God the Father
:... By the way, a lot of folks feel that the term "Mormon" is incorrect verging on offensive, I'm neutral on that and most everything religious myself. Mosquito ringtone Pakaran/Pakaran 19:10, 18 Dec 2003
Pakaran - great point. I'll change to Latter-day Saint.
(Request for use of word Person in opening.)
Good call. I've added in the word Persons into the intro, however kept the others as they are used by other Catholic, Orthodox and Protestants. However, please feel free to edit/alter if you have better words. Although this article includes a Mormon perspective, hopefully other Christian religions will show up on the page as well. "Manifestations" is not a word that Mormons would use to describe the Godhead (Latter-day Saints would actually prefer "persons" or "personages"), but the word came from the Sabrina Martins Trinity page - as well as in a discussion with an evangelical friend (American Protestant). It sounds like you have some good ideas that could help the flow. Feel free to share them in the article. -Nextel ringtones Visorstuff/Visorstuff 23:50, 18 Dec 2003
Minor unrelated suggestions: "Most Christians believe that God the Father has always existed in His current forms, whatever they may be (see Nicene Creed. ". #1) Shouldn't that be "form" rather than "forms", and #2) shouldn't there be a closing paren, and #3), shouldn't Nicene (or Niocene ?) be a link ? ll
Redundant
It's redundant to state that God is omnibenevolent and then state that "He is also merciful, kind and just and full of love." All of those characteristics and more are included in the meaning of omnibenevolent. Abbey Diaz BoNoMoJo/B 02:00, Dec 19, 2003
Where did this statement come from? ''The Father is the being or object of devotion and worship that Christians worship in the name of Jesus Christ.'' Trinitarian Christians worship the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit equally; when they say that they worship God, they mean that they worship all three persons of the Trinity. This is made explicitly clear over and over throughout the prayers of the Orthodox Church, and consistent with the teachings of most Christians down through the centuries. Who is it that worships only the Father in the name of the Son?? This needs to be identified so that the proper distinction can be made, or the appropriate qualifications added. Free ringtones Wesley/Wesley 13:16, 21 Jan 2004
This page is very quirky. Is it supposed to be an LDS POV or, is that an accident? I suggest that it be moved to become a sub-topic of the LDS articles.Majo Mills Mkmcconn/Mkmcconn 23:09, 23 Feb 2004
Please respond to the suggestion that this article should be moved to Mosquito ringtone God the Father (Mormonism). The entire article is heavily affected by that perspective. Sabrina Martins Mkmcconn/Mkmcconn 16:36, 24 Feb 2004
:I don't think the article should be moved; It should be revised to make it NPOV. I started working in that direction, adding some trinitarian, feminist, and secular philosophical views, but it needs more work, and some filling-out. Nextel ringtones COGDEN/COGDEN 03:35, 25 Feb 2004
:: Reading through it, I find no place to put the Trinitarian view. It's simply too far afield - really alien. Maybe someone with more imagination than myself can tackle it. Abbey Diaz Mkmcconn/Mkmcconn 05:16, 25 Feb 2004
:: I think part of the problem is that the article is about God the Father only, and not the Trinity, which is a separate article. Thus, to avoid redundancy, this article has to focus on areas in which God the Father is distinct from the Trinity or from Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. This puts the trinitarian POV in a difficult situation. Probably the best place to put in the trinitarian view is in the ontology section. I know, ontology isn't a perfect heading for all POVs, but you could argue there that God the Father isn't really within the reach of ontology, because he is incomprehensible and far beyond human analysis, but there is something called the Nicene Creed that explains how trinitarians describe God. Cingular Ringtones COGDEN/COGDEN 03:38, 26 Feb 2004
I think there is some rationale for keeping this page, since there are well established articles regarding with bamboo Jesus Christ and the himself speaking Holy Spirit. It may take some real work to NPOV it though. the transsexual Wesley/Wesley 03:21, 26 Feb 2004
"Many"??
