Talk:Trinity/Archive 1

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

Since Ebionism is not so much a variation on the doctrine of the Trinity as it is a denial of that doctrine, I moved it to a later paragraph dealing with Christian groups that either deny the Trinity, or whose understanding of the doctrine is radically different from the doctrine as understood by the Catholics, Orthodox, and most Protestants.

"The three parts of the Holy Trinity are widely held to be coeternal, of the same substance, and yet inexplicably different."

I have seen this explanation many times before, and found it incomprehensible each time. Can this be rewritten? By definition, if three things are co-existent, co-eternal, and of the precisely the same substance, then they are not different. If these three things are different, then they are not precisely the same. Am I missing something here, or is this a re-working of Tertullian's claim that one must believe something to be true because it is incomprehensible? If so, then I guess the entry should be left as is. Understand that I am not criticising the belief in the Trinity - I am merely trying to find out what just what trinitarians believe in, and I am literally unable to parse the claims that were intended to describe it. The proposed explanation is a tautology.

I just wanted to add my two cents worth here since I think it might help clarify at the outset. As a child, I was taught the Trinity concept and was told it is "very difficult to understand." People don't logically grasp how there could be only one God, yet 3 parts to the Trinity, and how Jesus and the Holy Spirit could also be God. My reaction as a child was, "It's not that hard to understand. If God is God, He can do anything... including being three and one at the same time." You don't have to believe it because it's incomprehensible, but just because it's incomprehensible to the human mind at this point doesn't mean you _shouldn't_ believe it. There's internal logic to it in that the Christian God is omnipotent. There's also internal logic to it in that God in the _Bible_ often refers to Himself in the plural, yet still says there is no other god but Him.

Side notes: It's still a monotheistic religion because by divine mystery, somehow, it is. Remember, because man is limited and can't comprehend everything, it doesn't have to be rational to the outside community; it just has to fit its own internal logic. Perhaps other religions just haven't "lobbied" or had enough influence on historians to be portrayed as monotheistic in the same way, or perhaps they don't fit some sort of qualifications in the doctrine. Personally, I don't think the Trinity doctrine is cognitively meaningless, at least within the faith, because it takes other doctrines to new levels. For example, it means that not only did God give his own son's life for the sins of His people, but He gave His own life as well. Intensifies the depth of love.

-SMS

---

It is possible for two things to be co-existent, co-eternal, and be of the same substance, and yet be different. They could differ in their accidents. (Sorry if I can't make it any clearer than that -- personally I think the doctrine of the Trinity is cognitively meaningless.) -- SJK

Actually, this is clearer. I think I understand what you mean; the only problem is that if this is describing God, it is difficult to describe this model as strictly monotheistic. It sounds like my concept of polytheism. Since I am not a member of the Christian faith community, I don't get a vote in saying whether its rational or not. But I don't find it to have any cognitive meaning if it supposed to be monotheistic. It might be interesting to point out in some article (maybe not thos one) that Jewish esoteric mysticism (Kabbalah) has a concept much like this. This is the concept of God's ten sefirot (emanations). There is no one official text that describes "the" Kabablistic view; rather, different authors describe them in different ways...and one of these ways seems a precise analogue to the Trinity. That particular Kabbalistic view is a minority within the Kabbalah, and has been criticised by rabbis as being "worse than the Trinity", since it makes God into Ten-in-One, instead of Three-In-One! Nonetheless, this view does seem to exist in some Orthodox Kabbalistic texts. (Note: Jews are not religiously obligated to believe in any part of Kabbalah at all, and if they do, they are not obligated to believe in any one particular understanding of the sefirot.) RK

Well, here's my two cents. The best explanation I've found, that is still brief, is what I put in the article: "The difference between them is only that the Father begets the Son, and the Son is eternally begotten of the Father. The Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father. The Son does not beget or proceed; the Father neither proceeds nor is begotten; the Holy Spirit nether begets nor is it begotten. There are no other differences. " That's more or less condensed from the Athanasian Creed. To say it another way, they are different in their personhood, but not different in their substance or essence. The Greeks said they shared the same homoousious, but existed in three distinct hypostases. I forget the Latin translation, though I think there was some confusion in the Latin simply because the Latin meant something very slightly different than the Greek.

Speaking for the Eastern Orthodox, a related claim is that while the three persons of the Trinity share one Divine Nature, all humans share a single Human Nature. Relationships between people are generally fractured and broken, to a greater or lesser extent depending upon the people. Relationships between God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are perfect, in terms of love, clear communication, and so forth. That relationship is the only one anywhere that is not in the least bit disfunctional. So for the Eastern Orthodox, part of the promise of salvation is a complete healing of relationships between each person and the three Persons of the Trinity, and between us people. That healing began with the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, when Jesus united the Divine and Human natures perfectly in himself. (That is, he became fully human without ceasing to be fully divine.) That's at least part of what makes this doctrine important, and not just abstract mumbo jumbo, or a difficult intellectual exercise. Hope this helps, but I'll understand if it only muddies the waters. --Wesley

If I ever get around to writing up the Unification Church version of the Trinity, I'll include it in the article or supply a link to it. It's kind of a bridge between traditional trinitarianism and modern unitarianism (by the way, I was a UU when I joined the UC (on the QT)). Hmm, am I getting silly?

Are there any official or standard UU views on the trinity, or are you saying that you will describe the range of most commonly held views? Either way is fine. RK

Sigh. My acronym jest apparently fell flat. :-( To clarify,

I joined the Unitarian Church in my mid teens. At age 18, I joined the Unification Church.
Both churches (-tarian and -fication) disagree with traditional views of the Trinity.
I will describe only the Unification view of the trinity, not the Unitarian.

--Ed Poor

I deleted text that said (quoting from memory because I forgot to cut--doh!):

Each [person of the Trinity] just shows a different character at a given point [in history].

This is an ancient heresy called Modalism, which I think is the same as Sabellianism after its proponent, Sabellius. It suggests that God just wears different hats or masks, or operates in different modes or characters at different points in time, like a Greek actor changing masks. This is refuted in Scripture when all three show up at once, especially at Christ's baptism (Epiphany/Theophany), and was also refuted by the Ecumenical Councils. I think modalism was mentioned earlier in the article; no need to repeat it here. --Wesley

(moved discussion here from the actual article) From the article:

The doctrine of the Trinity does not appear explicitly in the Bible (indeed not even the word itself is found there), but there are many passages that believers in it point to as implying it. One of the clearest passages is the baptism of Jesus Christ. As Jesus came out of the water, a voice from Heaven said "This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased". At the same time, the Holy Spirit descended in the form of a dove, landing on Jesus' head. Thus the three persons of the Trinity were made manifest at once. This is commemorated each year in the Church at the Feast of Theophany on January 6.

