but what really matters to those "other Christians" is that their difference begins with a denial of the Trinity. Their idea of unity with God is affected, thereby; and consequently they think differently about Christians' union with one another despite other differences; and so on, and on. I can see your problem, but I don't see clearly how to economically help. 22:51, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You will see the same discussion going on between Mormons and trinitarian Christians (but the Mormons are much more conversational, by far). 22:51, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I support going forward on the basis of using of "nontrinitarian Christian" as the lead line. As I long ago promised someone around here I would, I have recently been building up entries on trinitarianism and nontrinitarianism as competing doctrines and groups. In both those articles it is explained that many trinitarians consider nontrinitarians as non-Christian, so that position is established and explained in WP as an umbrella concept, and the trinitarian folks can be happy about their view being represented. It therefore seems to me that we don't have to duplicate the full trinitarian/nontrinitarian dispute in every article on a nontrinitarian denomination. On the other hand, the nontrinitarian folks should also be happy, as the article group on their doctrine has grown and is growing into a respectable WP article grouping on sincere and respectable people. --Gary D 19:47, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

In principle, that sounds like a reasonable approach, and I look forward to seeing the results. I agree with George and Rantaro that it would be important to distinguish between different kinds of nontrinitarianism, rather than paint them all with the same brush. Wesley 16:42, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Right. One question. Is it important to the POV you best understand, Wesley, that these "types of non-trinitarianism" be prominently explained, or may they simply fall within the doctrinal sections? For example, where the JW's believe Jesus Christ is not God, would we need to say something like "...are a non-trinitarian (they do not believe, for example, that Jesus Christ is God) Christian group." And where Latter-day Saints believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not one essence, would we say something like "...are a non-trinitarian (they do not believe, for example, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one essence) branch of Christianity." Or do the doctrinal explanations further down do enough to highlight the non-trinitarianism? I am sensitive to your point of view that it is important to avoid downplaying the degree of difference. You know, for example, that Latter-day Saints explicitly reject the notion of trinitarianism, the traditional creeds, the historical debates and decisions in their whole under their umbrella Great Apostasy. Are we doing enough to make this clear? Tom - Talk 17:03, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Including a brief recap list catalog of these movements and differences in the nontrinitarianism article would be great. --Gary D 19:29, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Tom, I think adding those parenthetical explanations would add more awkwardness to the opening than it's worth. Linking to the nontrinitarian article and maybe putting the type of nontrinitarianism there for each group (as Gary suggests) should be enough. Wesley 16:13, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Tom - Talk 18:45, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I will say that if the "nontrinitarian" qualifier keeps getting removed from the intro without any explanation on this page, I'm tempted to either start looking for another much stronger qualifier or take out "Christian" altogether. If this turns into an edit war with no meaningful attempt at compromise, I might have to look more seriously at the various ways to resolve it. DannyMuse, I would discuss this with you on your own Talk page if you had an actual user page. Wesley 16:20, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I sympathize. Continual reverting is a drag. We need a little help here from the JW editors. We non-JW editors cannot come up on our own with an intro that is both unbiased and suitable to the casual JW visitor. Come on, guys. Show us a little esprit de corps and help us do this in a way that will be a little more entropy-proof. Tom - Talk 18:45, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Here's my proposal:

One of the JW editors please put a list together of all known active JW editors and get as many of them as possible to add this page to their watchlist (that is probably already done)
All of the JW editors please take seriously the need to explain succinctly (one word if possible ???) that JW is non-traditional Catholic/Protestant Christianity.
All of the JW editors assist us in the next few months to develop a truly unbiased description that will sit well with casual JW passers-by so we don't have to continually revert and thus disrespect both our own time and the time of the passers-by.

And I will participate for as long as it takes. Otherwise I don't see any way to conserve all our time other than to protect a version that the few of us here have agreed on. Tom - Talk 18:58, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with both Tom and Wesley's comments. I've been thinking about some points to consider that may help resolve this to everyone's satisfaction. I don't have the time to write now, but will in detail later. I didn't want the active editors to think I'm ignoring you or the issue! BTW, anyone is free to write directly to me at my user Talk page. --DannyMuse Talk 20:34, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Remove "Disputed"

Who objects to the removal of the "disputed" notice? Please speak up. Mkmcconn — 15:52, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Let us turn passion into explication

I have been watching the slow motion revert war regarding "nontrinitarian" for some time now, and I finally decided to click the links to see what all the doctrinal fuss is about. To my surprise, both trinitarian and nontrinitarian are unhelpful stubs, so I still don't know what all the doctrinal fuss is about. However, there are apparently several Wikipedians to whom this distinction is passionately important, so may I suggest we convert this passionate energy into explanatory power by having some of your folks tie into one or both of these linked articles, if not into the body of text in this article, to explain what these concepts mean in context of Jehovah's Witnesses and why the distinction is so important. A revert war over a cryptic stub seems a waste (sort of "Bele and Lokai" for you Star Trek types). --Gary D 20:38, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The fuss isn't over the stubs, of course. "Nontrinitarian" is not cryptic to anyone who cares about the distinction. Isn't the sum of what you say here, that you do not care? Mkmcconn — 21:41, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm saying I do not understand, given the body of text I currently have before me. I might very well care about the distinction. You, for example, are telling me it's very, very important. If it's important, I do care, and I want to know all about it! I am gleaning that anyone who doesn't believe in trinitarianism probably can't be a Christian. That certainly sounds important! So--why? What's it all about? I take it this has to do with God as one versus God as three, but how does that tie in with JWs and how does it all manifest? Examples and diagrams welcome! "If you don't know, I'm not going to tell you" worked well for Laura Petrie during marital arguments on the old Dick Van Dyke Show, but it's not a very good theme for an encyclopedia. Tell us! --Gary D 22:09, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Since most of the first four centuries of the Christian Church deal with this, it's a bit of a challenge to boil it down, don't you think? Read the Trinity article. It has some rudimentary explanation of why trinitarian Christians think that this is important. Mkmcconn — 22:21, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses, especially your explanatory paragraph in the section above this one. Keep your eye on trinitarian and nontrinitarian, and maybe I can do something in those articles armed with your paragraph that might answer a reader with my questions. --Gary D 19:49, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome. I look forward to what you might offer. Mkmcconn — 20:40, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---"When someone denies belief in the Trinity, it goes to the heart of what Christianity is, boiled down: the salvation revealed in Jesus Christ." So 'nontrnitarian" should be put up? This is not a neutral position. The trinity issue should be addressed but not on the first paragraph. Not like that.

