Talk:Trinity

Dispensable image

Not sure what Image:Trinity_by_Jeronimo_Cosida.jpg really adds to this article, since the diagram content is already expressed in English-language form in another image further up the page, while the three-faces-on-one-head representation of the Trinity has not been acceptable iconography in any mainstream Christian denomination for centuries (and is also exemplified in another image). AnonMoos (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed it... AnonMoos (talk) 09:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Further on same subject

Someone (I don't feel like going through months of edit summaries to find out who it was) seems to want to emphasize artistic depictions with three faces on one head. However, given that these representations were only really accepted for about a century and a half (the 16th century and some surrounding decades) in the Catholic tradition only, and are not now iconographically endorsed by any major traditional mainstream Christian denomination, it seems that such depictions are exactly what should not be emphasized on this article. I have left one such image in, and one is really quite enough (some might say more than enough). AnonMoos (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yet again

Removed another such image. There should be a maximum of one (1) three-faces-on-a-single-head image on the article page, and it should not be given great prominence by its placement. Anything else would give undue weight to this type of iconography, which had a relatively brief run in one tradition and is not now mainstream. AnonMoos (talk) 02:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Such images should go in the articles about the artists who made them. One is plenty here. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Just now created Commons category commons:Category:Three faces on one head... AnonMoos (talk) 09:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The whole Gallery should be removed. Sure, its nice art but it does not add to the article. Grantmidnight (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Either we need a separate article on the Trinity in art, or we need to do it properly here, with the gallery. If you think "it does not add to the article" you obviously haven't read the preceding sections. Personally I haven't read the whole of the rest of the article, because I find trinitarian theology pretty tedious, but without doing so I wouldn't express an opinion of whether sections are or are not needed. Johnbod (talk) 20:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Italian Wikipedia has a separate article it:Iconografia della Trinità -- AnonMoos (talk)

Ours would need splitting off before it got to that length. At present I don't think the article too long, & while that remains the case they are better together. Johnbod (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The article should be about the Trinity and views about it by theolgians of various times and denominations. The section on art and the many many pictures really belong in a different article. Please split this out. Grantmidnight (talk) 16:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

And the reasons why this should be treated differently from other religious articles? Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, you can also see a three-faced devil here! -- AnonMoos (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Source on three-faces-on-one-head type depiction

There's an article in The Journal of Latin American Anthropology ("The Gran Poder and the Reconquest of La Paz" by David M. Guss) -- available here which confirms what the Italian Wikipedia says about the three-faces-on-one head depictions being banned by the Catholic church in 1628; also, in 1904, Catholic authorities in Lima Peru declared one such painting to be imagen contra rito, meaning that it couldn't be used in any official public Catholic ceremonies. Guss refers to an earlier article "The Pagan Origins of the Three­-Headed Representation of the Christian Trinity" by Raffaele Pettazzoni in Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 9:135-151 (1946), but my local university library has stored the older issues of this journal in such a way that only people currently enrolled or employed there can access them (if you have JSTOR access, it's http://www.jstor.org/stable/750313 ). AnonMoos (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

1x or 1+

All this 1x1x1 is dispelled with one easy verse: "The Father is Greater than I am" 1 is not >than 1. Uh oh. It would have to be thus 1.1x1x1 at least. Or .9x1. Unless somehow greater is equal in trinitarian-speak. < = =. - Ariandebunker

One of the thoughts of Christianity, and of the Trinity, that I've come across is much simpler then what is stated on this page. As a Christian I'm not sure I'm too "neautral" on the subject but taking myself away from my personal beliefs, there are several Christians who hold to this coming statement:

The Trinity is NOT 1 + 1 + 1 = 3, BUT IS 1 x 1 x 1 = 1.

That to me is an important concept and it is easier to understand then what has been presented in this article. Please give me your thoughts. Captain la rose (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

What does "x" mean? I can't see that as more clear? please explain.

Hardyplants (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

"x" means ×, as in "multiplied by". I don't think it makes the Trinity any easier to understand either. —Angr 16:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I know that much alreadt. But how does multiplication apply to God? I can see the relevance to the 1+1+1 part but the 1x1x1 does not seem to follow, except to say that in math there can be a single unity out of many but how does that apply to objects and persons?. Hardyplants (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems like they're just trying to find a way to put three 1s on one side of the equation and still come out with "= 1". It would work just as well with 1 ÷ 1 ÷ 1, or with 1 + 1 − 1. —Angr 16:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying to be critical, but wish to understand the thinking behind the analogy, because that is what it appears to be to me. One propblem is that 1=1. In math 1x1x1 shows the limitations of 1, because one is a entity that can not be broken into smaller parts or divide its self off into other parts and still be 1. Hardyplants (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(new indent) Personally, I think the analogy is bad or does not come close to describing the mystery of the Triune God. The concept of the the three being the same substance or homoousios is a mystery that is beyond the comprehension of man. They are three distinct persons, of one substance, and being one God. Math is irrelevant and does not apply. --^StormRider 18:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC).