( It says no such thing that the "Holy Spirit descended in THE FORM of a DOVE ..." it states that the CLOUD descended LIKE a dove. In other words, it describes the manner of descent, NOT the "form" i.e. shape of the cloud. Furthermore, there is no mention of any dove "landing on Jesus' head" ... this is simply and purely another fantasy of whoever the author of this careless piece of writ was - ref: David Sutherland newmedia@ihug.com.au )

um, I think I might be the author of this admittedly careless piece of writ. I'll grant you that the RSV at least uses the word LIKE rather than FORM, but Matthew 3 at least has no mention of any CLOUD at all, not even as a source of the voice. I think I was remembering "... in the form of a dove..." from an Orthodox hymn regarding the feast; not sure whether there's any material difference between the two. Nitpicking is welcome, I do plenty of it myself, but be prepared to give your sources if you do. Also, suggested replacement text is always welcome. I'll replace my informal paraphrase of the passage with a quote from the RSV, hoping it doesn't violate any copyrights. The relevant quotation is And when Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him; and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased. -- Matthew 3:16-17, RSV. --Wesley

I also have questions about copyrights. I've tried to carefully understand the copyright notices of the modern, English translations, and they all succeed in making me feel cautious about posting them here. As far as I can tell, there are only a few public domain English versions:

World English Bible
The American Standard Bible (ASV) of 1901
The King James Bible (KJV)
Updated King James Bible (UKJV) - script-converted text.
The King James Bible (Clarified) - used Webster 1833 to modernize the language
Hebrew Names Version
Darby's Bible Translation
Young's Literal Translation

Mkmcconn 02:41 Oct 25, 2002 (UTC)

I understand your caution. I think the fair use part of copyright law would allow the use of just a couple verses; there's some percentage of the entire work that you can't cross, but a couple verses is going to be much smaller than the whole Bible, and should be safe. And you see verses quoted with attribution in all sorts of books, not always with the Bible translation publisher's express permission. Wesley

"Despite this concept of the Trinity, Christianity is considered a monotheistic faith, though many theologians of other monotheistic faiths such as Judaism and Islam have found the concepts difficult to reconcile. "

This seems to connote that the reconciliation of the Trinity and monotheism is too subtle or "difficult" for Jews or Muslims to understand. It seems to me more neutral to say simply that Jews and Muslims reject the idea that the Trinity can be monotheistic. It isn't a matter of "difficulty", but of disagreement. (It would certainly not be NPOV to imply that the fact of their rejection is evidence of their lack of understanding.) My adjustment to the phrasing is in this light.

The baptism of Jesus is a good illustration of the "tri" in Trinity, but an example for the "one substance" part would also be nice. For many who reject the Trinity, the baptism of Jesus is seen as evidence that the three Divine beings are not one substance, even if they are similar and "one". For an illustration of other meanings of "one", look at the 17th Chapter of John: "21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be cone in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me." Q

It's an example of the attempt to affirm with equal belief, two things things that are not reconcilable in an ordinary way. The singleness of God is demonstrated to the satisfaction of both, the Jews and the churches of the ecumenical creeds.

(Deuteronomy 6:4, "Yahweh your God is the one, the only Yahweh" - Isaiah 45:22, "For I am God and there is no other" - Jeremiah 10:10, "Yahweh is the true God" - Galations 3:20, "God is one" - 1 Timothy 1:17, "The only God" - James 2:19, "God is one" - 1 John 5:20, "He is the true God" - Isaiah 43:10: "No God was formed before me, nor will be after me. I, I am Yahweh, and there is no other Savior but me." - Isaiah 44:6: "I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God." - Isaiah 45:5, 6: "I am Yahweh and there is no other, there is no other God except me. Though you do not know me, I have armed you so that it may be known from east to west that there is no one except me. I am Yahweh and there is no other." - Isaiah 46:9: "for I am God and there is no other." )

Similarly, the deity of the Son is demonstrated to the satisfaction of both, the Mormons and the creedal churches. But, because there is not agreement concerning the singleness of God, the two groups have different ideas of "threeness". The result of affirming both the single God and the plurality of persons with equal belief, is the doctrine of the Trinity: a single personal being, in whom there is an eternal distinction of three persons. Does this help?

Also, I had thought that Mormonism did not affirm the personality of the Holy Spirit. But, if the Holy Spirit is not a "person" in a sense analogous to the Father and the Son, then why do Mormons say that they have a version of the Trinity? Isn't the Holy Spirit then yet another kind of being? Is this another misconception on my part? — Mkmcconn

Thanks for the insights, Mkmconn. Unlike the JWs and others, Mormonism does affirm the personality of the Holy Ghost. The difference is the HG is a spirit personage, without a tangible body, whereas the Father and Son have perfect bodies of flesh and bones. Mormons use the term Godhead, since the Nicene Trinity requires the three to be "consubstantial" (homoousios in Greek).

Thanks for your patience with my ignorance of the subject. May I get one more thing cleared up? Do the Mormons consider the Holy Ghost to be the father of Jesus? If the Father has a body, and Mary became pregnant by his body, then what role is the Holy Ghost believed to have? I appreciate the number of things you have clarified and corrected for me about Mormonism. As I'm sure you are fully aware, it's easy to pick up a lot of misinformation. Mkmcconn

No problem. A lot of anti-Mormon sites on the Web cite various quotes to imply that Mormons believe that God the Father had sexual relations with Mary. Here is what former LDS Church President says on the issue:

You asked about*the birth of the Savior. Never have I talked about sexual intercourse between Deity and the mother of the Savior. If teachers were wise in speaking of this matter about which the Lord has said very little, they would rest their discussion on this subject with merely the words which are recorded on this subject in Luke 1:34-35: "Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." Remember that the being who was brought about by [Mary's] conception was a divine personage. We need not question His method to accomplish His purposes. Perhaps we would do well to remember the words of Isaiah 55:8-9 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts higher than your thoughts." Let the Lord rest His case with this declaration and wait until He sees fit to tell us more. [1]

I found the above quote on an LDS apologetics web site called FAIR. Several authors submitted responses to an anti-Mormon book called "Mormonism 101". The contributor who used this quote, David Waltz, who is Catholic, had some interesting things to say about the LDS view of God and the Trinity. The interesting part starts 1/3 of the way down, with the heading, "THE NATURE OF GOD" Q