Neutral in what sense? It is descriptive. It is true. It is a non-controversial fact. It explains plainly in what sense they are Christian. And since they want to make it clear that they are not Christians like those they seek to convert to their religion, it is very confusing to me why it is impossible to plainly state the truth on this page! Neutral? It's not for the sake of neutrality or factuality, that you revert this repeatedly; it's in order to let stand unqualified the claim that JWs are Christians, even though you know that they mean by this something completely different than that word ordinarily means. Mkmcconn — 03:01, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

So what? Just because you believe they are not Christians you are going to add "untrinitarian"? Who would take Wikipedia serious as an encyclopedia having somebody who adds to an article his or her thoughts?

My motivations are not really relevant, here; although I can understand why you read my actions through the motives that I reveal. More exactly, I put "nontrinitarian" there because it explains the sense in which they are called Christians - like calling another group, "fundamentalist Christian", "Protestant Christian", or "New Age Christian". These are intended to be neutral, factual and descriptive - although any one of these groups may prefer to call themselves merely, "Christian". It is not my opinion that JWs are nontrinitarian. It is a meaningful, informative fact.

Anyway, your comment is obsolete and irrelevant. It does not interact with the edits that I actually made. Mkmcconn — 00:58, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality & libel Disputes

There has been a lot of talk about the introduction. Now I ask: Isn't it good just saying: "Jehovah's Witnesses are a nontrinitarion christian religious group." This is neutral and clean, I think.

Mr. Olsen

That they are Christian is one POV, that they are not is another; both are widely held as far as I can tell. The previous version was an attempt to include or accomodate both points of view: Jehovah's Witnesses (JW) are a religious group that describes itself as Christian, and based on the teachings of the Bible. Thanks for signing your post btw. Wesley 16:25, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I always thought that being christian was just that you held the belief in Jesus' ransom sacrifice, and believe that through him there was the future hope, I never before realised that many people think that you need to believe in Christ's divinity in order to be christian. Very interesting, learn something new every day. -- elykyllek 18:14, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

The current intro contains redundant statements:

"Jehovah's Witnesses (JW) are a nontrinitarian religious group. They consider themselves Christians, but many Christians regard them as a non-Christian religious group because they deny that Jesus was an incarnation of God."

Problems I have with this also include the use of the word "deny". This carries a negative and accusatory tone. EX: "Do you deny the evidence mr X?" The statment also implies that Jesus is God, because JW's DENY it. We are not writing a text book for an "orthodox" theology school, are we?

There has been so much argument over this, I propose we eliminate this controversial intro and go with the second pargraph as the beginning of the article with the heading Jehovah's Witnesses at the top.george m

I think Jehovah's Witnesses are Christianity group. They encourage faith in Jesus Christ in The Watchtower, their organ. Also many search engines define them as Christianity group. So, it's a libel to JW that JW is not Christianity group. Rantaro 23:57, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rantaro, I am a Jehovah's Witness, so you can see that accuseing me of libelous activity is quite ridiculous. I agree that it is a lie to say JW's are not Christian. The reason I edited that part out was to avoid a conflict with people who would remove it and place something negative instead. If you go through the page histories you will understand what I am saying regardless of whether you agree with my opinion or not. Please try to control your temper. george m

I can't see why the introduction should be such a big problem. I must say I am tired by doing things with the intro. I think it should be written something like this:

Jehovah's Witnesses is a nontrinitarian christian religious group. Being such, it is often considered as breaking with the mainstream. The modern denomination traces back to some Bible study groups founded by Charles Taze Russell.

Mr. Olsen, Norway

I think so, too. In fact, many search engines includes Yahoo! and Google ,AltaVista regard them as Christianity group,and many dictionaries in Japan also do so. Undoubtedly, Wikipedia need to write on neutral point, but it also need to write factually. It is obviously based on Catholic & Protestant church doctorines that deny christianity of Jehovah's Witnesses and it's POV. Rantaro 11:36, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, we should write factually. Throughout most of history, being "Christian" has included holding a belief that Jesus is God (and more than that of course). It appears to be misleading and disingenuous to ignore what most of the rest of Christendom, at present and throughout history, regards as a huge difference. At the very least, they should be called a nontrinitarian Christian group, or else a religious group that calls itself Christian, or some variation of one of those. Wesley 15:58, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Again I would pay attention to the introduction. Why shouldn't the following statement be included: "Russell founded some Bible study groups, which multiplied...." The text without this information seems really confucing. Mr. Olsen

I just amended the second sentence to be closer to what you suggest. It may not make sense any more to keep the "During Russell's lifetime" in the new context. Go ahead and edit boldly if you see a way to make this better. Wesley 16:45, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What is a Christian ?

The word Christ means savior
Christians accept that there is a Savior
Jesus has been identified as the Christ
Jesus said: "I am the way the truth and the life. No man comes onto the Father except by means of me"
The Bible says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."
Jesus says: "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last."

If your faith honestly comports to this and does not add in things which contradict it, then "Christian" is a fair word.

However, the issue of being "Born Again" is entirely another thing. Each person must make their own personal apprehension of faith. Those that make one in Jesus's name and by His blood are born again.

Therefore, persons attending or particpating in a Christian religion/denomination who have not made a personal apprehension of faith, are not Born Again Christians

Hopefully this clears things up.

[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 05:28, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think your theory is partly different from Bible teachings. The word "Christ" (Heb.Messiah) means "anointed one", not savior. (See Christ) This proves that there is one who anointed Jesus Christ. Of course, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus Christ is a savior. But they think He is and was not Almighty God.

Almighty God is only Jehovah God, and Jesus is His Christ (anointed one).

