Talk:Oneness Pentecostalism

In the "Baptism of the Holy Spirit" section, the article says, Unlike most Trinitarian Pentecostals, Oneness adherents assert that receipt of the Holy Spirit is necessary for salvation." The clause "Unlike most Trinitarian Pentecostals," needs to be removed, as it's not true. Most Christians think receiving the Holy Spirit is needed for salvation. They just don't agree that it must be manifested by speaking in tongues.

Changes made.

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

@TheLionHasSeen, let's use this space to discuss.

I am very confused as to why you seem intent on simply reverting over 14,000 bytes of added and carefully edited content (including grammar, typos, and content with sources from academic sources from research journals and reputable publishing companies), rather than addressing any apparent WP:NPOV issues you or any other editor see. You refer to WP:CONSENSUS, but I don't see any lack of consensus other than one editor who was clearly being disruptive and not bringing WP:GOODFAITH to their complaints. If you have issues with the NPOV in this article, you are welcome to discuss it here and/or revise the article as it stands, but wholly reverting the article and wiping away dozens of changes, including those following WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:V seems, at least, improper. JParksT2023 (talk) 02:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

A deep conflict of interest is highly susceptible, as the conversations held upon your personal talk page give deep-POV pushing. As you have professed yourself publicly as a Oneness Pentecostal, and upon further review of this article, the sources are overly one-sided and from Oneness Pentecostal standpoints. No alternative understandings are promoted, and the information has gone unchallenged from a least-biased yet perhaps offensive understanding. This article is currently full of what seems spurious, one-sided advocacy. That is why those reverts were created as a red alert. This article will be reverted until further review, to maintain the integrity of this encyclopedia. There were also signs of contentious contributions regarding Restorationism as well. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 02:59, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

@TheLionHasSeen, I appreciate your engagement, but I must object to your rationale.

Being a member of the faith discussed is not a conflict of interest. As per WP:COI, a COI applies to editors promoting themselves, paid work, or editing without disclosure. That does not apply here. Editors from religious, ethnic, or cultural communities are encouraged to participate, so long as edits are verifiable and neutral, which I assert that mine are. With specific regards to the conversation held on my talk page, this demonstrates thoughtful engagement, not advocacy. I participated in a theological discussion with another editor in an attempt to clarify commonly misunderstood doctrinal distinctions between Oneness and Trinitarian theology. At no point did I reject the inclusion of opposing views in the article. I advocated for accuracy, not for promotion, and that’s exactly what Wikipedia expects from good-faith editors. I’m allowed to discuss theology on my user talk page. That conversation does not inform my article edits, which are written from a neutral point of view with reliable sources. No content in the article is asserted as true; doctrinal statements are properly attributed. If any content in the article is biased, please identify it specifically.

You have not pointed to any specific section, sentence, or source that violates neutrality. The version I submitted includes academic and denominational sources, documents major historical controversies, and attributes doctrinal claims properly. If any content seems unbalanced, I'm more than willing to revise it alongside consensus, but that requires specific critique, not blanket accusations. Please specify which parts you believe are spurious or non-neutral. Without specific examples, a wholesale revert of 14,000+ bytes of cited content is not consistent with WP:CONSENSUS. Reverting to a previous version repeatedly without engaging on the Talk page also violates WP:BRD-NOT, WP:OWN, and WP:DR. If you believe alternative views are underrepresented, please propose content, sources, or revisions instead of blanket rejection.

If concerns persist, I propose we open a formal Request for Comment (RfC) to gather broader community input on the balance and sourcing in the revised version. This would allow neutral editors to weigh in constructively. Let’s work together to make this article accurate and balanced.

P.S. The edits to Restorationism were a genuine mistake, I missed sources in my haste and should not have done what I did, that was my bad and I never went back to change the article in a similar fashion after being alerted.

JParksT2023 (talk) 03:19, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I am also providing an explanation for my changes here to review. I believe I have acted appropriately with the content I have added, but please feel free to comment if you disagree.