Regarding this sentence:
''A minority of Christians, and many historical Christians, have described the Father as either a distinct Being (tritheism), or as a different "manifestation" of a single Being (modalism). ''
Many historical Christians? Seriously, can you name ten each who supported each view, prior to 1800 or so? And better yet, why are these two very different and opposing views lumped together this way? Each of these two opposing views are held by a minority of Christians today, and each by a small minority of Christians in every or almost every century of Christianity's history; there are probably some centuries when it dropped out of sight altogether. ro in Wesley/Wesley 03:21, 26 Feb 2004
:Go back lots further to the period 1AD to about 500 AD, and there are lots of Christians with either of these views, and lots of still different views as well. That's half what all those ecumenical councils were about. Most were anonymous, but I could probably name their leaders. estimate we COGDEN/COGDEN 03:38, 26 Feb 2004
:: Sabellius is well known as being a leading proponent of modalism; I don't know of others. I'm not aware of any proponents of tritheism per se; some trinitarians were accused of this, but they denied that they were teaching tritheism. My point is that even between 1 and 500 AD, I doubt that either of these movements were significant enough to attract ten leaders whose names are on record as supporting these views. I may well be wrong, but if I am, I'd love to be educated. So please, name their leaders. eternally dual Wesley/Wesley 04:35, 26 Feb 2004
-
Deleted bits
I'm removing this because it's so imprecise as to be inaccurate as an expression of Christian theology at least, and I don't see how to salvage it:
: ''God the Father is thought to be the Father of by bursts Jesus Christ through a australian brought miracle/miraculous conception and always learn virgin birth. Most sects of liggett admission Christianity believe that Jesus was conceived by God the Father through the supernatural action of the against fraud Holy Spirit, and not by the act of sex or the union of a sperm and an egg.''
Who believes that Jesus Christ came into being only when Mary conceived him? Muslims maybe? All these things need to be attributed. a fire Wesley/Wesley 04:35, 26 Feb 2004
This bit was removed from the Ontology section because it is '''not''' what most Christians believe:
: ''Most Christians also believe that God the Father is immutable, meaning that he has always existed in his current form, and never changes. By contrast, the person of investigations lead Jesus Christ underwent physical change through his bad crafts Incarnation, life, and death.''
The classical position is that God does not change; never has, never will. Jesus is God; therefore, Jesus does not change, at least not in His divinity. Prior to His Incarnation, he had no physical form whatsoever, so Incarnation itself was not a physical change; Incarnation involved adding a human body, human nature, and human will. Jesus' subsequent human changes, such as eating, growing, etc., were changes in his humanity, not changes in his divinity. while shoveling Leo the Great explained this in great detail in the famous Tome of Leo, which was largely affirmed by the usually of Council of Chalcedon, which became recognized as the without complications Fourth Ecumenical Council. The idea is summarized in the more behind Chalcedonian Creed.
Nicene Creed removed
Having said all that, I don't think that any of the Christology I just went into really belongs in an article about the eugene God the Father. Therefore I suggest that the part I remove stay deleted. to yoked Wesley/Wesley 04:49, 26 Feb 2004
Removed this part because it seemed to be more about God or the Trinity than about God the Father:
: Relationship with Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit
: The Nicene Creed, a popular conceptualization of the Trinity, states that Jesus Christ is "eternally begotten of the Father", indicating that Jesus is co-eternal with the Father, and that the Father-Son relationship has existed for all eternity and did not begin with Jesus' human birth.
I think I put it back in, accidentally; in an edit conflict. Sorry. I'll go yank it out again. Mkmcconn/Mkmcconn 05:03, 26 Feb 2004
Please help me fix the colon-itis in the second paragraph. I'm spent. Mkmcconn/Mkmcconn 05:36, 26 Feb 2004
Ontology removed
I removed the section on Ontology, as it now appears to be redundant. Mkmcconn/Mkmcconn 20:51, 26 Feb 2004
:=Ontology=
:Much as been written about the Being, or ontology, of God. Typically, Christians assert that God the Father shares the same "substance" with Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, that is, a single divine nature, as well as a single divine will, so that they are three "persons" (Greek ''hypostases''), yet one God. This form of God's existence is often referred to as the Trinity; "Holy Trinity" is also a form of personal address used when praying to God as He exists in three persons.
uncertain of intent
What is the intent of this sentence? Mkmcconn/Mkmcconn 21:11, 26 Feb 2004
:The titles of God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are at times used interchangeably.
Who uses those titles interchangably?? This passive voice has to be eliminated. The Church Fathers were emphatic that they not be used interchangably; although the Father is God, and Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, the Father is NOT the Son or the Holy Spirit, the Son is not the Holy Spirit or the Father, and the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son; at least according to the holy orthodox tradition; I think the Athanasian Creed spends some time on this point.
If someone else uses the titles interchangably, they should be identified. If we can't come up with anyone, then the sentence needs to be removed. Wesley/Wesley 02:05, 27 Feb 2004
New edits
COGDEN, I can see that it is not fully a conscious effort that results in a Mormon bent continually being re-inserted in the article. So, I'll just leave it be for a day or two and think it over, so that I don't step all over other editors and unnecessarily revert their contributions. Mkmcconn/Mkmcconn 21:47, 26 Feb 2004
I removed this sentence because it's wrong, and reflects a misunderstanding of the virgin birth:
: Yet, Christ is also called the Only Begotten Son of the Father, because of the Father's role as the father of his human body, via a mysterious virgin birth.