Second, Jehovah's Witnesses think John 1:1 in most translations is wrong. They translated it:" In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." (NWT) because the former God and the latter god are different in original Greek words. Rantaro 08:04, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

These two comments nicely highlight how Jehovah's Witnesses both translate and interpret the first chapter of John differently than pretty much the rest of Christendom, past and present. Notable exceptions of course include Arianism, which also believed that Jesus was a highly exalted being, but still a creature created by God. This fundamental difference concerning the nature of God and the identity of Jesus Christ is why when Jehovah's Witnesses call themselves "Christian," what they mean is not what is usually meant by the term. BTW your description above raises an honest question for me: do JW's worship Jesus? If so, do they consider themselves polytheists, since they Jesus as a separate god from Jehovah? Wesley 16:13, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

JW's are not unique in their Bible's rendering of the verse J1:1. Most of the founding fathers of the USA rejected the trinity as an errant doctrine. There have been other groups throughout the history of Christianity, not much discussed, who held these beleifs as well. NO, Jw's do not consider themselves polytheists in the sense that they recognize only one Creator, the same being the only God deserving of worship. This logically is Jehovah of the Hebrew bible. We do not worship Jesus. The Bible says that there are "many gods", therefore believing that many spiritual creatures exist does not make one a polytheist in the abovementioned sense. If JW's are to be considered polytheists, then by the same coin so are all those who claim to be Christians, as they believe in angels and demons. george m

To say definitely, Jehovah's Witnesses DON'T worship Jesus Christ, but only Jesus' Father Jehovah God (Matt.22:37)through Jesus Christ(John 14:6). They think that Jesus Christ is Jehovah's Son (Matt.16:16) and their mediator. This view is based on Jesus teaching(Matt. 4:10; 23:9; 24:36; John 4:24; 14:28) and His Apostles view (Acts 4:30; 1 Cor.11:3) They receive Bible teaching instead of Christianity theology that based on Greek philosophy(Col.2:8), because they think that Jesus Christ is their only teacher(Matt.23:8) and He taught that Christians should keep away from their traditions not based on Bible.(Matt.15:3-9)Rantaro 01:38, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It does appear that JW's are not polytheists. I would say that they do differ from "mainstream" historic Christianity by not worshipping Jesus, even though Jesus' own disciples did so without being rebuked (Matthew 14:33, 15:25). Jesus told his disciples that whoever saw Him, saw the Father (John 14:7-11), since He is the "image of the invisible God" (Colossians 1:15). All things were created through Jesus (Colossians 1:16, John 1:3), so therefore Jesus Himself cannot have been created, and must Himself be God. In Matthew 15:3-9, Jesus says nothing about traditions "not based on the Bible", but rather forbids doctrines and commandments of men that are contrary to the commandments of God.

No doubt we could argue and prooftext back and forth all day without either of us convincing the other. That's not what wikipedia is for. I asked my question above to learn more precisely how JW's differ from other Christians for the purpose of keeping the article accurate and improving it, not to start an argument. I do think this difference (worshipping Christ or not) is a key distinctive that deserves some mention in the article. Wesley 16:39, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I know you said you didn't want to go back and forth trying to convince one another but I just couldn't help myself :)

First (Matthew 14:33,15:25) in both cases someone was doing Obeisance to Jesus, this is not a form of worship, rather is a show of respect and sometimes submission.

(John 14:7-11) Speaks of Jesus being like God in appearance, and verse 6 says that anyone getting to the Father has to go through Jesus, JW's believe this as well.

(Colossians 1:15) Funny you mention this scripture, if you notice in the latter part it describes Jesus as the firstborn of every creature, ie the first creation, then all things were created through him.

(John 14:28) explicitly states I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. It seems to me that if Jesus was God, then there couldn't be someone greater than him. -- elykyllek 18:36, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Judging from the above exchange, there may be a compelling reason to have a Jehovah's Witnesses and Greater Christianity article to explain all this. Tom - Talk 19:07, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Matt.28:9-20

Regarding Matthew, if you make that distinction, you should have no problems venerating the cross, icons, the saints, etc. The distinction you make between "worship" and "obeisance" is essentially the same distinction Orthodox and Catholics make between "worship" and "veneration" (which often includes obeisances". As for what these passages mean, we can either turn to the Greek, or look at how they have been read and understood by the Church through the centuries. Matthew 28:9-20 gives two more examples of Jesus' followers worshipping him after his resurrection, along with the command baptize his followers "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Not in the name of the Father only, much less in the name of "Jehovah." Wesley \

A "name" can mean something other than a personal name. When, in English, we say, "in the name of the law," or "in the name of common sense," we have no reference to a person as such. By "name" in these expressions we mean 'what the law stands for or its authority' and 'what common sense represents or calls for.' The Greek term for "name" (onoma) also can have this sense. Thus, while some translations (KJ, AS) follow the Greek text at Matthew 10:41 literally and say that the one that "receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man, shall receive a righteous man's reward," more modern translations say, "receives a prophet because he is a prophet" and "receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man," or similar. (RS, AT, JB, NW) Thus, Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament (1930, Vol. I, p. 245) says on Matthew 28:19: "The use of name (onoma) here is a common one in the Septuagint and the papyri for power or authority."

Hense, Jehovah's Witnesses think that baptism "in the name of the Father" means to recognize our heavenly Father (Jehovah)'s office and authority, and that the baptism "in the name of the Son" means to recognize Jesus' office and authority as God's only-begotten Son. (1 John 4:9), and that the baptism " in the name of the holy spirit" means to recognize that the holy spirit is Jehovah's active force, used in various ways in harmony with his purpose. (Genesis 1:2; 2 Samuel 23:1, 2; 2 Peter 1:21) Rantaro 04:03, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you were to apply your interpretation of "in the name of..." consistently, you would certainly say that "in the name of the Father" means to recognize the Father's office and authority, "in the name of the Son" means to recognize the Son's office and authority, and "to recognize the Holy Spirit" means to recognize the Holy Spirit's office and authority. You become internally inconsistent with regard to the Holy Spirit. Wesley 04:09, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

To recognize the holy spirit's office and authority doesn't mean to think that holy spirit is God. It's the same that to recognize the Son's office and authority doesn't mean to think the Son is God. This scripture means that the holy spirit helps those who qualify baptism to understand "the deep things of God", to carry on the Kingdom-preaching work, and to display the spirit's fruitage of "love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, self-control." - 1 Corinthians 2:10; Galatians 5:22, 23; Joel 2:28, 29. Rantaro 04:16, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ditto what I said above. There is enough meat here to (once it is distilled) make a separate article that can be referenced in this article. Tom - Talk 19:07, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Joh 14:7-11

John 14:7-11, we're clearly interpreting differently. If you mean that Jesus is like God "in appearance", do you believe that God the Father has a physical body and a physical appearance, as do the Mormons?? Wesley \

Jehovah's Witnesses think God the Father (Jehovah) is a spirit person like his son Jesus Christ. God is invisible to human eyes (Ex 33:20; Joh 1:18; 1Ti 1:17), and he is alive and exercises unsurpassed force throughout the universe. (2Co 3:3; Isa 40:25-31) Christ Jesus states: "God is a Spirit [Greek, Pneuma]." The apostle writes: "Now Jehovah is the Spirit." (Joh 4:24; 2Co 3:17, 18; NWT) The temple built on Christ as foundation cornerstone is "a place for God to inhabit by spirit."-Eph 2:22.