1. The lead for the article was clunky with too much granular information and including too many citations, some of which were poor quality (see MOS:LEAD). All I did was simply condense it into the important material and use appropriate (and sparing) WP:RS citations. Additionally, rather than using space focusing on describing OP beliefs in the negative (OPs reject xyz... or OPs believe xyz... in contrast to xyz...), I described them simply by themselves (OPs believe xyz...) to better help with clarity in standalone, encyclopedic terms specifically in the lead. The specific details (for example, Finished Work Pentecostals vs Holiness Pentecostals differences on holiness standards) are meant to be drawn out deeper in the article, not the lead. Rather, the lead is designed to be a simple breakdown of the important information for a casual reader.

2. The History section of the article was good, but I felt like it could be expanded with more historical information. I added substantial amounts of material that was backed up by citations from academic sources, and added appropriate subsections to maintain sectional flow and aim.

3. The Oneness theology opened with a sentence containing an inaccuracy, so I fixed it (Modalistic Monarchism is from the second and third centuries, not the fourth).

4. The "Characteristics of God" section title could be improved for clarity, so I changed it to "Doctrine of God" to better reflect what is discussed in that section in a NPOV way.

5. The placement of the "Accusations of Modalism and Arianism" subsection felt misplaced under the "View of the Trinity" section, since OPs being accused of ancient heresies is not necessarily related to what OPs view about the Trinity, so I moved the section to be placed underneath the "Doctrine of God" section, since the accusations are related to OP doctrine about God, not the doctrine of the Trinity. I also moved the second and third paragraphs of the "View of the Trinity" section to the "Doctrine of God" section because they dealt more with the OP perspective of God than its opposition to the Trinity. (As a side note, I am realizing as I am writing this that those paragraphs should not be in the "Accusations of Modalism and Arianism" subsection as I had originally placed them, but rather placed at the ending of the "Doctrine of God" section.)

6. I slightly edited—and added some academically-sourced content to—the second and third paragraphs of the "View of the Trinity" section and the "Accusations of Modalism and Arianism" subsection to preserve proper clarity on what OPs claim and how it contrasts with others. I think this version is clearer and more precise.

7. One of the most significant portions of my edits other than the lead was found in the "View of the Trinity" section. I thought that there were substantial issues with this section, so this was one of the largest overhaul of the article that I attempted. Here are the issues I saw:

1. It placed OP arguments as being essentially equivalent to Jehovah's Witnesses' arguments, but that is not necessarily the case (and I argue it is WP:OR to combine them together in this way). Using sources arguing against JW teachings to rebut OP teachings is clearly WP:SYNTH.

2. It created a false dichotomy between mainstream Christian scholars and Oneness Pentecostals. These are not the only two groups that exist, and each group is not a monolith, but they are presented as such. Secular scholars and Trinitarian scholars have ranging views, some of which support OP claims and some of which go against OP claims.

3. It used POV language such as "alleged", which is a violation of MOS:DOUBT and has the effect of making OP arguments seem completely unsubstantiated when that may not be the case.

In response to these issues, I rewrote it and added significant content from academic sources, including Trinitarian scholars that support a OP view that the doctrine of the Trinity developed over time and those that don't, alongside secular scholars and encyclopedic sources. This version removes substantial issues from the older one.

8. The "Oneness views on the early church" section was another area that I thought could use work. The phrasing was quite clunky in some places, which I attempted to fix, and I thought that some of it deviated away from Bernard's arguments related to the focus of the section, so I tried to refocus it onto the actual arguments he was making regarding the early church, rather than devolving into a book review.

9. In the "Baptismal formula" subsection, I simply added quotes that I could find directly from the source in two different encyclopedias and tweaked some wordings, with the exception of the paragraph on the Didache (see next point).

10. The paragraph on the Didache seemed to solely focus on refuting one (or at most only a handful) of OPs that support more fringe theories on the document, which could be read as dismissive of all OP perspectives (constituting WP:OR without the proper sourcing for such implications). I rewrote it to include OP arguments about the explanation for the text of the Didache, rather than making it all about the dating when it isn't while still mentioning the dating arguments that exist. I also added a Trinitarian scholarly viewpoint who did a summation of the topic to the mix too. (I do acknowledge that I overlooked a potentially-POV sentence in my version that should be changed to "However, the document also describes individuals being "baptized into the name of the Lord" (Didache 9:5), a construction that Oneness Pentecostals claim parallels references to baptism found in the book of Acts").