Once a natural scientist and skeptic asked me, as a Christian, how exactly the idea of the Trinity can be reconciled with what we see around us in the rational world; how can you have something that is supposedly one, and yet claim it's got these parts to it, it's not logical? My response was that any biological system works in exactly the same way, with an array of different levels of complexity. The human body is made of certain parts, without any number of single ones of which, the thing wouldn't work. Eugene-elgato (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC).

(new indent) In math 1x1x1 shows the limitations of 1, because one is a entity that can not be broken into smaller parts or divide its self off into other parts and still be 1.-Hardyplants 17:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC 1x1x1 might show the limitations of 1 but in terms of God it simply shows that he is one. I see the point raised by --^StormRider and you're right. It doesn't even come close to an understanding of the Trinity. You're right it is beyond human comprehension. But I do not believe the analogy is weak. I believe that means exactly what Hardyplants explains it means. Eugene-elgato's argument is valid and exactly my point. We have arms, eyes, legs, and other obviously different appendages that are distinct but apart of the same body. My point was that 1x1x1 refers to the fact that God is one, not three. It makes sense to me, and I'm not particularly Math savvy. It's not my analogy I've heard before from another source, but it's just a way of understanding that God is one. This is concept that is fundamental to Christianity and whatever the deeper meaning of this math concept is, on the surface it tries to explain this ONE Trinity concept, not everything about it. I apologize for not explaining properly but I can't help but feeling as if my comments here have done nothing to explain it beyond what it appears to you guys. It was just a thought and belief, and I'm a Christian who knows that this only explains the oneness of God on a smaller level, hardly at all does it try to explain everything. Captain la rose (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's non reducibilityEugene-elgato (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The mystery is that there is three persons in one God.There isn't three persons and three gods.it is one God three divine persons.

think on it,

cheers,

!@Tarix of Tajun@! (talk) 15:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

ELs

Do we need to keep the catholicchurch.in external link? I'm not sure adds enough to be kept, when we have rather a few ELs already. It also has an objectionable amount of adverts, IMO. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC).

Well, I won't complain if you remove it. —Angr 13:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC).

Good enough for me :P Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC).

connections to Hindu Trinity

I may have just read it over, as this article is quite long. But I would have liked information if the Christian Trinity was influenced by the Hindu Trinity. I know that many aspects of the Christian religion were inspired or copied by/from (both directions) eastern religions and I want to know if this is one of these aspects.

Sure, eastern religions did borrow from Christianity after its introduction. I think your confusing the eastern concepts of god/gods taking on different forms at different times, they are not triune but tri-natured. The similarities are only cosmetic in nature. The Christian Trinity was not borrowed from any were but developed from an understanding of the books received as canonical. Its understanding did not develop fully formed but developed over a 100 year period, starting with Jesus deity (understood after His resurrection) in relation to God or as Jesus called Him "my Father" Since Jesus is both God and man but not a God man. this might be helpful to you: [1] -Hardyplants (talk).

I wouldn't say it was definitely, 100%, a completely original idea. Of course there's no way to prove otherwise and to the faithful it remains so, but there's examples of triplicate type gods all throughout the world's mythologies, particularly in the areas in which Judaism and Christianity first developed (See Triple deities). Speaking from a non-religious viewpoint and in terms of archeology, it is entirely possible that these gods influenced the development of the idea of the trinity in Christianity. In matters of religion and belief, you can find scholars and books arguing both sides. Actually, in fact, the article might benefit from an academic analysis of the subject from non-Christian scholars. An outside view on the subject section, so to speak. 24.190.34.219 (talk) 04:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

the kingdom of God

i wonder many times if fellow believers understand what is meant by the Kingdom of God. If we know what it is to be a part of it. If we know what is meant by God calling us his children. And what is meant by "be ye therefore in thi world but not of this world". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.213.24.70 (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

What does this have to do with improving the Wikipedia article "Trinity"? AnonMoos (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed Wikipedia talk pages are no place to discuss matters of this nature. Do you see a flaw in the article that could be improved? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

OR in "incoherency" section

There is lots of refed OR in the "incoherency" section. I'll remove it until someone provides a properly refed rationale NBeale (talk)

Original research, and improper synthesis

The Jesus=God section:

• Isaiah 9:6. This verse is viewed by Jewish writers, a large number of whom lived before Christianity even existed, to refer to events that occurred during Isaiah's lifetime. Many modern biblical scholars agree. Additionally, it doesn't actually say 'Jesus' at all; therefore it can't be used to claim 'Jesus=God'.
• John 5:21. This verse has 'God:raises dead AND gives life' followed by 'Son:gives life'. That's not an equation, its easily understood as referring to two different things, therefore claiming that it says 'Jesus=God' (or even 'the son=god') is a POV viewpoint.
• John 8:23–24. This could be satisfied if Jesus was an extraterrestrial alien, a greek god, Satan, the angel of death, etc. It doesn't imply jesus=god.
• John 8:58. The burning bush bible quote is not "I am" but "I am that I am"; additionally biblical scholars believe that YHWH derives from the triconsonantal root HWH translating it either as (he that) blows or (he that causes) to fall'. Therefore claiming that Jesus saying 'before..., I am' is a reference to YHWH is really only one of many possibilities, so using it for just one of those is POV.
• John 10:38: See the debate over one iota - homoousios vs. homoiousios. Additionally, any human that believed in panentheism and pantheism would be able to say exactly the same thing about themselves, without it meaning that they believed themselves to be god.
• John 12:41: As the context shows... - what sort of statement is that? Its a claim - you're saying that its not actually there in the text, its only 'implied' by the context. That makes it an interpretation, an opinion. Where's the citation. Its original research.
• John 20:28: Due to the strict laws ... Jesus ... obligated to put Thomas to death... Was he? Obligated by what? Maybe he was a pacifist, maybe he interpreted the so-called 'strict laws of Moses' differently. Don't put your own interpretation on what Jesus may or may not have believed he was obligated to do. If the text doesn't say it, then it doesn't say it; any further claim is mere opinion. And an opinion is only one of many other opinions - so you can't say 'this does say Jesus=God' only that 'some people think it says Jesus=God, but others don't.
• Colossians 1:15–17 (which are listed separately, verse-by-verse): the previous verse says 'giving thanks to the father', so the obvious 'he' here is 'the father' not Jesus, the previous person mentioned is 'Epaphras', and prior to that it addresses the reader, none of these three are Jesus. Adding [Jesus] into the text is an extreme distortion of the text; don't tamper with the text like that, its improper synthesis.
• Colossians 2:9: the word translated here as 'fullness' is pleroma - see that article, and it will be clear why this verse doesn't say Jesus=God.
• Titus 2:13 : If you had the sentence 'wait for our great Obama and foreign secretary, Clinton' does that mean 'Clinton=Obama' ? most people will say 'no'. Claiming that it says 'God=Jesus' when you replace 'Obama' by 'God' and 'Clinton' by 'Jesus' is counter to the the english language, in addition to being highly biased original research.
  • Please take note that when you try to restructure the sentence to show the meaning of the verse you should include the whole sentence of the verse, the first words are - while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, - the words "while we wait for the blessed hope being part of the whole sentence points to a singular entity rather than what you wanted to depict as two separate persons, thus blessed hope, God, Saviour points to Jesus. - by Stealth

Additionally, if you do end up finding something to cite, make sure its a reliable academic source, rather than the self-published theological writings of some minor random pastor. And be sure to check the Nestorian, Myophysite, Gnostic, Greek Orthodox (who don't believe in Filioque), and other interpretations of the passages in question at the same time, so as to ensure you don't write give an unbalanced view. Clinkophonist (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Clinkophonist that it would be good to cite writers who do interpret these verses as Trinitarian. But we should not dream of entering into the question of whether they are right or wrong. What is verifiable is that these verses are interpreted or have been interpreted as Trinitarian. Whether the interpretation is correct, or whether it is incorrect, is not verifiable in Wikipedia terms.

It is enough to say these verses have been interpreted in that way; we should not say the interpretation is right, nor say it is wrong. I have therefore removed the claims that the verses in question do prove what is attributed to them. Lima (talk) 05:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The section "God alone is the Savior and the Savior is Jesus" could be rewritten as a claim, not a fact. However, I find the argument too abstruse. I propose therefore that this section be simply deleted. Clinkophonist obviously would also like it to be deleted. Does anyone support keeping it (rewritten as merely a claimed argument)? Lima (talk) 05:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not enough to say that 'these verses have been interpreted in that way'. It must be said the people who do interpret the verses in that way do not constitute 100% of people who interpret the verses. Additionally, to avoid WP:UNDUEWEIGHT issues, you need to include the other main intepretations too, and give some sort of indication of what groups support each, and of the size of such groups relative to one another. If you just have something like 'some people interpret time as a cubic structure' that makes it sound like its a mainstream view.

I don't really think the section adds much to the article, and I do think that in an ideal world it wouldn't be there at all. But I suspect that removing it will be quite difficult in the long run, as I suspect there will be a number of evangelical editors who would keep adding it back in; so I think we'd better wait for a few months before removing it altogether. In the meantime, resolving the issues I've pointed out would go some way to reducing the problems the section causes. Clinkophonist (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I take it that the above two comments refer respectively to the sections "Jesus as God" and "God alone is the Savior and the Savior is Jesus". If within a few days nobody defends the second of these sections, I think it can well be deleted. We could then consider what to do with the other section, which I think should be at least slimmed down. Lima (talk) 05:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I welcome the deletion of both these sections. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 05:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The second of the two sections has got the thumbs down from four editors and has been defended by none. So I am deleting it. Can the other be salvaged? I think it can, if improved. I have made a start on reworking the section, dealing so far only with what might have seemed the most difficult part: the supposed presence in the Old Testament of indications of the Trinity. The New Testament part too should, I think, be converted from a mere list of so-called proof texts. Lima (talk) 06:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The newly rewritten Jesus as God section begins, "Some see indications even in the Old Testament of a plurality and unity in God". That set me to wondering whether anyone has ever taken as evidence the fact that one Hebrew word for God, Elohim, is a plurale tantum. —Angr 12:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Judaism