If God the Father is invisible and has no body, then what sort of appearance does He have? If he has no appearance, then how can Jesus be like God in appearance? As an aside, I very much doubt that John and Paul use the word "Jehovah" in the passages you cited last. Wesley 04:09, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The disciples 'seeing' the Father in Jesus can be understood in the light of other Scriptural examples. Jacob, for instance, said to Esau: "I have seen your face as though seeing God's face in that you received me with pleasure." He said this because Esau's reaction had been in harmony with Jacob's prayer to God. (Ge 33:9-11; 32:9-12) After God's interrogation of Job out of a windstorm had clarified that man's understanding, Job said: "In hearsay I have heard about you, but now my own eye does see you." (Job 38:1; 42:5; see also Jg 13:21, 22.) The 'eyes of his heart' had been enlightened. (Compare Eph 1:18.) That Jesus' statement about seeing the Father was meant to be understood figuratively and not literally is evident from his own statement at John 6:45 as well as from the fact that John, long after Jesus' death, wrote: "No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom position with the Father is the one that has explained him."-Joh 1:18; 1Jo 4:12.

God's firstborn Son, who later became the man Jesus, is in his Father's image. (2Co 4:4) Inasmuch as that Son was obviously the one to whom God spoke in saying, "Let us make man in our image," this likeness of the Son to his Father, the Creator, existed from when the Son was created. (Ge 1:26; Joh 1:1-3; Col 1:15, 16) When on earth as a perfect man, Jesus reflected his Father's qualities and personality to the fullest extent possible within human limitations, so he could say that "he that has seen me has seen the Father also." (Joh 14:9; 5:17, 19, 30, 36; 8:28, 38, 42) Rantaro 12:29, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Bible repeatedly refer to Jesus Christ as the one "sent" from God as his chief representative. (See, for example, John 3:17, 28, 34; 5:23, 24, 30, 37.) Interestingly, the Bible often describes persons who represent others as if they were the ones represented. Consider two examples:

(1) Matthew's Gospel relates that, after delivering the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus entered into Capernaum, where "a centurion came forward to him, beseeching him" to heal his slave. (Matt. 8:5-13) Yet from the parallel account at Luke 7:1-10 we learn that the centurion "sent to [Jesus] elders of the Jews, asking him to come and heal his slave."

(2) In the Gospel of Mark we read that "James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came forward to him," asking: "Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory." (Mark 10:35-37) However, Matthew relates that this request to Jesus actually was made by "the mother of the sons of Zebedee," as their representative.-Matt. 20:20, 21.

Of course, no one would conclude from these Bible accounts that those Jewish elders were coequal with the centurion, or the mother of James and John coequal with her sons. Similarly, no one should conclude that Jesus is coequal with God simply because things stated about Jehovah God in certain parts of the Bible are applied to Jesus Christ in others. The real reason for this is that Jesus represents God. Further instances of representatives being spoken of as the ones they represent are found at Matthew 10:40; 18:5; Luke 9:48; John 4:1, 2.

Jehovah's Witnesses think that is why the Son of God said: "He who has seen me has seen the Father", and more is involved in that expression than mere representation. The request, "Lord, show us the Father," suggests that Philip wanted Jesus to provide for his disciples a visible manifestation of God, such as was granted in visions to Moses, Elijah and Isaiah in ancient times. (Ex. 24:10; 1 Ki. 19:9-13; Isa. 6:1-5) However, in such visions God's servants saw, not God himself, but symbolic representations of him. (Ex. 33:17-22; John 1:18) Jesus' reply indicated that Philip already had something better than visions of that type. Since Jesus perfectly reflected the personality of his Father, whom only the Son fully 'knew', seeing Jesus Christ was like seeing God himself. - Matt. 11:27.

The miracles of the Son of God, for example, manifested the love and tender concern for human welfare that is characteristic of Jehovah God. It is no wonder that, after Jesus resurrected the dead son of a widow from the Galilean city of Nain, observers exclaimed: "God has visited his people!"-Luke 7:11-16.

Further opportunities for people to 'see the Father' (that is, to perceive his personality, will and purpose) were afforded by what Jesus said, both as to content and manner of utterance. Persons who listened to Jesus learned that God judges people according to their heart condition, rather than by external circumstances, such as wealth, education, ceremonial cleanness or national origin. (Matt. 5:8; 8:11, 12; 23:25-28; John 8:33-44) How different from the viewpoint fostered by the Jewish religious leaders!-Note John 7:48, 49.

The way Jesus spoke, too, made his hearers realize that they were hearing a message from God, "for he taught them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes." (Matt. 7:29) Rather than speaking indirectly, in the name of other human teachers (as was customary among the scribes), Jesus often spoke in the first person, with the phrases: "I tell you," "Truly, I say to you," and "Truly, truly, I say to you." (Note Matthew 5:20, 22; 6:2, 5, 16; John 1:51; 3:3, 5, 11; 5:19, 24, 25.) On occasion Jesus even declared the sins of certain persons forgiven, which led some to accuse him of blasphemously usurping a sole prerogative of God.--Mark 2:1-7; Luke 5:17-21; 7:47-49.

But Jesus never usurped the position of God. He readily admitted that the authority with which he spoke and acted did not originate with him. It was a delegated authority, for "the Father had given all things into his hands." (John 13:3; compare Matthew 11:27; 28:18; John 3:35; 17:2.) Hence, Jesus declared: "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever he does, that the Son does likewise." -- John 5:19; compare John 5:30; 8:28, 42.