11. Finally, I felt that the last paragraph in the "Historical development" could use more clarification, so I reworded and added content with a scholarly source.

In all, I added (by my count) 35 scholarly sources and removed about 12 popular or denominational-level sources of marginal reliability (see WP:RS) while expanding factual information and scholarly analysis, including scholarly viewpoints that had previously been missing. I additionally restructured certain parts to make the structure more accessible and balanced. These edits are grounded in Wikipedia policy and guided by efforts to improve clarity, structure, and scholarly balance. I’m happy to collaborate on any needed refinements, but I believe the case is strong for restoring this version as the working base.

Thanks, JParksT2023 (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

No response has been given in over three days since I provided a detailed explanation of the edits and invited constructive feedback. As per WP:BRD, I’m restoring the revised version pending further discussion. I remain open to collaboration and am willing to adjust specific points based on policy-grounded critique. If concerns persist, I also welcome an RfC to ensure broader community input. JParksT2023 (talk) 03:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi, @JParksT2023, forgive my absence. I was without internet. TheLionHasSeen (talk) 13:25, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I will be responding to your points, piece by piece, in a few hours. TheLionHasSeen (talk) 13:27, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi again, @TheLionHasSeen. Since it has now been over five hours since your comment stating that you'd respond "in a few hours," and no response has been given, I am reverting the article to the version that reflects the substantial improvements I made, backed by reliable scholarly sources and explained in detail above. This includes not only the original changes but additional content added since our discussion began, which was also removed without being addressed. The BRD process exists to encourage exactly this kind of discussion after a bold change and revert, and I’ve engaged that in good faith by providing a detailed explanation of the edits in question. Your new revert bypassed that dialogue and also removed new content added after the original version without addressing or acknowledging it. That kind of blanket reversion is not in line with collaborative editing norms or with policies like WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:DISPUTE.

This reversion is not intended to shut down discussion, but rather to ensure that good-faith, policy-aligned contributions are not indefinitely held up while I await engagement. To reiterate: I remain open to any specific concerns about neutrality or sourcing and am more than willing to work together to revise or refine material in response to clearly stated issues. But wholesale reversions, especially in the absence of articulated policy-based objections, undermine the consensus-building process. I still welcome your promised response and hope we can find a constructive resolution moving forward. Let’s work toward improvement through discussion, not undo buttons. JParksT2023 (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

While I waited for your response, I worked to improve the article further by incorporating additional scholarly sources and clarifying a few points in response to possible concerns. These edits were reverted alongside the previous ones, despite being incremental and well-cited. I hope we can discuss these on their merits as well if needed, rather than treating the article as frozen until some undefined "review" is complete. JParksT2023 (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I am going to review them. I just left the emergency room and hospital after a long, much-needed surgery and rest. TheLionHasSeen (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

Hey, @TheLionHasSeen,

Thanks for opening the discussion. I want to address the two specific points of contention regarding WP:OR and source representation.

1. The removal of the qualifier "formally"

   The inclusion of the word "formally" (as in "no Christian theologians were formally Trinitarian") constitutes WP:OR because it introduces a distinction not present in the cited text. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry by Dale Tuggy is explicit: it does not state that early theologians held a "informal" Trinitarian view; it states they held a different view entirely. To quote the source directly:

   "No theologian in the first three Christian centuries was a trinitarian in the sense of believing that the one God is tripersonal, containing equally divine 'Persons', Father, Son, and Holy Spirit... As this sort of theology features no tripersonal God, it is misleading to call it 'trinitarian.'"

   By adding the word "formally," the article implies that these theologians were Trinitarian in belief, lacking only formal terminology. This directly contradicts the source, which argues their theology (often subordinationist or monadic) was fundamentally distinct from later Trinitarianism. We must stick to what the source actually says per WP:V, rather than softening the claim to fit a theological orthodoxy.

2. "Early Christianity" vs. "Jewish Christianity"

   Regarding the Bart Ehrman citation: The edit to "Early Christianity" was made because Ehrman's argument in the cited material refers to the earliest followers of Jesus generally, not merely the later sect specifically classified as "Jewish Christians" (Jewish followers of Jesus that still retained devotion to the Law). Ehrman posits that the original Christology inherited from Judaism was strictly monotheistic. Restricting this to "Jewish Christians" creates a false dichotomy in the text, implying that Gentile Christians of the same earliest period held a different view, which misrepresents Ehrman's thesis on the timeline of Christological development.