God the Father actually wasn't directly involved in the virgin birth; according to the Gospels, it was the Holy Spirit who "overshadowed" Mary and caused her to conceive. Jesus being begotten of the Father has nothing to do with His human birth. This point is also important in demonstrating that the Holy Spirit does not "proceed from the Father and the Son" as the filioque clause says; for although the Spirit was sent by Jesus to the Church after Jesus' ascension, the Holy Spirit had first sent Jesus into the world through the former's role in the Incarnation. They remain equally divine. Wesley/Wesley 02:01, 27 Feb 2004
kudos to COGDEN
COGDEN, with the benefit of a day's analysis I think that your edits provided a much improved structure for the article. Thanks for the work. Mkmcconn/Mkmcconn 19:24, 27 Feb 2004
Patriarchy
I removed several references to masculinity and patriarchy as dominant themes. While personally I believe that these are supportable, and even important, the article also significantly says that God is not generally considered gender-sexual. It seems to me that the article has to choose between these two supportable statements, and give weight to one foot or the other as we go forward, or else get tripped up. Besides more minor edits that de-emphasized masculinity, I removed two significant sentences:
: ''In most forms of Christianity, the nature of God the Father (or the fatherly nature of God) is considered an incomprehensible mystery, except for the few statements about his nature found in the ''Bible'' and some creeds, which ascribe him with patriarchal attributes. ''
: ''Indeed, God the Father is considered an archetype for the Christian patriarchal family. ''
absence is feminine?
May I have this statement explained, please? Mkmcconn/Mkmcconn 16:42, 27 Feb 2004
: ''feminine qualities such as ... absence ... ''
indistinct role
This sentence, like a previous, similar one, is hard to understand. God is always acting as Father, Son and Spirit (in Trinitarianism); where there is no distinction of roles, there is no interest intended in speaking of God's actions. These distinctions are mentioned when they are important to understanding God in an intimate way. Thus, it seemed to me that the following sentence is best left out of the article. Mkmcconn/Mkmcconn 19:43, 27 Feb 2004
: ''Nevertheless, while the role of God the Father (or the fatherly role of God) is often indistinct from the role of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, there are certain instances in which God the Father has a unique role as part of the Godhead (Christianity)/Christian Godhead or Trinity. ''
Pakaran - great point. I'll change to Latter-day Saint.
(Request for use of word Person in opening.)
Good call. I've added in the word Persons into the intro, however kept the others as they are used by other Catholic, Orthodox and Protestants. However, please feel free to edit/alter if you have better words. Although this article includes a Mormon perspective, hopefully other Christian religions will show up on the page as well. "Manifestations" is not a word that Mormons would use to describe the Godhead (Latter-day Saints would actually prefer "persons" or "personages"), but the word came from the Sabrina Martins Trinity page - as well as in a discussion with an evangelical friend (American Protestant). It sounds like you have some good ideas that could help the flow. Feel free to share them in the article. -Nextel ringtones Visorstuff/Visorstuff 23:50, 18 Dec 2003
Minor unrelated suggestions: "Most Christians believe that God the Father has always existed in His current forms, whatever they may be (see Nicene Creed. ". #1) Shouldn't that be "form" rather than "forms", and #2) shouldn't there be a closing paren, and #3), shouldn't Nicene (or Niocene ?) be a link ? ll
Redundant
It's redundant to state that God is omnibenevolent and then state that "He is also merciful, kind and just and full of love." All of those characteristics and more are included in the meaning of omnibenevolent. Abbey Diaz BoNoMoJo/B 02:00, Dec 19, 2003
Where did this statement come from? ''The Father is the being or object of devotion and worship that Christians worship in the name of Jesus Christ.'' Trinitarian Christians worship the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit equally; when they say that they worship God, they mean that they worship all three persons of the Trinity. This is made explicitly clear over and over throughout the prayers of the Orthodox Church, and consistent with the teachings of most Christians down through the centuries. Who is it that worships only the Father in the name of the Son?? This needs to be identified so that the proper distinction can be made, or the appropriate qualifications added. Free ringtones Wesley/Wesley 13:16, 21 Jan 2004
This page is very quirky. Is it supposed to be an LDS POV or, is that an accident? I suggest that it be moved to become a sub-topic of the LDS articles.Majo Mills Mkmcconn/Mkmcconn 23:09, 23 Feb 2004
