User talk:Jdemarcos

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to the Wikipedia

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be bold!



(Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:16, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bon dia, Jaume, gràcies per a saludar-me. Et sembla estrany que puc defender-me en català? No és que som de tots, els unitaris universalistes? Fins aviat, Jaume. Blondlieut 23:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baha'i Faith

Thanks for your NPOV contributions to this page - most appreciated! AndrewRT 16:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wicca edit

Hi. Jdemarcos. While I agree that my circumlocution could be confusing, I wanted to make a distinction between those passages that we definitely know were copied from Crowley's writings (such as the early drafts of the Drawing Down the Moon dialogue), and passages like the Rede, where the connection is assumed, but not definite. Additionally, while I'm reasonably certain that Gardner nicked the wording of the Rede from Crowley, I'm forced to the conclusion that he either disagreed with Crowley's concept of Will, or didn't quite understand it: Gardner's use of "will" in the Rede relates far closer to whim than to Thelema.

However, if you want to move my "disclaimer" to a footnote or an aside, I'll certainly not object--hey, if it makes the article better, I'm all for it. :D Justin Eiler 22:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The new revision looks great! :D Justin Eiler 20:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! ;-) --Jdemarcos 14:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Youtube

Thank you for your comments. Demography is the 2nd most important issue facing humanity second to Religious understanding. How computers are used to model the potential outcomes of population growth will be important to any religion and its adherence growth. How can religion move into the XNA world of simulation. Let us see in time. But what is being discussed in the Baha'i discussion page is the birthing pains of that process. Some editors say that no youtube content will be permitted on the main page (Jeff3000). Others even say that discussion on the matter should be banned (Zazaban). Your comments are procedural and do not address the substance of the discussion on youtube. Please have a comment on youtube inclusion and how audio visual material on the net interfaces with wikipedia. I am interested in what you have to say. I am concerned how you would police the discussion matter if you do not have a pro point of view. Thank you for reading. RoddyYoung 01:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slackbuie

Thanks for your comment regarding Juan José Tamayo. He seemed to be a notable person, so I rather hoped someone might do an entry for him. But I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, so maybe that's not the right way to proceed. I notice he has an entry on the Spanish Wikipedia [1]- at least I think it's him. Although I'm interested in theological matters, I'm afraid I don't have Spanish, so it would be hard for me to write an entry about him. Best wishes, Slackbuie 19:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OCRT

Jaume, do you have a better source for this edit? There's got to be a more authoritative source for the statement. It's a sociological/historical statement, that religioustolerance.org really isn't qualified to make, not that they claim to. You're closer to that field than I am. MARussellPESE 00:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Servetus

Do you have a source for the English translation of the quote from 'Restitución del Cristianismo' in the 'Theology' section, or are you, in fact, your own source? While you may be fluent in Spanish, it is difficult to evaluate the reliability of an unknown source. Translations, as we all know, can differ in significant details.
Rev107 04:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
In his footnotes to Servetus, Swedenborg, and the Nature of Salvation Andrew Dibb refers to a translation of "Christianismi Restitutio" by Coleman Glenn - do you know anything about this?
I have a personal interest in exploring the affinities between Sabellius and Servetus. From my reading (which has been limited to commentaries on the "Errors of the Trinity" and "Dialogues") I have not been able to uncover support for the conclusion that Servetus claimed Sabellius confused the Father and the Son (Father with the Son?).
Where Servetus does differ with Sabellius, I would like to consider whether this can be called a "rejection" of Sabellius' theology. Rev107 12:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I have just come across "Restoration of Christianity: An English Translation of Christianismi Restitutio" translated by Christopher A. Hoffman and Marian Hillar ... now to get my hands on it! Rev107 13:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


As far as I know most of what people know about Sabellius is from his detractors. Are there any direct sources for Sabellius' theology?

If what I understand of Sabellian theology is correct then Servetus does differ. If Sabellius taught that God first appeared as the Father, then the Son, then the Holy Spirit, which is what I am told, some sort of sequential modalism, then Servetus does not have the same idea. Hes definitely not a sequential modalist. You might be tempted to call Servetus a simultaneous modalist, since he thinks God is one Being composed of three aspects all at once. But I don't know if you could call him that either. For lack of a better term I might call him a manifestationist, meaning that God fully manifested Himself in Jesus Christ, and that through Jesus Christ God also manifests Himself in us.