Thoughts? JParksT2023 (talk) 18:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello! "In the sense of believing..." quite clearly suggests that it was not formally established; and all complementing sources suggest the same. Why? It hasn't been formalized. As for your statement on "implying that Gentile Christians of the same earliest period held a different view, which misrepresents Ehrman's thesis on the timeline of Christological development" and "because Ehrman's argument in the cited material refers to the earliest followers of Jesus generally, not merely the later sect specifically classified as "Jewish Christians," you are forgetting that the first Christians were in fact, Jewish Christians. Therefore, this bears little weight. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 22:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @TheLionHasSeen, thanks for the reply. I appreciate the engagement, and I apologize for the late response.

On "Early" vs "Jewish" Christianity: My objection here is procedural. We must adhere to the terminology actually used in the cited source. Bart Ehrman explicitly uses the phrase "the earliest Christians" in the text, not "the Jewish Christians." While it is historically true that the first Christians were Jewish, the term "Jewish Christianity" has a specific theological and sectarian connotation in scholarship (often referring to groups like the Ebionites who rejected Pauline theology). Ehrman chose the broader term "Early Christianity" to describe the general movement. By changing the source's terminology to "Jewish Christianity," we are impermissibly altering the scope of the scholar's claim and engaging in WP:OR by substituting our own preferred terminology for the author's. We must reflect what the source says, not what we think it should imply.

On "Formally": I am afraid I have to disagree, both on the interpretation of the source and the procedural reasoning. Tuggy defines "Trinitarian" specifically as "believing that the one God is tripersonal, containing equally divine 'Persons'." He then concludes that early theologians were not Trinitarian because they did not hold this belief (often holding to subordinationism instead). Adding the word "formally" acts as a qualifier that changes the meaning of the sentence. It suggests they held the belief (substance) but lacked the creed (form). The source explicitly says they lacked the belief itself (a tripersonal God). To say they were "not formally Trinitarian" implies they were "informally Trinitarian," which Tuggy directly refutes when he says: "As this sort of theology features no tripersonal God, it is misleading to call it 'trinitarian'." We cannot synthesize the source's statement with the view that they were "informally" Trinitarian. Additionally, just as with the Ehrman citation above, we must adhere to the text of the source. Tuggy's article does not use the qualifier "formally." By inserting a qualifier that is absent from the source text, we are introducing a distinction (between "formal" and "informal" adherence) that the author did not make. This constitutes WP:OR. As editors, we should stick with what the sources say rather than adding our interpretation. JParksT2023 (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, you are quite welcome; thank you for also engaging with me, and it is quite fine as the end of the year is hectic (such is the bittersweetness of life, right).

I understand your procedural objection; however, "the earliest Christians" were Jewish Christians, and that is something that cannot be denied, regardless of an apparent sectarian connotation in scholarship. They were not solely the Ebionites, as well; and this is reflecting what the source is stating. As for the theological scholarship remarks, you do know that there is a type of Trinitarianism with subordinationism called Monarchical Trinitarianism? Please do look it up, as I would refuse to insult your much-appreciated intelligence and dialogue. The sources all clearly state that Trinitarianism developed from the beliefs of these early Christian leaders and groups; and therefore, it was formalized as a doctrine, because it was indeed codified amongst the early Church. So, is this really implying, or is it going against a pro-Oneness, but none-academic POV? TheLionHasSeen (talk) 02:15, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @TheLionHasSeen, thanks for the warm response. I completely agree, as a student, the end of the semester is always a scramble. I appreciate you taking the time to discuss this.

On "Jewish Christians": I understand your point that, demographically, the earliest Christians were Jewish. However, on Wikipedia, we must distinguish between historical demographics and the specific terminology used by the cited scholar. In academic literature, the specific phrase "Jewish Christianity" is often used as a technical "term of art" to distinguish that specific demographic from the developing "Gentile" church. When Bart Ehrman writes "Earliest Christians," he is choosing the broadest possible term to encompass the entire movement (both the original Jerusalem church and the expanding mission). If we change his words to "Jewish Christians," we risk narrowing the scope of his claim or implying a contrast with Gentile Christianity that Ehrman isn't making in this specific text. Per WP:V, we should stick to the author's chosen terminology ("Early") rather than substituting a term ("Jewish") that carries specific technical implications in the field.