Please respond to the suggestion that this article should be moved to Mosquito ringtone God the Father (Mormonism). The entire article is heavily affected by that perspective. Sabrina Martins Mkmcconn/Mkmcconn 16:36, 24 Feb 2004
:I don't think the article should be moved; It should be revised to make it NPOV. I started working in that direction, adding some trinitarian, feminist, and secular philosophical views, but it needs more work, and some filling-out. Nextel ringtones COGDEN/COGDEN 03:35, 25 Feb 2004
:: Reading through it, I find no place to put the Trinitarian view. It's simply too far afield - really alien. Maybe someone with more imagination than myself can tackle it. Abbey Diaz Mkmcconn/Mkmcconn 05:16, 25 Feb 2004
:: I think part of the problem is that the article is about God the Father only, and not the Trinity, which is a separate article. Thus, to avoid redundancy, this article has to focus on areas in which God the Father is distinct from the Trinity or from Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. This puts the trinitarian POV in a difficult situation. Probably the best place to put in the trinitarian view is in the ontology section. I know, ontology isn't a perfect heading for all POVs, but you could argue there that God the Father isn't really within the reach of ontology, because he is incomprehensible and far beyond human analysis, but there is something called the Nicene Creed that explains how trinitarians describe God. Cingular Ringtones COGDEN/COGDEN 03:38, 26 Feb 2004
I think there is some rationale for keeping this page, since there are well established articles regarding with bamboo Jesus Christ and the himself speaking Holy Spirit. It may take some real work to NPOV it though. the transsexual Wesley/Wesley 03:21, 26 Feb 2004
"Many"??
Regarding this sentence:
''A minority of Christians, and many historical Christians, have described the Father as either a distinct Being (tritheism), or as a different "manifestation" of a single Being (modalism). ''
Many historical Christians? Seriously, can you name ten each who supported each view, prior to 1800 or so? And better yet, why are these two very different and opposing views lumped together this way? Each of these two opposing views are held by a minority of Christians today, and each by a small minority of Christians in every or almost every century of Christianity's history; there are probably some centuries when it dropped out of sight altogether. ro in Wesley/Wesley 03:21, 26 Feb 2004
:Go back lots further to the period 1AD to about 500 AD, and there are lots of Christians with either of these views, and lots of still different views as well. That's half what all those ecumenical councils were about. Most were anonymous, but I could probably name their leaders. estimate we COGDEN/COGDEN 03:38, 26 Feb 2004
:: Sabellius is well known as being a leading proponent of modalism; I don't know of others. I'm not aware of any proponents of tritheism per se; some trinitarians were accused of this, but they denied that they were teaching tritheism. My point is that even between 1 and 500 AD, I doubt that either of these movements were significant enough to attract ten leaders whose names are on record as supporting these views. I may well be wrong, but if I am, I'd love to be educated. So please, name their leaders. eternally dual Wesley/Wesley 04:35, 26 Feb 2004
-
Deleted bits
I'm removing this because it's so imprecise as to be inaccurate as an expression of Christian theology at least, and I don't see how to salvage it:
: ''God the Father is thought to be the Father of by bursts Jesus Christ through a australian brought miracle/miraculous conception and always learn virgin birth. Most sects of liggett admission Christianity believe that Jesus was conceived by God the Father through the supernatural action of the against fraud Holy Spirit, and not by the act of sex or the union of a sperm and an egg.''
Who believes that Jesus Christ came into being only when Mary conceived him? Muslims maybe? All these things need to be attributed. a fire Wesley/Wesley 04:35, 26 Feb 2004
This bit was removed from the Ontology section because it is '''not''' what most Christians believe:
: ''Most Christians also believe that God the Father is immutable, meaning that he has always existed in his current form, and never changes. By contrast, the person of investigations lead Jesus Christ underwent physical change through his bad crafts Incarnation, life, and death.''
The classical position is that God does not change; never has, never will. Jesus is God; therefore, Jesus does not change, at least not in His divinity. Prior to His Incarnation, he had no physical form whatsoever, so Incarnation itself was not a physical change; Incarnation involved adding a human body, human nature, and human will. Jesus' subsequent human changes, such as eating, growing, etc., were changes in his humanity, not changes in his divinity. while shoveling Leo the Great explained this in great detail in the famous Tome of Leo, which was largely affirmed by the usually of Council of Chalcedon, which became recognized as the without complications Fourth Ecumenical Council. The idea is summarized in the more behind Chalcedonian Creed.