The article has a defect common on apologetics sites, regardless of the view being defended, in that it attempts to defeat the question instead of answering it. Nevertheless, it is helpful. Thanks for pointing it out. Mkmcconn

Yeah, that seems like a valid observation. Here is a link to the religious tolerance page on the subject (halfway down). [2] Other than on various web sites, it's a (supposed) doctrine that I've never heard mentioned. Before seeing it on the web, I only knew of the Biblical and Alma 7:10 verses on the subject. One thing I disagree with on the Religious Tolerance is the role of Mormon Doctrine as the official guide for Mormon Doctrine. It is written in an encyclopedic style, but I don't see it used all that much. Also, it was written before the author was an apostle, prefaced with a disclaimer that he took sole responsibility for its content. Q

A catholic friend told me a story in which St. Augustine was looking at water draining out of holes in the sand on the beach. Unable to understand how this happened, he was inspired to realize the answer was that it, like the trinity, was a mystery--we don't need to understand. Q

Q - regarding the John 17 passage, the Orthodox and others would not in any way see this as a contradiction to the one-ness of God, but as an affirmation of it. He's also talking about a one-ness among humanity that is much more profound than the unity that gets talked about at international peace conferences, for example. And this passage is part of the basis for the Orthodox idea of theosis, of our becoming one with God, which is possible because Jesus united the divine and human natures in His person through His incarnation. There are undoubtedly other ways to read this, and I probably haven't even given this interpretation half as well as others might. Wesley

Other groups have an understanding of the Trinity that differs from orthodox formulation shared by Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox.

I'm wondering if this sentence communicates what it intends. Do the listed groups all have "an understanding of the Trinity" (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Jehovah's Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals, the Unification Church, and Unitarian Universalists), or is their position not, rather, that the "deity" of Jesus Christ must be explained in some way rather than by the doctrine of the Trinity? The groups are diverse from one another, not only from the catholic doctrine. LDS, JW, Unification, and UU all are anti-trinitarian (do not use the word "Trinity") as far as I know (and I might be wrong). The "Oneness Pentecostals", however, have a non-catholic view of the Trinity, in that they are modalists (Sabellianism). It appears to me that this is the only group listed which can be accurately described as having "an understanding of the Trinity that differs". The other groups, as Islam also, have various anti-trinitarian views. Mkmcconn 18:51 Dec 13, 2002 (UTC)

Oneness Pentecostals are often misunderstood and misrepresented by their detractors. The primary difference between OP's and groups like JW and UU is that OP's believe in the full deity of Jesus Christ and that He is completely one with the Father. Any distinction between the Father and Son is found in the distinction between body and Spirit (Eph. 4:4, Col. 2:9-10). JW and UU believe that Jesus Christ is subordinate to the Father. One of the best explanations I have heard for the differences between OP's and orthodox Trinitarians is that orthodox Trinitarians believe in "one What (God) and three Whos (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit)". Oneness Pentecostals believe in "one Who (God) and three Whats (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit)". jps

Gonna say the obvious: Trinity should be split up and disambiguated. Some of us wanna refer to the New Mexico Trinity rather than this theological mumby jumby =)

Go right ahead. Those of us into the theological mumby jumby would just as soon not muddy the waters further talking about New Mexico and the Matrix. :-D Wesley 17:02, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Several recent edits have tried to remove the notion that non-trinitarians are in the minority among Christians. Like it or not, they most certainly are in the minority. Roman Catholicism alone represents close to half of all Christians, possibly just over half. Add to them Eastern Orthodox Christians and most mainline Protestants, and trinitarians are a very solid majority. Non-trinitarians have been at best an embattled minority throughout Christianity's history. I'm amending the article accordingly. Wesley 16:58, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I have sectioned the page (like it?) to make it easier to read. Now I think

The "definition" (Father, Son, Etc...) ought to be the first thing, bc otherwise we are assuming that the reader kows what the subject is about.
I'd like to see a bit about the Father's discussion on "ousia", "hypostaseis", "nature", "substance" and "person" (I think it is quite enlightening and interesting). It could be done in a different page, though.
In any case, I think the article as it now stands assumes too much on the part of the reader. I may try to suggest some improvements in the future. Pfortuny 10:33, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Overall, I like the division into sections. Thanks! Now I wonder if some parts can be combined. For instance, there are at least two separate places that discuss the apparent tension between God's "three-ness" and "one-ness". Several other points seem to be repeated in different places the same way. As far as assuming too much... perhaps part of the article should assume less and be more introductory, and part could assume more, perhaps making the assumptions explicit? I think a discussion on ousia, nature, person etc. would make a good additional section or subsection. If it were split off, what would you call that article? ;-) Wesley 06:53, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Have just re-read the first paragraphs... The feast of the Theophany does not exist (as such) in the Roman Catholic Church (and AFAIK Anglicans do not, either): we celebrate the "Baptism of Our Lord" on the first Sunday after Epiphany. How could we say it? I mean, sth like "in Eastern Christian Churches" or otherwise, but I do not know whether it is a good expression. Just to prevent confussion (when I read it I thought, "Oh, they mean Epiphany, not Theophany", but then I searched in google and "Oh, no, they do mean Theophany"...).

OTOH, yes, it makes no sense a new page on the "ousia-nature" problems, just a section. :) Pfortuny 08:50, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

So in the Roman Catholic Church, does Epiphany itself only deal with the Wise Men, the Baptism of our Lord somes later? For some reason I thought that Epiphany and Theophany were for the most part different names for the same feast. Wouldn't be the first time I was wrong. If the closest thing in the West is the Baptism on the following Sunday, then maybe... "This is commemorated each year in the West as the Baptism of our Lord on the Sunday following Epiphany, and in the East as the Feast of Theophany on January 6." Although when talking about modern practice, the East/West distinction is growing increasingly less useful as both churches become more global. Wesley 17:52, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Yes, the "Epi-phany" is (in the RC Church) the "manifestation" (phanos) to those "out of" (epi) the People of Israel: the "the Wise Men" (actually in Spain, where I come from, it is popularly called "los Reyes" -"the Wise Men"), and the Baptism of the Lord is the first Sunday after that. I quite agree that your sentence is precise but will become useless in the near future. I am going to insert it. We should look for a better expression, anyhow, but meanwhile let us follow standard use. Thx. Pfortuny 20:37, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