On "Formally": I am familiar with the concept of Monarchical Trinitarianism. However, the issue here is source integrity. We are citing Dale Tuggy's entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. In that specific text, Tuggy defines Trinitarianism strictly as belief in a "tripersonal God, containing equally divine persons." He then explicitly states that early theologians did not fit this definition. Even if other scholars might use the term "Monarchical Trinitarianism," Tuggy does not in this context. He argues the opposite: "As this sort of theology features no tripersonal God, it is misleading to call it 'trinitarian'." By adding "formally," we are essentially saying, "Tuggy is wrong; they were Trinitarian, just informally." This constitutes WP:SYNTH: combining the cited source with outside knowledge (about Monarchical Trinitarianism) to imply a conclusion (that they were Trinitarian in substance), which the cited source explicitly rejects. We cannot use the article voice to "correct" the source based on outside knowledge. If the source says "It is misleading to call them Trinitarian," we cannot write "They were not formally Trinitarian," because that implies they were Trinitarian in some other sense, which the source denies. For the Tuggy sentence specifically, we must accurately report his conclusion: that they were not Trinitarian. This isn't about a pro-Oneness POV; it is about accurately reflecting the specific sources cited without synthesizing them with outside theological frameworks. JParksT2023 (talk) 04:59, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @TheLionHasSeen, I noticed you have been active on the article today but have not yet responded to the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH I concerns raised above. Since you are evidently available to edit, I assume your silence on these specific points implies you have no policy-based objection to the Tuggy and Ehrman changes. To avoid further delay, I will restore the text to match the source citations tomorrow (Wednesday) unless you provide a valid policy-based counterargument before then. JParksT2023 (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

There is no consensus, and my internet was wonky as I was in the middle of travel. My responses are standing still. TheLionHasSeen (talk) 01:46, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Also, the proper source verifying that they were "Jewish" Christians and unitarian monotheists was added; and again, Trinitarianism was formally developed. That is not synthesis, but common sense like Oneness was formally developed in the 1900s, by drawing from other historic strands of modalism according to the multitude of sources. TheLionHasSeen (talk) 01:50, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

@TheLionHasSeen: It seems that we have reached an impasse on this. To move forward constructively, I am filing a request at WP:Third Opinion (see Active disagreements) to invite a neutral editor to review the dispute. Please hold off on further edits to the disputed text until we receive input. JParksT2023 (talk) 02:28, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea. Please, go for it! It will help both of us. TheLionHasSeen (talk) 02:30, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Fantastic! Thank you for your support, it will definitely make the process a lot smoother! JParksT2023 (talk) 02:32, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I just wish others could do as we do. We have been dedicated to many articles, but unlike others, we don't have the time nor energy to be at each other's throats. This world is too polarized. TheLionHasSeen (talk) 02:55, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Since no objections were raised, I have restored the text to match the citations. If new policy concerns arise, let's continue the discussion here before any further reverts. JParksT2023 (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I think this discussion is more complex than it would first appear, so I wish to take my time and examine the extant discussion(s) and arguments carefully. I'm placing this here primarily as a placeholder. However, given the length of the discussions, I'd like to request that @JParksT2023 and @TheLionHasSeen each reply with your preferred diffs and a relatively concise reasoning for preferring it. Thanks in advance! MWFwiki (talk) 02:58, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I would prefer this diff.

• Dale Tuggy (SEP) explicitly writes that early Christian theologians were not Trinitarian (and that it is inaccurate to call them such), so adding "formally" implies that he believes they were Trinitarian in some sense when the source rejects that, in violation WP:OR. "Formally" should be removed.
• Bart Ehrman says, "The earliest Christians inherited a strict monotheism from Judaism", and earliest Christians is a broader term than the earliest Jewish Christians. Since Ehrman does not use the more specific term, but rather the broader term, in his argument, the article should also. The link should direct to Early Christianity, the broader movement irrespective of ethnicity (Jew or Gentile), rather than limiting specifically to Jewish Christianity, a smaller subset of early Christianity, when the source does not.