The statement about Judaism seems quite biased to me. Can someone dit it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.235.73.155 (talk) 12:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Since the Trinity is a Christian concept not found in Judaism, I have moved the information that was given under the "Judaism" heading (all of it) to the section on alleged Old Testament prefigurations of the Trinity. I have also put all of this larger section, and the "Comma Johanneum" section, with the other information on alleged references to the Trinity in Scripture. Lima (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Trinity navigation box

I am in the process of trying to create navigation templates for each of the core articles of the Christianity WikiProject. One such template has recently been created for this topic at Template:Trinity. If anyone has any suggestions for how to change the template, they are more than welcome. I personally think they would most easily be seen if added below the link to the template at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Templates, and would request that the comments be made on that page below the template. Please feel free to make any comments you see fit on any of the other templates on that page as well. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

incorrect link

In Formulation of the Doctrine the link Theologians does not go to a group of 4th century men known as The Theologians but instead it links to theology. If the sentence means simply a group of 4th century theologians re-phrase the sentence. If there is such a group perhaps they should be specifically named. Something like Moe, Larry and Curly known to church history as the Theologians; or a group of church leaders in Constaninople known to church history as the Theologians.Nitpyck (talk) 05:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where the link should point to, but I notice the sentence (and others) are sourced to someone's class notes from seminary. I'm not at all sure that qualifies as a reliable source. —Angr 06:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Article "Oneness vs Trinity"

I am spearheding a major revision of the Oneness vs Trinity article. I think the article should compare and contrast both views so I would love as many contributors as possible- Oneness Pentecostals and Trinitarians and neither. The article is a mess so I will need help. Ltwin (talk) 01:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Since zero input has been forthcoming, and the article is a real mess (straw man arguments, false statements, argumentative tone, proselytization) it's been redirected to Oneness Pentecostalism. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

um, taking a shot here... Um lets say Three separate people whos wills are to each other.--173.77.44.52 (talk) 05:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Unity of the Trinity

The introduction states that the Trinity has "one being," but the formula of Nicaea say that the each person of the Trinity has the "same being" (homoousion). It would have been simple enough to for it "monoousion" or "mia ousia", but it used homoousion. This tends to place the emphasis on the divine nature "physis" and the fundamental unity of the Trinity, sharing the same being. 69.251.70.240 (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)philoschole

An outside perspecitve section?

The article might benefit from an "Outside Perspective" section or something similar, which has non-Christian scholars, or at least scholars looking at the topic from a non Christian perspective.

There are plenty of sources for this. Even Jung in "A Psychological Approach to the Dogma of the Trinity" discuses this and cites the triplicate gods of antiquity as possible sources of inspiration in terms of the development of the trinity concept.24.190.34.219 (talk) 04:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Semi-Locking

I suggest that given the importance of this page it should be semi-locked so that only resisted users can edit the article. Jammmie999 (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No. No evidence of enough vandalism for such a move to be permanent. Perhaps after a string of vandalism, but there has been none of this recently.

Besides, WP:RPP is the right place for such a request. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Jewish views on the Trinity

The article is not sufficiently clear about Jewish views on the Trinity. This is the decisive element that would distinguish Christiand and Jews, as well as Christians and Muslims. Information about this would be helpful for inter-faith dialogue. For instance, certain converted Jews have claimed that the Judaic concept of Hashilush Hakadosh corresponds to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. [2] ADM (talk).

Orphaned references in Trinity

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Trinity's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Stagg":

• From Jesus: Stagg, Frank (1962). New Testament Theology. Broadman Press. p. 78. ISBN 978-0805416138.
• From Salvation: Stagg, Frank. New Testament Theology. Broadman Press, 1962. ISBN 0805416137
• From Bible: Stagg, Frank. New Testament Theology. Nashville: Broadman, 1962. ISBN 0-8054-1613-7.
• From God in Christianity: Stagg, Frank. New Testament Theology, Nashville: Broadman, 1962. ISBN 085416137

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Problems in subsection "Jewish / Kabbalistic Notions"

[First-time talk page contributor; I am trying to abide by the guidelines (and would appreciate suggestions from the more experienced if I have not).]

Several points re the subsection "Jewish / Kabbalistic Notions":

(1) This paragraph asserts what strikes me as a very controversial point regarding the purported revelation of the Trinity in Kabbalistic thought -- controversial because Jewish adherents and scholars have historically rejected the idea of the Trinity. Accordingly, this section is much in need of a citation.