That's a dubious translation of the Greek, επι. Epiphany translates well enough without being broken up into its roots: "showing forth", "manifest upon", "disclosure", or even more abstractly, "dawning upon", are close enough. That the Gentile outsiders are involved is an important circumstance commemorated by the feast, but that is not implied in the etymology of this word, itself. Mkmcconn 21:01, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the point. Pfortuny 08:45, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Similarly, "Theophany" means the "manifestation" of God; I've also heard it translated as "God shines forth" or "God shining forth". One of the main hymns of Theophany says, "O Lord, when you were baptized in the Jordan, the worship of the Trinity was made manifest. For the voice of the Father bore witness to you, calling you his beloved Son. And the Spirit in the form of a dove confirmed his word as steadfast and sure. Glory to you, O Christ God, who shone forth and enlightened the world." Less emphasis on the "outsiders", more on his shining forth at baptism. Of course the feast is still closely tied to the Nativity and Christ's birth; I think the Wise Men are mentioned more around Christmas time, as in many other churches. Theophany also happens to be the favorite feast of St. Theophan the Recluse, my patron saint. :-) Wesley 17:33, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I've held back expressing my preference on the issue, but I have to admit that the picture of the Norwegian carving is creepy, and offensive. I agree with anyone who would say that pictures make it more likely that the article will be read and understood. However, it is not necessary that the pictures must portray a specimen of their topic; which in this case is absurd and (as I've said), repugnant. I'll try to say as little as possible beyond that, because I find myself getting a bit hot about the topic. Mkmcconn 14:37, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I completely agree and have made a bold edit changing the sculpture by a more renowned piece of art (and in my opinion, quite nicer). Pfortuny 16:37, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I must confess Rublev's icon of the Trinity is a personal favorite of mine. There's a good article discussing it and its history in the External Links section; it still has a lot of opportunity to be misunderstood. Wesley 18:41, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I've just taken away the Yin-Yang thing. If anyone does think it fits in the article, please revert.

I just realized, reading this text apparently for the first time, that it's in pretty sore need of deep revision, if its intention is to describe what trinitarian Christians believe concerning the Trinity. While it may portray what some people think trinitarians believe, it's quite off; and as the opening paragraphs indicate, even the smallest differences are of considerable consequence. Mkmcconn 22:10, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Wow, I really thought you had read it :). Now I am so relieved... You are absolutely right. At the same time I think a common views article is necessary and then maybe either different articles for each view or different sections. View is the first word that came to my mind. Also it is too long now to keep the reader's interest, in my opinion (could do with a reordering and polishing and subsectioning...) Pfortuny 22:15, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

yes, this article has evolved in a rather haphazard fashion. If you start re-ordering it in a sensible way, you'll soon see that there's actually a lot that is duplicated and could be removed without really losing anything. As it is, this article reinforces the trinity doctrine's reputation for being convoluted and hard to understand. Wesley 11:42, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Now, who shall bell the cat? :) I might try but it may take quite a while... quite a long while and I am not the most learned on the subject... Any volunteers? Pfortuny 17:57, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Holy Trinity?

One minor help to begin with, might be to label this article in a completely exclusive way, so that none of the irrelevant material about "other" trinities is included. In my opinion, this might be acheived by moving this article to "Holy Trinity", and splitting out the other material. Mkmcconn 17:20, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Agreed. Only we will have to deal with the atheists etc. complaining about POV and so on... However, I completely agree with you.

Anyway this will mean having a disambiguation etc... and I forsee "losing" the main meaning in favour of a silly disambig. "The film character", "The Yin-yang meaning" etc... But I am pro-change. Pfortuny 17:45, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree that a more exclusive article name would help. Would something like "Trinity (Christian)" be considered more NPOV? Neopagans might also consider their trinity "holy", as might the Hindus theirs.

Another good early help might be to set up a new outline of headings and subheadings at the bottom of the article, maybe mostly empty at first. Then material can be moved and condensed into the new sections; maybe after there's consensus on the outline. Wesley 17:50, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I would be happy both with Holy Trinity (very happy) and with Trinity (Christian) (just happy). I guess they would think the "(Christian)" title more NPOV. Am I getting old or are people getting too too picky with religious POV? (this is a side-comment which expects no answer).

It is not quite correct to build up sections etc... in the main article before they are filled with something. I am copying it User:Pfortuny/Trinity and feel free to modify that. You (I mean anyone interested) may play there in order to get a consensus. I suggest using that copy as "framework for another new and better version" if you like. Pfortuny 17:57, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'll just start working my way down the article with y'all. Call me up short if I'm getting carried away, but I'm too busy at the moment to do very much damage. Mkmcconn 22:41, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

About the "gender neutral" expression, who uses it? I am completely ignorant on that. Pfortuny 18:54, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I can't answer the question without prejudice. It's associated in my mind with the most extremely modernist segments of Protestantism. But I frankly care so little for what the latest trends are at the extreme edge of modernism, that I am sure that Im no reliable reporter of the facts. For all I know, it makes its way into mainline and evangelical churches sensitive to the civil rights implications of the language used in reference to God. Mkmcconn 04:43, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

One group that I assume would be a proponent of such language is Christians for Biblical Equality ([3]). I would think that the Disciples of Christ would be at least tolerant of such language, based on conversations with my mother-in-law who earned an M.Div. at a Disciples of Christ seminary; she's a CBE fan as well. Can't say how widespread it is, or give a specific citation that either of those groups actually use it, but I'm fairly sure that it's "out there" to some extent. Wesley 18:23, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The Facts section
I boldly moved it talk:Trinity/old1: too long, anonymous and too little explanations. Feel free. Pfortuny 21:34, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't like that way of discussing topics, either; but I do think that some of the material should find its way back into the article, or the antitrinitarianism article, to expand the picture of why many who call themselves Christians object to the doctrine of the Trinity. Mkmcconn 21:46, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Agreed, it simply appeared too bluntly here, didn't it? Pfortuny 21:57, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

" is considered essential by Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and orthodox Protestantism" -- is it POV to speak for "orthodox Protestantism" -- I mean, each protestant sect or even cult thinks they are the orthodox protestants, right ? Jesus Blows Goats 06:06, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

There is a problem with the terminology; however, where there is such a thing as "orthodoxy" in Protestantism, this is the orthodox position. Alternatively, where there is an isolated group which represents no position but its own, or groups which reject the imposition of doctrinal definitions, "orthodoxy" doesn't have a positive meaning: it represents an imposed doctrine, which the group rejects. Protestantism, qualified by "orthodox" means roughly, the same doctrine as Orthodox and Catholic churches, except for those elements which distinguish all Protestants from all Orthodox and Catholic churches. Mkmcconn 05:08, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Mormonism and the Trinity