My argument is that "formally" and "Jewish" are both additions to the text that alter the meaning, and so should be rejected under WP:OR. JParksT2023 (talk) 03:44, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I argue the current version should stand:

• Early Christian theologians spoke of Binitarian or Trinitarian understandings, without being formally Trinitarian because the doctrine is an official development. Therefore, it should not be removed.
• Ehrman, like all other scholars, understands "strict monotheism" from Judaism refers to Unitarianism, not Trinitarianism, Binitarianism, Modalism, etc. Earliest Christians refers to Jewish Christians as well because historically, most of the earliest Christians were Jewish Christians; and Michael J. Kruger's article backs this up: https://michaeljkruger.com/did-the-earliest-christians-think-jesus-was-an-angel-a-response-to-bart-ehrman-part-2/ and can be used as a supporting reference. Therefore, these do not alter the meaning whatsoever, and should stand. Don't forget, I also add to add verifiable, and reliable citations that were woefully removed for no explainable reason; and information used in an apparent conflict of interest by being Oneness Pentecostal, were placed which contributed to citation overkill. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I have seen the prospect of a COI mentioned several times, now. Even an apparent COI is deeper than simply "[that editor] practices this religion." Should I not edit law enforcement articles because I am a LEO? Should I not edit military articles because I'm a veteran? Should atheists not edit articles related to atheism or agnosticism? Etc, etc.

Just to give you an example of an apparent COI which I recently dealt with; A temporary account editor was making edits to a page concerning an entity which has had lawsuits filed against it. This editor had access to documents pertinent to the lawsuit and could not explain where they obtained them all. Further, they made an argument that one of the attorneys involved in the lawsuit made (and it was a very niche and specific argument). That is an apparent COI.

All of this to say; Unless you have an evidence of a COI or apparent COI (and perhaps you do), I would avoid this argument, as it may be construed as a personal attack, whether you intend for it to be or not, which I'm sure you're aware of.

Regardless, back to the content dispute; allow me some time to examine both arguments. MWFwiki (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

ARBITRARY BREAK

Okay, TheLionHasSeen and JParksT2023; Regarding "formally," I agree it should be removed. I actually understand the argument for inclusion, and I read the source carefully. I don't think "formally" is an outrageous descriptor. However, it could be seen to change the meaning of the source in ways which do not align with the letter of the source, and I agree that its removal would be best practice. However, regarding the "Early Christian" versus "Jewish Christian," that is a little more complicated, as you two are no doubt aware. My primary concern seems to be the source. It's... a blog? I realize who it belongs to, but it's still a blog, no? What is your argument for inclusion of this source under WP:UGC? Though, this appears to be UGC, as well? Is there something I'm missing? MWFwiki (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

@MWFwiki: Thanks for the evaluation and your help. Under WP:EXPERTSPS, the Ehrman blogs should be able to be included, as he is a subject matter expert that has been independently published ("Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when..."). Additionally, would it not be WP:SYNTH to use a different source to define what Ehrman means by "earliest Christians"? While I would dispute that "earliest" is strictly equivalent to "Jewish", I would argue it's more in line with WP:OR not to potentially change his meaning by adding "Jewish", especially when talking about his view in particular, rather than a full-scholarship view. I would argue simply to stick with Ehrman's direct, unaltered wording. Thoughts? JParksT2023 (talk) 03:26, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't think using SPS here is necessarily inappropriate, but I try to avoid doing-so, merely because anyone can claim the content is contentious or extraordinary, and because of the whole: " Be careful when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will likely have published it in independent, reliable sources". I am personally not a fan of policy that contains too many exceptions, loopholes, and caveats... though, policy it does remain. That being said, I personally don't think that this is necessarily an outrageously contentious claim.

As to the content itself: "Jewish Christians," versus "Early Christians;" I do agree that there seems to be some guesswork going on. The source states "earliest Christians." The "earliest Christians" were those individuals that were Christians, no? Whereas "Jewish Christians" were still Jews, no? Regardless, these argument could be made. Again, this is a case where the wording could alter the letter of source, which I would rather not do. I would argue that we should go with (the verbiage that I struck-through is the wording I would strongly suggest disposing of, for multiple reasons.):

"Other scholars — especially from secular and non-Christian backgrounds — argue more critically that Trinitarian doctrine represents a theological departure from the unitarian monotheism of the earliest Christians."