(2) Even with a citation, the language seems problematic. The paragraph flatly states: "The Trinity is revealed...". I question that "is". It is hard to believe that the scholarly consensus so holds. (For example, in Archive 1 of this discussion, RK states: "There is no one official text that describes 'the' Kabablistic view" (undated comment).) Although I am not a student of the subject, it seems the paragraph should be rewritten to clarify that it is stating an opinion or point of view, rather than a simple fact. E.g., something along the lines of: "Some scholars hold that the Trinity is revealed..." or "In Kabbalistic thought, some believe the Trinity is hinted at or suggested by the formulation..."

(3) The paragraph refers to "the trinity," lower-case "t". Is this deliberate, or an inadvertant typo? I.e., is the author saying that the Kabbalah reveals the Trinity, as such? Or merely that the language of the Kabbalah implies a "trinitarian" concept of some sort, i.e., something analogous to the Trinity? (Cf. the Kabbalistic concept of Sephirot, attributes/emanations through which God reveals Himself.) If the former, I think Trinity should be capitalized. If the latter, the sentence should be rewritten for clarity.

(4) Finally, this section asserts not only that the Kabbalistic formulation reveals the trinity, but that it also represents the spelling of the name Jesus! Again, such a claim needs a citation, as well as nuancing of the language along the lines of point (2) to reflect what would surely seem to be a minority view within Kabbalistic thought.

In sum, this brief section needs to be thoroughly overhauled, or cut. Given its brevity, and somewhat tenuous relationship to the main thrust of the article, the latter may be the best solution. Chick Stahl (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

One God - Monotheism

The section on One God does not accurately reflect the referenced article on Monotheism.

Under the article Monotheism, is is clear that Christianity does not follow monotheistic ideals: worship and prayer to icons such as the Trinity, angels, Saints and even followers of Satan show Christianity to be a polytheistic religion with diverse entities at odds with each other.

While Christian believers all seem to claim monotheism, calling the religion itself monotheistic is akin to claiming Roman Paganism was monotheistic using Vestal Virgins as an example of a group that only worshiped one deity.

A group devoted to one deity in an overall framework that clearly represents many deities does not qualify as monotheism.

Thoughts? Phricak (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia does not take sides in religious disputes. We can clearly say that "Muslims [or whatever group] think that Chistianity departs from monotheism with respect to X, Y, and Z", but we're not going to take sides with regard to Muslim etc. claims vs. Christian claims. AnonMoos (talk) 02:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Further, you need to be more precise- not all Christians are trinitarian. A Christian is a follower of Christ, much as a muslim is a follower of Mohammed, or Jews are followers of Moses, regardless of any notion of divinity etc. You may want to reword that. 69.51.152.180 (talk) 23:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Filioque/Anglican inaccuracies

Under the heading, Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Protestant distinctions, the article states:

The 1978 Anglican Lambeth Conference requested:

that all member Churches of the Anglican Communion should consider omitting the Filioque from the Nicene Creed, and that the Anglican-Orthodox Joint Doctrinal Commission through the Anglican Consultative Council should assist them in presenting the theological issues to their appropriate synodical bodies and should be responsible for any necessary consultation with other Churches of the Western tradition.[91]

None of the member Churches has implemented this request; but the Church of England, while keeping the phrase in the Creed recited in its own services, presents in its Common Worship series of service books a text of the creed without it for use "on suitable ecumenical occasions".[92]

However, in the Anglican Church of Canada's Book of Alternative Services, commonly used for Sunday worship in most parishes, the creed excludes the filioque. The book also offers a less commonly used form in the language of the 1962 BCP, which does include the filioque.

Fr.Jesse69.172.127.61 (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Plato/Pre-Christian/Trinity Derivative

I don't think it is appropriate that the main article, in the introduction, dismisses the idea that the trinities conception spawns from Plato's trinity. As if the idea is insane and the child of only some rouge contemporary minority group.

Edward Gibbon clearly believes it does in Volume Two "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire." Gibbon is a respected author and historian and most would take his opinion over that of the person who wrote this article...one would hope. Considering that Gibbon certainly would of had access to actual sources unlike any contemporary. I'm sorry that Christians don't except any idea other than self creationism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.232.230 (talk) 13:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Edward Gibbon is a famous historian, but not a theologian, and was also renowned for his anti-Christian bias... AnonMoos (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I also doubt very much that Gibbon had access to any significant documentary sources on the history of Christianity which have now been lost (in fact, there is probably more material accessible through scholarly studies now than in his time). AnonMoos (talk) 07:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

trinity

3/11/10 this wikipedia page on the trinity is usless. because its a truth we can never fully understand.. and it was not created by man as this page says.. which is a outright lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.126.206 (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

"As this page says"... can you tell us where exactly? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear 69.120.126.206, we're not trying to conduct original theological researches to penetrate the mystery of the doctrine of the Trinity (something which is forbidden by Wikipedia policies), we're trying to summarize what people have said about the Trinity down through the centuries... AnonMoos (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

May 20, 2010 Scx21 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scx21 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

To be truly NPOV Wikipedia states as follows.

Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.

The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints. It is not a lack of viewpoint, but is rather an editorially neutral, point of view. An article should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view.

It should explain who believes what, and why, and which points of view are most common. It may contain critical evaluations of particular viewpoints based on reliable sources, but even text explaining sourced criticisms of a particular view must avoid taking sides.

Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things, so we can simply assert them. Facts can be asserted without an inline qualifier (e.g. "John Doe believes...").

By value or opinion,[1] on the other hand, we mean "a matter which is subject to dispute." There are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That The Beatles were the greatest band in history is an opinion. That the United States is the only country in the world that has used a nuclear weapon during wartime is a fact. That the United States was right or wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion. However, there are bound to be borderline cases (see Undue weight) where it is not clear if a particular dispute should be taken seriously and included.

This article states:

The basis for the doctrine of the Trinity is found in New Testament passages that associate the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.[62] Two such passages[62] are Matthew's Great Commission: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"[Matt 28:19] and St Paul's: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all."[2 Cor. 13:14]

(I believe this to be a opinion not all translations render these verses this way and some would argue these verses were rendered this way in order to give credence to the doctrine of the trinity. It would be more accurate to say Many Trinitarians assert that basis for the doctrine of the trinity is found at Matthew 28:19,20. further not all scholars agree that this verse is the basis for the trinity)

In 325, the Council of Nicaea adopted a term for the relationship between the Son and the Father that from then on was seen as the hallmark of orthodoxy; it declared that the Son is "of the same substance" (ὁμοούσιος) as the Father. This was further developed into the formula "three persons, one substance". The answer to the question "What is God?" indicates the one-ness of the divine nature, while the answer to the question "Who is God?" indicates the three-ness of "Father, Son and Holy Spirit".[63]

( The trinity was not founded at the Council of Nicacea instead the council of Nicaea laid the groundwork for the trinity doctrine this should be made clear. )

( Where is the mention of Emperor Constatine as convoking the Council of Nicacea because of dispute over whether there was scriptural grounds for the idea of Jesus being presented as God. The Encyclopedia Britannica states the Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions and personally proposed... the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council,... Overawed by the emporer, the bishops with two exceptions only signed the creed many of them much against their inclination." These are facts that are not mentioned this article making it appear that the creed was ratified unanimously which isn't factual. to be neutral the article must present both sides to the issue.)

Saint Athanasius, who was a participant in the Council, stated that the bishops were forced to use this terminology, which is not found in Scripture, because the Biblical phrases that they would have preferred to use were claimed by the Arians to be capable of being interpreted in what the bishops considered to be a heretical sense.[64] They therefore "commandeered the non-scriptural[65] term homoousios ('of the same essence') to safeguard the essential relation of the Son to the Father that had been denied by Arius."[66]

The Confession of the Council of Nicaea said little about the Holy Spirit.[62] The doctrine of the divinity and personality of the Holy Spirit was developed by Athanasius (c 293–373) in the last decades of his life.[67] He defended and refined the Nicene formula.[62] By the end of the 4th century, under the leadership of Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus (the Cappadocian Fathers), the doctrine had reached substantially its current form.[62]

( Many scholars don't agree that Athanasius composed this creed The New Encyclopedia Britannica comments: The Creed was unknown to the Eastern Church unitl the 12th Century. Many assert that Athanasius did not write the Athanasian Creed and was instead composed in southern France... The Creed's influence seems to have been primarily in southern France and Spain in the 6th and 7th centuries. It was used in liturgy of the church in Germany in the 9th centruy and somewhat later in Rome. Therefore some scholar assert that it took many more centuries before the doctrine was completely accepted. Some even arguing that the doctrine trinity developed largely because of church politics Orgin and Evolution of Religion E.W. Hopkins)

( The council of Nicaea did not settle the issue only under emperor Theodosius did the Council of Nicaea become the official standard for the land. Where is the mention of the Council of Constantinople in 381 C.E. ?)

Overall the whether a person you believe in the Trinity or not is a personal choice and therefore doesn't matter to me. All I am concerned about is that the facts be presented accurately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scx21 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Question of logical coherency

The section needs review and more/better citations. Reason: the section with said name has a last paragraph "citing" a quote whose logic fails by itself.

(1) If God has compositional parts, they are either finite or infinite parts.

OK

(2a) If finite, then God is finite.

OK

(2b) If infinite, then there are multiple infinities.

doesn't follow, see infinity for adding infinities.
Missed case:

(2c) If one compositional part is infinite, and the others finite, then ...