I'm hoping the letters between Servetus and Calvin will be published soon.

As for getting your hands on Restoration of Christianity, I went directly to www.mellenpress.com and got it heavily discounted (40$).

Jasonschnarr 17:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Swedenborg's doctrinal affinity to Servetus

I do think it has modern relevance that their theologies are so alike. Are you going to remove what the Oneness Pentecostals just wrote because they came after Servetus?

This is what is said about the Oneness Pentecostals, which is almost the exact thing I was doing in relating Swedenborg and Servetus:

"Oneness Pentecostalism identifies with Servetus' teaching of the divinity of Jesus Christ and his insistence on only one Person in the Godhead: "And because His Spirit was wholly God He is called God, just as from His flesh He is called man" [22]"

If one is removed, then both should be. If one remains, both should remain.

Dear Anonymous: I agree that the Oneness Pentecostal references should be edited for accuracy or removed. --jofframes 13:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


I would appreciate your expanding a little on the above comment.
"You are free to believe that the Spanish translation does not exist or that I am inventing the references" .
That was not my meaning - I have learned to question the credibility, bias and reliability of any author, published or unpublished. Servetus' theology is open to interpretation, just as is Sabellius' ... and anyone else's for that matter! Rev107 14:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if I misunderstood you. As for Oneness Pentecostalism, the use of Person in that quote is questionable regarding Servetus, and I need to check more carefully up to what point they are truly proposing a theology similar to Servetus's. I will work on that in a short time. --jofframes 20:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

In an article such as this, it is not possible for one person to state categorically what Servetus' theology was - we can only refer to interpretations by scholars, quote our sources, and allow their credibility to be assessed by readers. OP understanding of what Servetus taught focuses on the unique divinity of Christ (the fullness of the Godhead bodily) ... something which you seem to deny (It is through his Sonship that Jesus is God, but it can only be fully understood if we take into account that the spirit of God pervades all things, and that every human being is called to be raised to the divine)

It has been stated that: Translating Servetus is no easy task since his terminology was often inconsistent and misleading (JSTOR); and again, The 'Restoration of Christianity' is not an easy work to read due to its metaphors and twisted reasonings (MSI).
This means we must allow for some differences of opinion in understanding the theology of Servetus.
btw, something to ponder ... did Servetus reject Sabellius' theology, or just Tertullian's misrepresentation of it (Patripassianism)?  :) Rev107 05:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

In this case there are special circumstances: (1) the original sources of Sabellius' writing were not available to Servetus; (2) the only sources were writings by Sabellius' detractors; (3) Servetus' comments reflect what Tertullian wrote about Sabellius rather than the more detailed description of Sabellian teaching described by Epiphanius.
Mosheim looking through Epiphanius' eyes, does not see the confusion that Tertullian's distortion gave rise to: he [Sabellius] believed the one divine person whom he recognized, to have three distinct forms, which are really different, and which should not be confounded.
I think Sabellius and Servetus were more alike than Servetus realized ... but I'll have to work on it!

Rev107 11:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


You said: It is through his Sonship that Jesus is God, but it can only be fully understood if we take into account that the spirit of God pervades all things, and that every human being is called to be raised to the divine. I agree that Servetus thinks everyone is called to be raised to the Divine, and that God is in all things (panentheism). But it is also pretty clear that he thinks Jesus is uniquely the Son of God, born of a virgin, and that it is only through receiving Jesus that we can be adopted as sons of God, and thus receive the divine. Jasonschnarr 17:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


Again: it's the same with Arius, all the information Servetus had came from anti-Arians. Or the Gnostics. Or the Koran. And he quoted or commented on all of them.
It is not the same. There are a few extant writings by Arius and a lot by the Gnostics. It is highly unlikely that Servetus never saw a copy of the Koran.
The statement that Servetus rejected "Sabellianism because it confused the Father and the Son" is misleading (or at best inadequate) on two counts: Servetus rejected the description Tertullian gave of Sabellius' teaching; and the wording supports the accusation of "patripassianism". Rev107 07:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unitarian Universalism work group

You may be interested to know that there is now a work group for all things UU. It's at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Unitarian Universalism work group. --Devin Murphy 04:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)