The introduction to this article asserts that Mormonism is polytheistic or henotheistic. This viewpoint is hotly debated, with many divergent views, and should not be stated as if factual in the introduction. Describing the Mormon view of the Trinity as "three gods in three persons" is also a huge oversimplification, to the point of being misleading. The Mormon view is much closer to "social Trinitarianism" than polytheism or henotheism. See, for example, http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700065755/Daniel-C-Peterson-Mormons-and-the-Holy-Trinity.html?pg=all . 67.166.126.67 (talk) 08:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, an oversimplification, but not necessarily incorrect.Theseus1776 (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

During at least part of the 19th-century, the Mormon understanding of the Trinity seems to have been influenced by the Adam–God doctrine, or at least that's what many "mainstream" Christians think... AnonMoos (talk) 13:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The Adam-God Doctrine has not bearing on the Mormon concept of deity. It deals with the plan of salvation and has been repudiated by modern LDS authorities.Theseus1776 (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Many "mainstream" Christians think otherwise... AnonMoos (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you could describe Mormonism as anything but polytheistic, since God is a being who once was a man, and every man has the potential to become as God is. If anyone has become as God is, then there is more than one god, hence polytheism.

Beyond that, Mormonism affirms that there is a fundamental ontological difference between the Holy Spirit and The Father and the Son. The Father and Son are bodily, have flesh and bones. The Spirit is entirely non-corporeal. They cannot be considered to be Trinitarian if one Person of the godhead is not homoousia with the other two.

"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us." - "130:22". Doctrine and Covenants. Retrieved 15 October 2012.ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly.Theseus1776 (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

And ontology matters.Theseus1776 (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I've read a lot of the scholarly sources and from what I've read, Mormonism is best described as falling under social trinitarianism or non-Trinitarianism. The stuff about polytheism usually comes from non-scholarly polemics, and the stuff about henotheism seems to be original research (or at best synthesis) as I've not seen it described that way in a scholarly source.
By the way, the citation to Bushman's book at the end of the Lead is wrong. Page 40 is talking about Joseph Smith's "First Vision". The passage cited says nothing about theisms, three deities, or Godheads, and ironically doesn't even mention that there were two "personages" in the vision until the next page. ~Adjwilley (talk) 13:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Mormons affirm a social Trinity, but not an ontological Trinity with homousia. Hence, Mormons reject the fundemental principle of the Nicene Trinity.

If you have three distinct persons who are not of the same essence but are truly God... that is polytheism. Whatever it is, it certainly isn't Trinitarianism.ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm certainly not arguing that it's Trinitarian. I don't even think Mormonism belongs in the Lead of this article. You should probably have a look at the Social trinity aricle, and perhaps the source the IP provided. ~Adjwilley (talk) 14:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Definitely agree that it should not be in the lead section of the article. If it's thought to be necessary to run through various alternatives to traditional/mainstream Trinitarian doctrine, then there are names of ancient heresies which cover almost all permutations. If the Mormon view is complex (or more complex than many people think), then it's not really a useful contrast for the top section of the article (where nothing can be explained at length)... AnonMoos (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Mormons are best described as Social trinitarianism. Polytheism is the belief that there are multiple gods in a pantheon of gods that can be worshiped. Mormons believe and worship one God. Mormons subscribe to the statement of Paul in the New Testament that states, "As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." (1 Corinthians 8:4-6)

While Mormon teachings allow for the existence of others who could be considered gods, or the ability to progress to become like God, Mormon teachings clearly state that we have only one God and that he will always be "our God forever and ever" (Psalms 48:14) (See [4], [5], [6], and [7] for accurate information on Mormon belief in God).

Yes, however there are still multiple Gods, regardless if there is one God who is in charge. This is part of the issue with Mormon theology; Mormons use similar terms and sayings with very different meanings. For a Muslim to say "there is only one God" and a Mormon to say the same thing have very different meanings. God, or in LDS parlance Heavenly Father, is the only being to be worshiped, and hence the "only God." However, this does not mean that there is only One God.Theseus1776 (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Mormonism believes in three separate beings. Dromidaon (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record, I recently had the chance to study this in a little more depth. I misread the information on Wikipedia about the description of Social trinitarianism. This is the more accurate description of Mormon belief in the trinity. According to Wikipedia, the base of Nontrinitarianism is a belief that the trinity consists of three "co-eternal, co-equal, and indivisibly united in one essence." According to Mormon doctrine, the members of the Godhead are co-eternal, but they are not co-equal(John 14:28) and not one essence(Luke 23:46). Social trinitarianism describes that the trinity "consists of three persons whose unity consists of a loving relationship" which pretty much sums up the Mormon belief. I have corrected my previous comment. Dromidaon (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

"God" in Mormonism consists of three distinct beings with different ousia. They are not one being as in Nicene Christianity. Hence to claim them as polytheist is correct (See The Book of Abraham). Yes, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are unified in purpose (the definition of God e.g. Blake Ostler), they still maintain different centers of consciousness and hence are not one God. Any attempt to describe or reconcile the Mormon Godhead with the Trinity are impossible.Theseus1776 (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Art section to move out

The art section is too large and also not exactly correct. Not for me to do it any more, but I think it needs t move out to Trinity in Christian art just like Transfiguration of Jesus in Christian art, etc. As this article gets cleaned up now, maybe you guys can talk Johnbod to do that. He knows the topic of course, and could easily do it in half a day or less. And that will make this page less bulky and improve its quality. History2007 (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I was literally just thinking about proposing that. I'm not sure the "Christian" is necessary, is there a reason it's included in Transfiguration? --JFH (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Was editing the rather unsophisticated art appreciation stuff to improve as it was being split off (edit conflict resolved - left a stump para including 4 image examples of trinitarian symbolism in other materials than the painted or printed page)MrsKrishan (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There are novel art forms or Manga or whatever, and punk art and cartoons and what not that confuse the issue if you do not focus it on the traditional "art history" masters etc. That part has enough quality problems to get mixed up in those debates. If you look through Gardener's Art Through the Ages or something like that you get the artistic masters, Rubens, etc. I once joked that the Crucifixion in the arts article should have been called Crucifixion of the arts in its early days. It has gotten better now, but still has a Volkswagon image etc. So the only way to do it right will be to just do the masters, i.e. the term Christian in front like the others ones on Ascension, Resurrection, etc. History2007 (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. I don't see a problem with being as broad as possible, and I don't really see how the Christian modifier avoids the problems you're concerned about. Anyway, being somewhat of an iconoclast, this is well outside of my area of knowledge and interest. I just think spinning off the section would declutter a very important article. --JFH (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree re: spinning off to avoid clutterMrsKrishan (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The point is that if it is just the masters/Chrstian art the lede will be meaningful, but if there are cartoons and VW images can not really write a meaningful lede. The same issue with Christian art vs art in general. These articles are subsidiaries of the Christian art page in fact, and a template needs to group them later. Anyway, I moved it out and left a 1st cut here. Can try to touch up that page and leave a little more here later. History2007 (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I am going to stop watching here now, but the entire article from the top looks unkempt. Some of the text is correct, but the positioning of the boxes and images at the top just looks like a rummage sale. as you clean it up would be better to just have a nice artistic image at the top, then the boxes spread throughout. Will show more respect for the topic - as is it is even disrespectful with all the clutter. History2007 (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed and the clutter isn't just in the visual elements: multiple strands of thought not woven into a coherent whole (rather an apt metaphor for the current state of Christian unity, I'd say, but that might sound rude, see expanded Perichoresis page for more on meme)MrsKrishan (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Italian article is it:Iconografia della Trinità... -- AnonMoos (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Strongly object - waiting 3 hours is not enough. Especially as it was replaced by a load of nonsense frankly. In what respects is it "not correct"? Johnbod (talk) 02:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