The reasoning in the third paragraph of tha section needs citations because it is so utterly ridiculous and college-boyishly naïve. The theologicans of older ages sometimes really reasoned that stupidly, but as said: the logic provided must be cited, because it won't hold before the knowledgeable reader. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 13:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

And I forgot the obvious: by the same reasoning, since humans have four limbs, one head and one torso, each single human must be at least six persons. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 13:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The last para claims that the trinity is illogical, while the sources referred to are clearly trinitarian. I think some amateur have made a WP:SYNTH disregarding the failure of the principle of locality, modalism, other views than Baptist/Reformed and whatever other solutions. I'll move it to here for now, so that we might enhance it to something viable:

An argument against the logical coherency of an idea of the Trinity as composed of parts is the following: If God has compositional parts, they are either finite or infinite parts. If finite, then God is finite. If infinite, then there are multiple infinities. Each case becomes a denial of monotheism. The belief in compositional parts has therefore been regarded as a heresy since the establishment of the Nicene Creed, a condemnation reaffirmed in Protestant Creeds such as the Westminster Confession of Faith and 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith which state "God has no parts." Louis Berkhof describes the doctrine of the Trinity requiring belief in a "simplex unity" and not a complex (or composite) being. "There is in the Divine Being but one indivisible essence" and "The whole undivided essence of God belongs equally to each of the three persons."

Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 13:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Trinity - Other meaning

The entire article on trinity - is heavy on just one plane - christian trinity meaning. Trinity has a completely another relevance for the Hindus - which is not mentioned and gives a biased article.

I use Wiki for reliable information - ignoring the Hindu trinity (such a obvious meaning for all Hindus) is not something I expected. Atleast a mention here linking to the [Trinity](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_trinity) article would give a broader relevance to your article.

Hope the same gets included.

I'm not sure such an inclusion is a good thing. We know that the Hindus invented many western concept independently in their own way, sometimes before in the west, sometimes after, but mixing them all together will only confuse the reader. I think this article is about Trinity (Christianity) while Hindu Trinity is Trinity (Hindu)/Trimurti. Short sections Similar concepts that provide links are justifiable, but mixing everything in a great soup is not quite a good idea. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Lead change

Hey all,

I'd like to change to first sentence from; "The Christian doctrine of the Trinity teaches the unity of Father, Son....."

to

"The modern Christian doctrine of the Trinity teaches the unity of Father, Son....."

The idea of the Trinity was fairly contentious in early Christian history and I think it's worth noting that. Anyone disagree? NickCT (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

325 is not "modern". Esoglou (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

What is 325? NickCT (talk) 23:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The date of the First Council of Nicaea. Esoglou (talk) 05:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Esoglou... AnonMoos (talk) 11:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Esoglou as well. 325 is certainly not modern. Isn't "modern" like 19th century and up?Glorthac (talk) 02:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The "Christian doctrine of the Trinity" has *always* taught that particular "unity", even if the doctrine itself is not universally accepted and may not always have been "official" or "prominent" (eg. before the Council). So there is no justification for changing that particular phrase. It is accurate and on-topic. A different approach might be to address the phrase, "one of the most important in the Christian faith" which could be better qualified in a way that accommodates Nontrinitarianism - something like "one of the most important in ==most traditions== of the Christian faith", perhaps? Kevin Bennett ekv (talk) 02:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Editing Suggestions

I suggest paragraph 3 in the beginning of the article is confusing. Is it saying that the Church says the terms 'hypostasis' and 'ousia' are erroneous? Obviously that cannot be the case. Someone should change the paragraph to be more clear as to its intended meaning.Glorthac (talk) 03:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Someone followed my advice and fixed the 3rd paragraph. So to whoever it was, thanks for agreeing with me!Glorthac (talk) 18:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Personhood Edits

Under "Personhood" there is a long discussion about Christology, Church Councils, condemnation of heresies, and the Trinity's relationship to various mainstream denominations. How is that related to the definition of personhood? I think everything from "The being of Christ..." and onward should be moved somewhere else.Glorthac (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Challenge 1 maybe?

Under "References used from Scripture" it says: It required reflection by the earliest Christians on the earthly ministry of Jesus and of what they believed to be the presence and power of God among them, which they called the Holy Spirit;. I checked the source, Encyclopaedia Brittanica, and the source says: The earliest Christians, however, had to cope with the implications of the coming of Jesus Christ and of the presumed presence and power of God among them—i.e., the Holy Spirit,

Obviously for the article to say that the Holy Spirit is the presence and power of God has some Jehovah's Witnesses leanings. Sure, Christ is called the "Power and Wisdom of God" (Col 1:15), but we all recognize Christ is a person. So too, saying the Holy Spirit is "the presence and power of God" can be true without denying the Trinitarian concept of the personhood of the Holy Spirit, but without the proper context the phrase could be misunderstood. I would suggest we remove the reference, even though it is technically true, in order to avoid misunderstanding.Glorthac (talk) 18:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Who wrote this article? A Modalist?

I've been reading this article and trying to make it better, and I've noticed that some parts of the article teach non-Trinitarian heresy. For example, the article says: Isaiah 9:6 prophesies "For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." Thus a son who will be born at a particular point in history (to a virgin or young woman[Isa 7:14] is also "Mighty God, Everlasting Father". This is the Christian teaching that God exists simultaneously as the Eternal God and also as a Son (Jesus) born to a virgin. Isaiah refers to the Son as "Mighty God, Everlasting Father".