Since everything that Jesus did was in full harmony with the will of God, persons who observed Jesus were in a sense observing God in action. In his notes on John 14:9, Bible commentator Albert Barnes expresses it nicely: "Hath seen the Father. This cannot refer to the essence or substance of God, for he is invisible, and in that respect no man has seen God at any time. All that is meant when it is said that God is seen, is, that some manifestation of Him has been made; or some such exhibition as that we may learn his character, his will, and his plans ... The knowledge of the Son was itself, of course, the knowledge of the Father. There was such an intimate union in their nature and design, that he who understood the one did also the other." -- Compare John 10:30. Rantaro 05:18, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Col. 1:15

Colossians passage, the NKJV renders it "firstborn over all creation" rather than "firstborn of every creature". He is a begotten Son, but eternally begotten, begotten from eternity outside of Time, before Time began. This better fits with both the rest of Colossians 1 and John 1:3.

In what sense is Jesus Christ "the first-born of all creation"? (1) Trinitarians say that "first-born" here means prime, most excellent, most distinguished; thus Christ would be understood to be, not part of creation, but the most distinguished in relation to those who were created. If that is so, and if the Trinity doctrine is true, why are the Father and the holy spirit not also said to be the firstborn of all creation? But the Bible applies this expression only to the Son. According to the customary meaning of "firstborn," it indicates that Jesus is the eldest in Jehovah's family of sons. (2) Before Colossians 1:15, the expression "the firstborn of" occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies-the firstborn is part of the group. "The firstborn of Israel" is one of the sons of Israel; "the firstborn of Pharaoh" is one of Pharaoh's family; "the firstborn of beast" are themselves animals. What, then, causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15? Is it Bible usage or is it a belief to which they already hold and for which they seek proof? (3) Does Colossians 1:16, 17 (RS) exclude Jesus from having been created, when it says "in him all things were created . . . all things were created through him and for him"? The Greek word here rendered "all things" is 'panta', an inflected form of 'pas'. At Luke 13:2, RS renders this "all...other"; JB reads "any other"; NE says "anyone else." (See also Luke 21:29 in NE and Philippians 2:21 in JB.) In harmony with everything else that the Bible says regarding the Son, NW assigns the same meaning to 'panta' at Colossians 1:16, 17 so that it reads, in part, "by means of him all other things were created...All other things have been created through him and for him." Thus he is shown to be a created being, part of the creation produced by God. Rantaro 05:18, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Joh. 14:28

John 14:28, Here Jesus is comforting his disciples. At this point their faith in the Father was greater than their faith in Jesus, and so Jesus reminds them that He is going to the Father to put their minds at ease. See John Chrysostom's homily at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-14/npnf1-14-79.htm#TopOfPage. Wesley 16:34, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Irenaeus (c. 130-200 C.E.) states: "We may learn through Him [Christ] that the Father is above all things. For 'the Father,' says He, 'is greater than I.' The Father, therefore, has been declared by our Lord to excel with respect to knowledge." - Against Heresies, Book II, chapter 28.8. Rantaro 05:35, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In that book, Saint Irenaeus is emphasizing that some things remain unknown to us. Yet Irenaeus clearly believes that Jesus is God, and speaks of him at greater length in the same Against Heresies, Book III Chapter XVI., entitled "Proofs from the Apostolic Writings, that Jesus Christ Was One and the Same, the Only Begotten Son of God, Perfect God and Perfect Man." Verse four reads, 4. But Simeon also — he who had received an intimation from the Holy Ghost that he should not see death, until first he had beheld Christ Jesus-taking Him, the first-begotten of the Virgin, into his hands, blessed God, and said, "Lord, now lettest Thou Thy servant depart in peace, according to Thy word: because mine eyes have seen Thy salvation, which Thou hast prepared before the face of all people; a light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of Thy people Israel; " confessing thus, that the infant whom he was holding in his hands, Jesus, born of Mary, was Christ Himself, the Son of God, the light of all, the glory of Israel itself, and the peace and refreshing of those who had fallen asleep. Wesley \

Chapter 19 of the same book is entitled, "Chapter XIX.-Jesus Christ Was Not a Mere Man, Begotten from Joseph in the Ordinary Course of Nature, But Was Very God, Begotten of the Father Most High, and Very Man, Born' Of the Virgin." Verse two says, For I have shown from the Scriptures,365 that no one of the sons of Adam is as to everything, and absolutely, called God, or named Lord. But that He is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, and Lord, and King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all the prophets, the apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth. Now, the Scriptures would not have testified these things of Him, if, like others, He had been a mere man. But that He had, beyond all others, in Himself that pre-eminent birth which is from the Most High Father, and also experienced that pre-eminent generation which is from the Virgin,366 the divine Scriptures do in both respects testify of Him: also, that He was a man without comeliness, and liable to suffering;367 that He sat upon the foal of an ass;368 that He received for drink, vinegar and gall;369 that He was despised among the people, and humbled Himself even to death and that He is the holy Lord, the Wonderful, the Counsellor, the Beautiful in appearance, and the Mighty God,370 coming on the clouds as the Judge of all men;371 -all these things did the Scriptures prophesy of Him. Wesley \

Elsewhere, in chapters 2-4 of book III, Irenaeus also condemns as heretics any who cannot trace their teachings back to the apostles. Wesley 04:09, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses don't accept Irenaeus' theology, but interpret John 14:28 literally just as Irenaeus's words that I quated above. Rantaro 05:04, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think the most important topic is whether Jehovah's Witnesses accept that Jesus is Christ or don't. JW do so, then we can say that they are Christians. It's another story whether Jesus is God or not, isn't it? I know it is important for trinitarians, but I think it is not for NPOV documents like Wikipedia. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that describe the fact, not describe trinitarians' views for JW. If it is based on trinitarians' views that JW are not Christians, I should say this article is POV. Rantaro 06:29, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is Worshipping Jesus as God fundamental?