Nicene Creed removed
Having said all that, I don't think that any of the Christology I just went into really belongs in an article about the eugene God the Father. Therefore I suggest that the part I remove stay deleted. to yoked Wesley/Wesley 04:49, 26 Feb 2004
Removed this part because it seemed to be more about God or the Trinity than about God the Father:
: Relationship with Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit
: The Nicene Creed, a popular conceptualization of the Trinity, states that Jesus Christ is "eternally begotten of the Father", indicating that Jesus is co-eternal with the Father, and that the Father-Son relationship has existed for all eternity and did not begin with Jesus' human birth.
I think I put it back in, accidentally; in an edit conflict. Sorry. I'll go yank it out again. Mkmcconn/Mkmcconn 05:03, 26 Feb 2004
Please help me fix the colon-itis in the second paragraph. I'm spent. Mkmcconn/Mkmcconn 05:36, 26 Feb 2004
Ontology removed
I removed the section on Ontology, as it now appears to be redundant. Mkmcconn/Mkmcconn 20:51, 26 Feb 2004
:=Ontology=
:Much as been written about the Being, or ontology, of God. Typically, Christians assert that God the Father shares the same "substance" with Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, that is, a single divine nature, as well as a single divine will, so that they are three "persons" (Greek ''hypostases''), yet one God. This form of God's existence is often referred to as the Trinity; "Holy Trinity" is also a form of personal address used when praying to God as He exists in three persons.
uncertain of intent
What is the intent of this sentence? Mkmcconn/Mkmcconn 21:11, 26 Feb 2004
:The titles of God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are at times used interchangeably.
Who uses those titles interchangably?? This passive voice has to be eliminated. The Church Fathers were emphatic that they not be used interchangably; although the Father is God, and Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, the Father is NOT the Son or the Holy Spirit, the Son is not the Holy Spirit or the Father, and the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son; at least according to the holy orthodox tradition; I think the Athanasian Creed spends some time on this point.
If someone else uses the titles interchangably, they should be identified. If we can't come up with anyone, then the sentence needs to be removed. Wesley/Wesley 02:05, 27 Feb 2004
New edits
COGDEN, I can see that it is not fully a conscious effort that results in a Mormon bent continually being re-inserted in the article. So, I'll just leave it be for a day or two and think it over, so that I don't step all over other editors and unnecessarily revert their contributions. Mkmcconn/Mkmcconn 21:47, 26 Feb 2004
I removed this sentence because it's wrong, and reflects a misunderstanding of the virgin birth:
: Yet, Christ is also called the Only Begotten Son of the Father, because of the Father's role as the father of his human body, via a mysterious virgin birth.
God the Father actually wasn't directly involved in the virgin birth; according to the Gospels, it was the Holy Spirit who "overshadowed" Mary and caused her to conceive. Jesus being begotten of the Father has nothing to do with His human birth. This point is also important in demonstrating that the Holy Spirit does not "proceed from the Father and the Son" as the filioque clause says; for although the Spirit was sent by Jesus to the Church after Jesus' ascension, the Holy Spirit had first sent Jesus into the world through the former's role in the Incarnation. They remain equally divine. Wesley/Wesley 02:01, 27 Feb 2004
kudos to COGDEN
COGDEN, with the benefit of a day's analysis I think that your edits provided a much improved structure for the article. Thanks for the work. Mkmcconn/Mkmcconn 19:24, 27 Feb 2004
Patriarchy
I removed several references to masculinity and patriarchy as dominant themes. While personally I believe that these are supportable, and even important, the article also significantly says that God is not generally considered gender-sexual. It seems to me that the article has to choose between these two supportable statements, and give weight to one foot or the other as we go forward, or else get tripped up. Besides more minor edits that de-emphasized masculinity, I removed two significant sentences:
: ''In most forms of Christianity, the nature of God the Father (or the fatherly nature of God) is considered an incomprehensible mystery, except for the few statements about his nature found in the ''Bible'' and some creeds, which ascribe him with patriarchal attributes. ''
: ''Indeed, God the Father is considered an archetype for the Christian patriarchal family. ''
absence is feminine?
May I have this statement explained, please? Mkmcconn/Mkmcconn 16:42, 27 Feb 2004
: ''feminine qualities such as ... absence ... ''
indistinct role
This sentence, like a previous, similar one, is hard to understand. God is always acting as Father, Son and Spirit (in Trinitarianism); where there is no distinction of roles, there is no interest intended in speaking of God's actions. These distinctions are mentioned when they are important to understanding God in an intimate way. Thus, it seemed to me that the following sentence is best left out of the article. Mkmcconn/Mkmcconn 19:43, 27 Feb 2004
: ''Nevertheless, while the role of God the Father (or the fatherly role of God) is often indistinct from the role of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, there are certain instances in which God the Father has a unique role as part of the Godhead (Christianity)/Christian Godhead or Trinity. ''
posted at 8:01 PM
0 comments