So if we get you upset enough you may even work on it... It needs to move out anyway. As for the text and what it says about art, I have not even read it. I was going t read it over the next few days, but I think it is better if you do it as I started suggesting. Just do it and be done with it. I am not going to work on it, but I think it needs o move out for sure. History2007 (talk) 09:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I wrote pretty much all of it a long time ago. It is a useful contrast to and relief from the over-heavy & ill-organized theological material, as well as offering the non-theologian reader the best approach imo to a sense of how the doctrine of the Trinity was reflected (not the right word, but it will do) in Christianity after the theology had largely settled down. I think it should stay and the more recherche theological stuff be moved out to one or more sub-articles where it can be properly organized. Johnbod (talk) 11:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The topic itself is a theological concept. I agree it is not well done, but going off-topic isn't helpful. --JFH (talk) 12:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Depictions in art are hardly "off-topic" - that is a very strange way of looking at things. The Trinity is (for nearly all Christians) an essential element of Christian belief, that happens (unlike other such elements) to be essentially a theological concept. That does not mean that the article should only contain theology. The theology, and its history, rapidly gets extremely complex and difficult for most readers to follow, and there is far too much of it here for a head article. See below. Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. suggest both art and theology split off, with summary subhead block linking to (main article template) tag - note there are profound cosmic connections to these two areas (see perichoresis, presence-action-movement in the mathematics of Archimedes sprials etc) so need someway to weave them together here BEFORE splitting to details. Can't do more right now I'm off on silent retreat for 4 days, check back in Tues.MrsKrishan (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I fail to understand the sense of moving theology out. The article begins by saying that the Trinity is a Christian doctrine. Doctrines are theology. So are mysteries of Christian faith, one of which the Trinity is declared to be in the second paragraph. Distinctions between the doctrine and non-Trinitarian positions, whether within Christianity or outside it, are also theology. The lead suggests that this is precisely what will be in the article - theology. I must suppose that what you mean by theology is instead the section that is now put under the heading "Theology". In isolation, that would be of no interest. What that section needs is a severe reduction, what Jfhutson is patiently working on. There is no need, for instance, for so lengthy a subsection within it as that on "Eternal generation and procession", when a sentence alone directing the reader to the Filioque article would be enough. Surely nobody thinks that this article needs the information given in that subsection on a resolution that the Lambeth Conference adopted in 1978 but that has not been put into effect in all the 35 years since then. Slimmed down, the section now headed "Theology" would become simply the exposition that an article on the Trinity needs to explain what the doctrine of the Trinity is.

This discussion began as a proposal to move the art part out. That does make sense. Esoglou (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I remain completely unconvinced. Some doctrines "are theology", but many other key ones are assertions that certain past and future events did or will happen. These have theology piled upon them, but are not in themselves just theology. That is not the case here, but both old and new versions of the article seem to me to have rather arbitary contents, not well supported by references (see below) that don't amount to a coherent or readable article, by a combination of having too much and too little. It would be much better to move the more detailed material - some of which the article has & some of which it doesn't - out to a new article where it can all be put out at full length for those interested. Personally I found "Eternal generation and procession", though more than is needed, more relevant than much else here. The article also lacks, I suppose driven out by lack of space, the usual sections in articles on doctrines on dedications, celebrations etc etc, and in this case things like the Doctrine of the Trinity Act 1813. These are normally far too long, but should be represented by something. The section on Nontrinitarianism is probably too short - or this should be better covered in the history section. Several of the articles in the category appear unlinked, and should be. Johnbod (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused. "Eternal generation and procession" is still there, in fact I added some things to it from other parts of the article. Moving out the bad theological material to a new article is not a solution. Bad material should be carefully deleted. I'd rather have a stub on the trinity than incorrect/misleading material. Maybe at some point I'll get to rewriting, but it almost sounds like I'm being criticized for cutting garbage when I should have sat down and rewritten an article on a very difficult subject. The trinity could have an informative article focused on theology at a moderate length. The fact that you find theology boring is pretty irrelevant. I agree a section on dedications and celebrations and such might be a good idea, SOFIXIT. As for art, I don't see why a theological concept, or any concept, should have a more than a summary style section with a link to an article, as History2007 did. For nontrinitarianism, why should it have more than summary style since it has a whole article? It's basically a criticism of section, and I question whether the existing section should be included at all. --JFH (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, "Eternal generation and procession" is still there; Esoglou thinks it is much too long here, I merely think it is rather too long, and less excessive here than other sections. That all the material you have removed is "bad" I'm not sure; the many changes are hard to follow in diffs, as I say above, and some of it might well be useful in a fuller article just on the theology. Some of the material that's left looks WP:UNDUE to me in a short article, as mentioned above, and I suspect that more important stuff that a balanced article would have is missing. I don't find theology boring, as you assert for no reason, but I do find, as all or the vast majority of readers will, some of the theology here incomprehensible, which is perhaps not surprising for a mystery. I don't say that such material should not be provided for those who can follow it, but that is why we need an offshoot article for a fuller theological account. While we're being personal, you appear to have a Calvinist background which perhaps explains your dismissal of the relevance of church art, not to mention the space still allocated to very obscure modern evangelical writers. You may not like church art, or even think it is blasphemous, but most articles on doctrines that are represented in art have sections on the art that are in most cases the only article on the general subject. The subject of the doctrine of the Trinity cannot be adequately discussed without fuller coverage of those who have rejected it than the listy mentions here. Johnbod (talk) 17:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for misreading you. I don't think you have to be a Calvinist (I like art! Just not in church) to think that art is more of a related subject than an essential part of an encyclopedic treatment of this topic. I tried to find another article on a theological concept or any concept that had more than a short summary section on art, and came up blank. I agree there's lots of remaining bad material, some of which is probably UNDUE, SOFIXIT. I think everything I've removed would not be appropriate for a more detailed article. Most of it was repetition of other parts of the article, completely unsourced, and/or so confusing I didn't know what to do with it. As for the Nontrinitarian section, what was there before was exactly a list of nontrinitarian groups and why they don't believe in the trinity. I don't see how that helps one understand the trinity. --JFH (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I said doctrines, not theological concepts. Work your way through the Creed & appropriate articles here, and you will find plenty of art. Often short sections are all we have, and some event-related doctrines have many articles on the art. This is in the middle. Johnbod (talk) 23:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Which creed? Neither the Apostles' nor Nicene have art sections. I tried some of the members of the attributes of God template and found no art sections at all. Jesus in Christianity seems like a similar topic and a good candidate for art, but I found not even a section. Crucifixion of Jesus seems like a much more popular subject in art, but currently its art section is much shorter than this one. I think I would be OK with one gallery, as is done at crucifixion, by the way. --JFH (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Please stay awake! " ... who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,