I wonder, do Muslims believe that Jesus is Christ? I know they believe in him as a great prophet, so it wouldn't surprise me if they believe Jesus was also the Christ, anointed by God. If so, then it clearly is not a valid test for determining Christianity. Honestly, worshipping Jesus as God is pretty fundamental. This is based on the dominant, historical understanding of Christianity down through the centuries, which ought to carry some objective weight even in an encyclopedia.

"I wonder, do Muslims believe that Jesus is Christ?"

-- No. They beleive he was no more than a prophet like Moses. george m

For some definition of "no more than a prophet", :-P. Prophets apparently command some amount of respect in Islam. Kim Bruning 17:40, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Worshipping Jesus as God is only fundamental for trinitarians. It isn't related to Christianity definition. Jesus didn't command to worship him. He ordered only to worship his Father, not him.(Matt.4:10) Obviously, he quoted from Deutronomy 5:9; 6:13; 10:20 in Matt.4:10. Deuteronomy's God is Jehovah, not Jesus. He repeated it in Matt.22:37, quoted from Deutronomy 6:5; 10:12. If Jesus was Almighty God or God the Father, he didn't need to pray alone (Matt. 14:23), to be strengthened by his angel (Luke 22:43), and to be resurrected by the other (Matt.28:7). And If so, I can't understand why the Son Jesus didn't know the great tribution's day and time (Matt.24:36), and why his Apostles called him as God's holy servant (Acts 4:30). Rantaro 06:51, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is it NPOV that JWs are Christians?

The article should not just be the trinitarians' view about JW's, but neither should it just be the JW's views about the JW's, which is what the article is mostly now. (See comments elsewhere on this page, near the top.) Where there are contrasting or opposing views on the same subject, both views need to be given with proper attribution. This is the classic wikipedia methodology for achieving NPOV. Wesley 16:34, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree that since we are involved in something NOT produced exclusively by JW's that all OPINIONS should be considered for input. I would point out however that only the most reliable and authoritative sources of information be used. The ONLY website listed under the library channel's directory for JW's is [www.watchtower.org their official website]. Theology changes constantly, and to dismiss JW's as unchristian because current "christian" theology schools say we are a cult is bad. Do you think Tom Jefferson or John Hancock were not Christians? Try telling your fellow churchgoers you do! To be honest most who teach or are taught in theology schools do not believe the Bible is reliable, therefore basing their arguments for the doctrines they teach on the Bible seems quite strange.

It is not only JW's view but Internet Serch Engines view (Yahoo! and Lycos) that JW is a Christianity group. Rantaro 06:51, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, Thomas Jefferson and many of the founding fathers were deists; Thomas Jefferson in particular is well known for literally using a scissors to cut out the parts of the Bible he didn't like. I think most of my fellow churchgoers would agree. Our doctrines are based on the Bible and the tradition of the Church in an unbroken, public line of apostolic succession. I mean the Eastern Orthodox Church, not Rome. Wesley 04:09, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am not familiar with that information about Jefferson. JW's doctrines are based solely on the bible, none on tradition. Who are claiming to be Apostles today in the Eastern Orthodox Church? Have you inserted a "nontrinitarian" intro into the mormon article?

Regarding Jefferson, see Thomas Jefferson and the Jefferson Bible articles. Of course JW's doctrines are based on tradition, including the belief that Jesus and God are two entirely separate beings. That tradition informs the way you interpret the Bible, just as the traditions of every other denomination inform the way they interpret the Bible, my own included. Your tradition probably also includes well accepted truth about how God revealed the true Gospel to humanity in these latter days through Charles Russell, more or less. Having a tradition per se is nothing to be ashamed of. You are welcome to read the intro to the Mormonism article and judge for yourself. The word "nontrinitarian" does not appear there, but neither does the intro call it "Christian". Most of the controversy about whether Mormonism is a form of Christianity has been pulled out and moved to the Mormonism and Christianity page. I don't know if you would prefer to do something like that here? You might also wish to confer with some of the Mormons who have worked on the Mormonism and Christianity article. Wesley \

I think that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where write the fact neutrally and without libel, not where controvert what is a Christian. I think you should controvert about JW in other sites. Rantaro 05:04, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

libel?? All I have said is that many people do not consider JW's Christians, while others do. It is a fact that this is controversial. I think you should also write the facts neutrally, and admit that the JW's Christianity is something about which a great many people disagree. Both POV's need to be represented. Wesley 16:52, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have requested for mediation with you. But mediation committe are negative about this matter, and I plan to request for page protection Rantaro 00:15, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the Eastern Orthodox Church's apostolic succession, this is preserved by all of her bishops, particularly her patriarchs and metropolitans (subset of bishops). For instance, see Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem. By apostolic succession is meant both that the list of their teachers is ultimately traced back to Jesus Christ, and that they continue to teach the same things that Jesus Christ and His apostles taught. They may elaborate on those teachings, or explain them more fully, but should not and dare not contradict them. Individual bishops or priests may err and indeed have erred, but these errors have ultimately been refuted and defeated in every age, by the grace of God. Wesley 02:24, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses think that apostolic succession don't come from Jesus' Apostles or Bible, but from posterity apostate Christians.(2 Thessalonians 2:3) Many historians also think so.

I'm well aware of this. The subject is somewhat covered in the Great Apostasy article, but perhaps you could also improve that article. If it isn't already mentioned at apostolic succession, I would also invite you to note the controversy there. See? Balance is good. Wesley 16:52, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A Hindu may accepts Jesus as a authentic guru and believe that the Bible is divinely inspired but will not confine himself to Jesus and the Bible. I think that the following conditions suffice to be a Christian.

acceping Jesus as guru/prophet/messsiah and not accepting gurus from other traditions
believing that the Bible is divinely inspired and acceping holy books from other traditiions.

It will be clear that I consider Jehovah witnesses fully Christian. Andries 09:44, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that is clear. I'm not quite clear why your conditions allow for accepting holy books from other traditions, but not gurus from other traditions. More importantly, I think these conditions are much broader than the general understanding of what Christianity is, especially when viewed historically over the past 2,000 years. It is this historical understanding of Christianity, and to some extent the general understanding in current usage, that seems more useful to me in the context of this wikipedia. What you think or what I think the conditions should be are not terribly significant guidelines. Wesley 16:15, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Children who died

No evidence that many children have died due to JW doctrine? How about the May 22, 1994 Awake! magazine showing photos of 26 children, with the caption: "Youths Who Put God First."