As some of you may know, Isaiah 9:6 is the favorite verse of Oneness Pentecostals, who teach a form of Modalism. Those last sentences have strong Modalistic leanings. Since this article is about Trinitarianism, the article should reflect such. I will eventually fix it to make it make more sense within the scope of Trinitarianism.Glorthac (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This article is also confusing and seems as if it would be hard to read for someone who is not familiar with the Holy Trinity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.42.17 (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Comma Johanneum

Since everybody knows the Comma Johanneum is not apostolic nor biblical, why do we even need to bring it up? I suggest we remove the whole reference, however, out of respect of the editor who added it, I will not remove it. If anybody agrees with me on the removal of the text, I suggest you do so.Glorthac (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It shouldn't be treated as historically Biblical, but it does go back to the era of the Church Fathers, and there's no reason why it can't be mentioned on that basis. AnonMoos (talk) 07:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Challenge 2

The article says under "References to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit":

Extant manuscripts of the Gospel of Matthew unanimously contain the trinitarian baptismal formula without variation at 28:19.[31] Notably, the earliest extant manuscripts containing the passage in question, Codex Sinaiticus (א) and Codex Vaticanus (B), date to the 4th century, postdating the autograph by approximately 250 years.

This is a half-truth, a misrepresentation. How so? Manuscript wise, it might be true that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are the earliest. Evidence wise, there is much much earlier evidence. St. Irenaeus of Lyons wrote in his Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 17 (written probably 180 AD):

And again, giving to the disciples the power of regeneration into God, He said to them, “Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”

So, it is conclusive that there is earlier evidence for Matthew 28:19 than Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. So, I'll change the article to represent the truth. Thank you!Glorthac (talk) 05:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

More Non-Trinitarian heresy in the article

The article says this in "Formulation of the Doctrine":

"It was also believed that God the Father employed the image of Jesus as an angel of divine manifestation, such that Jesus—as known in iconic form—had become the human face and personae of the immaterial God (cf. illumination). Leaders were also concerned that due to the invisibility of God and the iconic visibility of Jesus, that Jesus might increasingly be viewed as the deity, rather than as the Son and Messiah (cf. Personhood of the Holy Spirit). Trinitarianism thus incorporated God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit (a manifestation of God's presence) into a single concept such that made clear that God the Father is at the head of the Trinity and Jesus the Son was the human being in whom God's presence was most manifest. The Trinity thus expanded upon Jesus' statements regarding God's presence within him, and his place within God (for example, 1 John 4:9-10,15-16)."

Obviously this is heresy, and not Trinitarianism at all. It is also quite speculative (if this was proven, it would be damning evidence against the Trinity). I will figure out what to do with this when I get to it. But most certainly, this is neither supported by scholars nor true.Glorthac (talk) 23:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't understand it well enough to try to figure out whether it's heretical or not. Much of it should be given an instant ignominious boot. AnonMoos (talk) 01:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I removed the most obscure sentence, and gave a light cleanup, but it still needs work. AnonMoos (talk) 01:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Challenge 3

Under "Claims of Old Testament prefigurement" it says:

Some Christians see indications in the Old Testament of a plurality and unity in God, an idea that is rejected by Judaism, which interprets the New Testament also as not including the doctrine.

First of all, I think the citations are unscholarly. The citations make unsubstantiated arguments that are begging the question, and outright mistakes, such as the Trinity teaches a three-part God (read the Athanasian Creed, "neither dividing the substance nor confangling the persons")

Secondly, the citations are meant to prove the statement "...Judaism, which interprets the New Testament also as not including the doctrine." Obviously the Jewish view of the New Testament is quite irrelevant to the topic of Old Testament prefigurements. And it is also irrelevant to practically everything else as well, as what does it matter the Jewish view of the New Testament in the first place?

Therefore, I will be removing the poor citations, and the statement "which interprets the New Testament also as not including the doctrine." but I will be keeping the rest of the statement, seeing as it has some usefulness. Thanks!Glorthac (talk) 01:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yet more non-Trinitarian heresy

Under "Questions of logical coherency" it says:

Swinburne has suggested that "the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit be thought of as numerically distinct Gods".

And:

Some Messianic groups, the Branch Davidian, and even some scholars within (but not necessarily representing) denominations such as Southern Baptist Convention view the Trinity as being comparable to a family, hence the familial terms of Father, Son, and the implied role of Mother for the Holy Spirit. The Hebrew word for "God", Elohim, which has an inherent plurality, has the function as a surname as in Yahweh Elohim. The seeming contradiction of Elohim being "one" is solved by the fact that the Hebrew word for "one", echad ("one"), may even describe a compound unity, harmonious in direction and purpose; unlike yachid ("only") which means singularity.[101]

The first quote teaches the heresy of polytheism, condemned by the Athanasian Creed. The second quote teaches the New-Age heresies. These heresies should not be taught as truth in an article about Trinitarianism.Glorthac (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)