   born of the Virgin Mary,
   suffered under Pontius Pilate,
   was crucified, died and was buried;
   he descended into hell;
   on the third day he rose again from the dead;
   he ascended into heaven,
   and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty;" - try the relevant articles. Johnbod (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget "From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead." I can't find anything longer than Crucifixion of Jesus#Crucifixion in art, symbolism and devotions, and I'd think that event would be more commonly depicted than this doctrine. --JFH (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Probably correct, which is why that and the Annunciation and Nativity have their own articles, like Resurrection of Jesus in Christian art, but eg Entombment of Christ, Harrowing of Hell and Last Judgement don't. Johnbod (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Then I don't understand your point. Once an art section on a given topic gets too big, it's moved out. That appears to be the case with every other doctrine, and, I would imagine, every other concept. What makes the trinity special? --JFH (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

This one has not got too big. Johnbod (talk) 04:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's the longest art section in an article on a doctrine or episode in Jesus' life, and it is longer than most stand alone Christian art articles. --JFH (talk) 14:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Well one of them has to be, doesn't it? "longer than most stand alone Christian art articles" unfortunately means anything over 100 words - if you'd read more of them you'd know that. I regard the article as unbalanced with that removed, & a large quantity of off-topic waffle remaining. Johnbod (talk) 04:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

There must be over a hundred links that should now go to the other arrticle. It is your responsibility to correct them, having initiated the move. Johnbod (talk) 04:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I have looked them over; I honestly don't know what your point is. As Christian art articles go, Trinity in Christian art is a good length article as a stand-alone, and the section here is a good length section as art sections on doctrines go. Searches for [~"Trinity#Artistic depictions"] and [~"Trinity#Art"] return no results, so I'm not sure what you think should link there. --JFH (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes

I'm no theologian, and the 128K version before the cuts began was certainly too long, but it seems to me that some babies have been thrown out with the bathwater. A new Theology of the Trinity breakout might be a better route. As it currently stands the article remains very dense theologically (inevitable at some points with this topic), but to lack a natural flow. Some things removed seem more significant than some left in. The "Jesus as God" section, seems rather too long and detailed for here, and also to contain material not in Divinity of Jesus (reds to Christology) that could usefully be there instead. The "non-orthodoxy" section is pretty incomprehensible to me, and are these views significant enough to deserve their own sub-section? Likewise is "George W. Knight III in his 1977 book The New Testament Teaching on the Role Relationship of Men and Women" a sufficiently important figure to mention? Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Was not watching here, but received a message. I have not read the article in detail, and I am not going to. Just not on my path to work on. Some statements are correct, but overall it is cluttered and haphazard in many cases; and some of the material was not right when I looked at it a few months ago. Please ask for advice from user:Esoglou, user:Jpacobb user:Mannanan51 and user:StAnselm for all 4 know the theology in detail. I am sure they will be able to do it right if they spend the effort. Some of them edit only occasionally, but just asking them for general comments will be very useful. History2007 (talk) 09:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

yes from me - see my comments re: art and cosmic realities such as beauty, goodness, truth (above) can't engage now, on my way out the door for 4 days MrsKrishan (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Two other passing comments: Another user who knows the topic pretty well is user:Jbribeiro1, but he is mostly doing other Wiki languages. Also "Theology of the Trinity" seems unusual, given that most discussions of the Trinity are theology anyway. So to keep the art here and catapult the theology elsewhere looks strange. But anyway, even if I get a message, I will not be looking here for a while, so you guys decide what to do. History2007 (talk) 10:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't got to cutting the Scripture section, which looks particularly messy, or the non-ortho one, which I know nothing about. I'd welcome review of what I've cut. --JFH (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

It's no good just cutting. Much of these needs full rewriting, using a number of standard works. The current references tend to ring alarm bells; there are far too many primary sources, general encyclopedias in various languages, and an absence of standard theological or church history textbooks or other reputable books. These must be easy to obtain on such a fundamental topic, and ideally say 3 different ones, from different parts of the mainstream spectrum of views, should be used in tandem with page refs in the same citation. They ought to be all saying much the same in essence, I would have thought, for most of this topic. The "Orthodox Outlet for Dogmatic Enquiries" is a very poor English translation on the web of the Greek lecture notes of a senior Orthodox cleric; no doubt the original is a fine RS in Greek, but we should be doing better here. Some specific points, though the changes are complicated to follow, & these are only a sample:

agreed re: "just cutting" we need a tailor with a dress pattern to fashion a tunic from this worthy cloth MrsKrishan (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The old "personhood" section, with the list of heresies moved elsewhere, seems useful & should probably be in the lead.

What is this passage trying to say?: "The First Council of Constantinople (381) also says, "This is the Faith of our baptism that teaches us to believe in the Name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. According to this Faith there is one Godhead, Power, and Being of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." Matthew 28:19 may be taken to indicate that baptism was associated with this formula from the earliest decades of the Church's existence."

- Whatever it is it doesn't succeed, and why on earth is this the first section in "Theology"? I'm not convinced that the whole Baptism section would not better reduced to one para, with the rest moved to the "Baptism" article if appropriate.

The "One God" section has only bible refs - actually you don't seem to have changed this para.