Inside the magazine glorifies Witness children who died supporting WTS policy...that's not evidence enough?

This magazine insist that many children have died in the PAST (or Biblical age), not now. Rantaro 06:51, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Seeking a way forward

It appears that I have offended and upset a number of editors of this talk page and of the article in the last few weeks. This is at least partly because of the back and forth debate earlier on this page. For that part of the debate that was over the question of whether Jehovah's Witnesses are truly Christians, I apologize for my part in it. Wikipedia articles and discussion pages are not a proper forum to attempt to persuade people of such opinions, much less to settle such issues. Given my experience with wikipedia, I should have known better, did know better, and proceeded anyway. Please accept my humble apology, and forgive me, poor sinner that I am. Wesley \

I would ask that we agree to use this forum to discuss the improvement of the article, and the best way to apply Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy to the subject matter. Hopefully we can arrive at some compromise that we can all at least live with, even if none of us is really happy with it in the end. Wesley 02:58, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You don't have to apologize to anyone, but I wish you consider minor religions just as major religions. I think nobody is angry with you. If we are Christians truely, I think we need to have Christian love (Matt.5:43-48; Jo.13:35). Of course, we also have to have wiki-love as Wikipedians. We can see you are an administrator, and we wish you deal with everything fairly. Thank you. -With Christian love and Wiki-love, Rantaro 06:00, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Believe me, I'm trying to be fair. For instance, at one time I hoped (as did at least one or two other editors) that "nontrinitarian" would be an acceptable compromise word, much more so than "non-Christian" for instance: since JW's don't claim to be trinitarian, I didn't expect it to be this objectionable. It's a word that will mean different things to different readers, and that leaves the interpretation up to the reader. What this article cannot be is nothing but the straight party line from the Watchtower Society. Official information should certainly be included and considered a strong source, but not the only one, any more than the Vatican should be the only acceptable source of information about Roman Catholicism. Wesley 17:07, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NPOV demands that somewhere in the encyclopedia it be explained that according to one POV, JW are not a branch of Christianity. And also that said reference be pointed to as needed. NPOV demands that all significant POVs on a subject be explained, and that disputes be characterized. This subject cannot be resolved until the key parties read carefully and commit to follow the WP:NPOV article. I am not familiar with this corner of Wikipedia, but I would guess there may be a long, bumpy road ahead before this is resolved. Tom - Talk

I edited the article for language, clarity, and POV. Note that I left a few < ! - - Comments - - > in the source text that need to be addressed. But I don't see at this time why the NPOV disputation must remain. Can somebody explain why it should? Tom - Talk

I put the NPOV notice up after Rantaro formally requested mediation regarding this page, and suggested he was going to ask that it be protected. Those seemed like strong indicators that the page's neutrality was in dispute, so I was just trying to label the page according to what was going on here in discussion, and the sort of "slow motion edit war" over the opening that's been going on the last six months or longer. Given the slow motion edit war, I'd be inclined to leave the notice up until this is better resolved among all or at least most interested editors. Wesley 20:52, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Wesley. I was just wondering. I don't blame you. So I guess my question below stands for the JW editors. Tom - Talk 21:51, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Having said and done all that, I ask the JW editors how they would characterize fairly the break between JW and nominal Christianity. Tom - Talk 17:30, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I can see you misunderstand me, I'll account to you.

I don't want to request immediately for page protect.
I requested for mediation because I see Wesley are an administrator. I also participate Japanese Wikipedia, there I can see some JW editors are banished from Japanese Wikipedia by Japanese administrators. I'm afraid that JW editors are also banished from English Wikipedia by administrator, because of edit war between JW editors and the other editors. Then I requested for mediation to be seen by third (neutral) party, before heavey edit wars occur.
If you say that JW can't define as Christianity, or that is POV, all the Christian groups (including Catholics, Orthodox Church, Protestants, Latter-Day Saints) can't define as Christianity, or that is POV, because JW believe that trinity come from pegan, and that apostolic succession don't come from Apostles. (This mean JW think they are nominal Christians.) Do you understand this?

At last, I'm Japanese, and I'm sorry for my poor English. Rantaro 02:29, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate highly your struggles given the fact you have to struggle not only with the issue, but with English. If we will all be patient, this will turn out to be a Great Thing. From what you describe, it sounds like there may be some nasty stuff going on at Japanese. Your experience here will help that. Jimbo Wales has personally set a great example and precedent, and we can feel very fortunate for the culture that has prevailed at Wikipedia in English. Every little struggle and interlingual experience like this that helps spread the positive aspects of en through Wikipediadom is a Great Thing. I can't imagine that Wesley would ever even feel free to ban you. Banning is a highly restricted action here, with careful procedures and safeguards. So feel free to speak your mind. Tom - Talk

Some direct questions we all should probably answer then. Tom - Talk

Do you prefer to remove the NPOV dispute right now, or leave it up? Tom - Talk

Remove. The article doesn't stand out as problematic. But leaving it up could serve as a prod if we decide to go on with the Great Wikipedia JW Discussion. Tom - Talk 03:32, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Do you prefer to get other JW editors and focus on this article (and the whole JW area) right now, or shall we leave it alone?

Leave alone. Actually that's not true. I would rather see this happen, but I don't know that it can with just Tom, Wesley, and Rantaro. But if we can get some knowlegeable JW editors to help Rantaro with the adherent POV and maybe somebody else to help Wesley and me with the outsider critical POV, I am willing to go along with a struggle. I just don't have enough investment in the topic to do it alone, or probably with just us three. And I think it will be too frustrating for Rantaro unless he gets a native English fellow adherent invlolved. Tom - Talk 03:32, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And finally for Rantaro. Could you take 20 minutes to read the WP:NPOV article in English? Thanks. I appreciate all your efforts. Tom - Talk 03:32, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't mean that I remove or leave alone. But I mean, if you angry at my poor English, please forgive me. Then, I ask you two questions.

Tom, why did you erase the phrase "for other religions"? Jehovah's Witnesses don't think they are controversy. They preach to teach Good News of Jesus Christ(Matt.28:19,20), not to controvert or argue. I think this statement is biased to other Christian groups views, isn't it?