I'm not sure how I feel about that, as we say "other scholarS," but only cite Ehrman. Alternatively, what if we go with direct attribution, with something like:

Bart Ehrman, a New Testament scholar, argues that the "earliest Christians" had "shifted" their doctrine from that of "exaltation[..] where Christ was exalted to the level of divinity," to "incarnation[...] where Christ was a God who became a fleshly human being, temporarily".

(Perhaps we could add-in something about the latter being "de facto Trinitarianism," though we're getting back into OR; This is a very rough draft, but you get my point; Additionally, the next sentence would need to be changed, as well, given that Ehrman is mentioned there) We could even mention the other source, if we could get the wording right. However - and I could be wrong - but from the discussions above, I feel that we are sort of arguing one point over the other. Our "job" is not necessarily to be correct, but to simply report what reliable sources say, within the bounds of policy and guided by consensus, as I am certain you are both aware. Sometimes, that means reporting multiple viewpoints, not just the one(s) I or you deem "correct." All of that being said, I welcome both of your inputs.
MWFwiki (talk) 05:39, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

@MWFwiki: Thanks again for working with us here on this complex issue.

• I would be in full support of your proposed revision, "Other scholars argue that Trinitarian doctrine represents a theological departure from the unitarian monotheism of the earliest Christians." I think it resolves issues nicely.
• I think the plural "scholars" is still appropriate because the paragraph also discusses Géza Vermes, Daniel Boyarin, and Alan F. Segal, who expound similar views.
• I would be hesitant to adopt the second, longer statement dealing with exaltation vs. incarnation. The focus of this specific section is on the structure of the Godhead (Trinitarian doctrine vs. Unitarian monotheism), not specifically on the mechanics of Christology (how Jesus was or wasn't viewed as divine). The longer quote shifts the topic toward Christological categories, whereas the simpler sentence you proposed stays focused on the Trinity along with the rest of the section.

JParksT2023 (talk) 06:00, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I see your point about the plural "scholars" resting on a single footnote. A simple fix would be to cite other scholars (Vermes, Boyarin) alongside Ehrman in that first sentence, rather than waiting until later in the paragraph. That would immediately verify the plural phrasing with multiple sources. JParksT2023 (talk) 06:05, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Forgive me for my delayed response, @JParksT2023 and @MWFwiki. The end of the year tasks are quite hectic! But thank you both for continuing to not forget about me in this process; it means a lot in this toxic and polarized global society that we live in today. Here are my stances:

• I am in full support of that proposed revision "Other scholars argue that Trinitarian doctrine represents a theological departure from the unitarian monotheism of the earliest Christians."
• If it discusses them, should it remain then? I am confused on this second point.
• Well, the second, longer statement could be included in using a note template alongside the reference. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 15:43, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Tagging @JParksT2023 for visibility; Okay, let's go with:

"Other scholars argue that Trinitarian doctrine represents a theological departure from the unitarian monotheism of the earliest Christians." ...and let's move-up the cites so it supports the "scholars." Alternatively, if that will leave the remainder of the paragraph seemingly uncited, we could say:

"Other scholars, such as Bart Ehrman, a New Testament historian, argue that Trinitarian doctrine represents a theological departure from the unitarian monotheism of the earliest Christians." I would not be against adding Ehrman's full context in a note, but I'll leave that up to you two. MWFwiki (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

@MWFwiki: I think the first option is the most solid (and we all agreed to that phrasing), so I will move up the citations and also ensure the full paragraph also remains cited. Thank you for all your help! JParksT2023 (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I’m new to Wikipedia so please forgive me if I’m doing this wrong. That being said, I think this page needs to address the oneness position on scripture that does explicitly teach personal distinctions between Father, Son, and Spirit such as John 8:17-18 and John 16:13-15. What’s the right way we could add these discussion points in so that everyone can evaluate the text and come to their own conclusions? I believe not mentioning these texts in this debate does a disservice to the Wikipedia readers. Let me know, thanks! Colemanwalterj (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2026 (UTC)