I apologize if I did wrong. The wording was poor, but I understand your concern. You are saying that non-Christians generally call JWs Christians; it is only a lot of Christian groups that say otherwise. You might see how this is stated on Mormonism, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Mormonism and Christianity. I honestly don't recall, but I understand your point. Go ahead and try to fix it. Tom - Talk 07:11, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You mean is NPOV only major opinions, does it ignore minority opinions? For instanse, it is major opinions that worshipping Jesus as God are Christianity. But this opinions ignore JW opinions. This definition make JW as non-Christian. But JW opinion make other Christian groups as nominal Christians. In this case, Wiki-en ignore JW opinion? This similar situation occured in Wiki-ja. Only major opinions were accepted in Wiki-ja, and JW opinion were ignored. All the JW opinions are erased by administrators in Wiki-ja. I think this is unfair. Rantaro 04:49, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, no, no, not at all. NPOV is to "represent all significant POVs fairly." That is a big different from all majority POVs. Does that help? Of course many minority opinions are significant. Yours is significant to you, isn't it? The only problem we sometimes run into is when there are so many opinions that it is hopeless to represent them all fairly. Then we have to start generalizing as in the Human article. See it isn't so bad as you may have feared. NPOV works in your favor here; we are just trying to help you figure out an appropriate way to resolve it. Tom - Talk 07:11, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Rantaro, let me begin by saying I have no intention of banning you, or of using my "admin powers" to advance my side of an argument. To be honest, I don't think I've ever actually exercised my admin. privileges, so if I've abused them it has only been through neglect. You're clearly not a wikipedia vandal, and I can't see any other reason you should be banned. Wesley \

The Trinity article does at least mention that some believe it has pagan origins. The apostolic succession article seems to lack much of a critique; it should probably at least link to the Great Apostasy article with a short mention of that area of dissent. Also for what it's worth, one of my earliest controversies was connected with the Christianity and anti-Semitism article, which I think might have been named Christian antisemitism or something at the time. I'm still not terribly happy with it, as it puts some people I revere as saints in a very bad light. But, aside from deleting quotes that were just wrong or couldn't be documented, and in some cases adding the Church's side of a particular incident, there's not really that much I can legitimately do about it. Such is life on Wikipedia. Fortunately, I managed to learn a bit while researching the claims made there.

SeeTrinity#Alleged pagan origin about trinity. Rantaro 05:03, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Back to this article, and defining this or that group as "Christian". Your point about no group qualifying for the moniker is well taken. Is it really that bothersome or unfair to describe the JW's as "nontrinitarian Christians"? Wesley 04:06, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that "nontrinitarian Christians" is unfair or POV. But, george_m think it is unfair. Maybe, he dislike that JW are equated with other nontrinitarian Christians groups like Arians. They think the holy spirit is person, but JW think it's not.Rantaro 06:12, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would say if Wesley is willing to approve "Jehovah's Witnesses (JW) are a nontrinitarian Christian group" you should count yourself lucky and go with it unless you want to change the word non-trinitarian. If I recall properly, we couldn't even agree on that about the LDS church: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a non-trinitarian Christian church". So accept it cheerfully. Tom - Talk 07:18, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have very little time for this and so I sometimes get flippant with my work. Please accept my apologies for any insults or mistakes. Also I have little time for discussion. I do want to participate in regular work on articles related to JW's. I will try to be more clear and helpful. As to "nontrinitarian", I have no problem with it being there, I had originally removed it one time because I thought it was redundant. I now understand the reason why it was introduced and appreciate the logic. george m

About Mediation

Hi! I saw Rantaro's request for mediation, & thought I'd take a look to see if it can be of help. Although I feel I am impartial on this matter, I feel it is only fair to mention that I have an uncle in his 80's who has been a practicing JW for most of his life -- as are his children & grandchildren.

I did something of a quick read of this Talk page, & I'm not quite clear how mediation can help. Before mediation can get very far underway, let alone succeed, I feel that there are a couple of things that need to happen first:

1.Rantaro has asked for "mediation" concerning this article, & mentions Wesley in particular. Wesley, are you willing to engage in mediation? If not, then frankly there's nothing that can be done.

2.Rantaro, you speak about "libel" in reference to this article. I'm not quite clear what you mean by this word; accordig to my copy of Black's Law Dictionary, to libel someone is to "defame or injure a person's reputation by a published writing." I have to say that anything so far written about Jehovah's Witnesses here is defamatory, although it's clear you are not happy about some of what has been written. Are you willing to explain the items that upset you here, & why?

Sorry, "libel" is incorrect for this situation, I think "slander" is correct English. Rantaro 05:57, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that's the right word. Turning once again to my copy of Black's Law Dictionary, I find it defines slander as defamation of someone or something "by oral expression"; libel is defamation "expressed by print, writing, pictures or signs".

Obviously you don't agree with what is being written about the JW. Perhaps the word you're searching for is "insulting"? If so, can you explain why you feel that it is? -- llywrch 23:56, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

3.Lastly, mediation can't succeed unless all parties involved are willing to find some kind of common ground. Even if you refuse my further efforts in this matter, no one on the Mediation Committee will be able to help with this unless everyone wants to find some kind of common ground. We have no powers to force anyone to do what she/he doesn't want to do -- although I'm willing to offer my honest opinions about any matter here. (I am always willing to expound on a topic to any audience. ;-)

Having written that, do I hear interest in mediation? -- llywrch 05:11, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think from reading earlier comments that R has dealt with difficulties in Japanese Wikip and is feeling tension that wouldn't normally be associated with English Wikip. I do not feel mediation is neccessary and have greatly appreciated the objectivity of the admin in this group since I began "playing" with wikipedia two years ago, and also now that I am actually trting to "work" here. george m

Llywrch, I think that Rantaro requested mediation because it was his experience in the Japanese Wikipedia that JW's were banned by administrators who disagreed with them, and he saw that I was an administrator who was disagreeing with him. As I have no intention of banning anyone, I don't see any need for a formal mediation process at this time. I'm open to being persuaded otherwise if other reasons are put forward though. Wesley 16:42, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Since you declined mediation, Wesley, & I noticed BCorr (another mediator) has discussed this option elsewhere, I'll mark this issue closed on the Wikipedia:Requests for mediation page. -- llywrch 18:06, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)