Hope this helps, but a full rewrite is really needed. Johnbod (talk) 13:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed re: rewrite (but "full" is in the eye of the beholder of "attribute" - need to be kept open enough that believers of all stripes can "see" their comprehension of the divine mysteries here, such as reverence and awe for mathematical symmetry in non-judeoChristian traditions, such as islam, various virtue-ethic pagan worldviews etc.MrsKrishan (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Baptism is the initiatory rite of Christianity, and the ancientness of the baptismal formula is a common argument for the trinity, so it makes sense to me to start there. It's poorly written. I didn't write it. Some day maybe I'll rewrite it. --JFH (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Tertullian's usage of "persona" has a different meaning than the modern word person. This is why I slightly edited the Etymology section to be more in line with Tertullian's language. Should this difference be further discussed in this section to show how the concept evolved? Mustardseed1 (talk) 12:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Eternal Trinity.

The one perfect observer, symbolized by ‘1’, does not exist as a unit but he exists as the Trinity which consists of the observer, that which the observer observes and the difference between the two. There is no place or time in our reality where the Trinity would not apply. We ourselves are the Trinity. Being eternal the Trinity is invariable and perfect. When there is nothing to observe the observer is on his own and he can observe only himself. The duality of the observer with himself, as 2 identical 1/2, is static in the ‘now’, but when the same duality is observed it changes plurality and position to within the next ‘now’. The two observations create difference between 2 and 4. Because of the lack of balance in the difference the observer is motivated to observe the 4 parts 1/4 of the static ‘1’. The internal dynamism within the static ‘1’ cannot be stopped and it creates plurality of 2 to power ‘n’ of parts 1/2 to power ‘n’ for all ‘n’ in (0<n<oo). It is obvious, from the above considerations, that it is the perfect observer who, out of Nothingness of itself, creates change and dynamism. KK (81.159.57.213 (talk) 19:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC))

If this is personal speculation on your part, it would not appear to have much to do with editing the article... AnonMoos (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Mathematical Trinity (0<1)

The saying that 'in the beginning there was Nothing out of which, or in which, God created the World' implies that before the beginning there was the Trinity of God, Nothingness and the reason why God acted. The change from non-existence to existence of the World was quantitative, continuous or a combination of the two. If symbol ‘0’ stands for Nothingness and non-existence and symbol '1' stands for full existence then Nothingness, God and the difference between them can be represented by symbol (0<1). Symbol (<) stands for two observations in the two 'now' seen as one unit when the difference is viewed all at once in the second 'now' and in static state. The difference as '1' contains transformation from Nothingness '0' to full existence '1' of the World which is a unit created by God. The duality in the first ‘now’ became the 'past' and memory and the duality in the second ‘now’ became the 'present' containing the past.

When the observer is on his own he is perfect Truth (see The truth about the Truth; TalkTruth). He then observes full existence of the duality of his self and Nothingness as the perfect contradiction of his ‘self’. The difference between observer’s 'self' and Nothingness motivates him for observation in the next 'now'. In the second ‘now’ there are four elements, each of them 1/4 of the static '1' of internal plurality of 4. The continuous observation within the Trinity cannot be stopped so that internal plurality of static '1' grows as 2 to power 'n' of parts 1/n, where (0<n<oo). The medium of Nothingness is independent of the observer but it is the duality of existence non-existence for all ‘n’ because when Nothingness is being observed it exists for the observer but at the same time it non-exists because the observer exists. Therefore Nothingness is identical with the observer ‘1’ and with itself as ‘0’. The transformation remains invariable but the velocity of change is different for each ‘n’ Direction of change is reversed when n=g, where ‘g’ is the plurality equal to ‘n’ at some point ‘n’ at which there is limit of observation for the imperfect observer who is a part of the Perfect observer limited to the plurality of 'g' and who uses 1/g for the unit of truth of description. (See limited infinity 11/06/2010 in Talkinfinity)..KK (81.151.89.114 (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC))

If this is your personal speculation, it doesn't belong on the article... AnonMoos (talk) 07:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

trinity question....

Collapsed as pure WP:FORUM

'But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.' mathew 24:36 says this .. if the father ,son and the holy spirt are the same how come the son even dose not no the correct time of the 2nd coming ...Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).</ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎124.43.225.115 (talk • contribs)

WP:FORUM. Esoglou (talk) 07:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Excellent question!
Trinitarians can't answer that because it destroys their whole belief system and exposes the true nature of the teaching of the Trinity: it's a pagan teaching that had it's origins in ancient Egypt with the worship of the trinity of their gods Osiris, Isus, and Horus. Even the "christian" cross (the Ankh) can clearly be seen on the most ancient artifacts from Egypt. Again, it's a pagan symbol that was used in false worship, promoting the original lie that humans had an immortal soul - Gen 3:4. This is a lie that continues to be taught in churches today, showing clearly who they're looking to for guidance, just as the ancient Egyptians promoted the snake as the source of enlightenment and truth. - 2 Cor 4:4.
All these truths are abundantly clear if you look at the influence of false religion through the artifacts of these ancient cultures, and see how it has carried over right to our day - "The Met" museum in New York is an excellent place to see this. These artifacts are real. This stuff is not made up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.47.252.184 (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Esoglou rightly marked the first comment in this section as "Forum". This recent addition is more of the same. Should the section be "collapsed", that is hidden but available if specifically opened? It seems to be irrelevant to the purposes of a talk-page. — Jpacobb (talk) 01:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. Do so. Esoglou (talk) 06:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

That is because you are stating what is known as a heressy. The heressy was uttered in a very popular tv mini series by the bbc in the 1970s and among earlier detractors (first centuries) during the structuring of Christendom. The good statement is: The Father is different to the Son and is different to the Holy Spirit they are different Hypostasis, you stated the opposite that they are the same. But The Father Is What the Son Is and What the Spirit Is, that is: God (I Am that I Am, for those that understand better)

So as for the influence on egyptian religion, you can add as well mesopotamical, greek, roman influences to the popular religious manifestations in Christendom. That is why true Christianity is so rare, that is: To give One's life for his friends.Ctmv (talk) 05:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Blasphemy in Islam

I'm not a scholar in either religion, but the statement at the bottom of the article:

"...several verses of the Quran teach that the doctrine of Trinity is blasphemous."

This statement does not appear to be supported by the two verses which are quoted by its citation. I checked both verses online and neither one of them appears to assert anything about the trinity. One of them generically says that Allah is the only god, and the other one doesn't even seem relevant to the topic of personhood in divinity.

Given that the Quran was mostly complete before the doctrine of the trinity was widespread, how could the Quran reference the trinity concept as a blasphemy? This doesn't make any sense. (Granted, I am not considering the possibility that Jehovah intentionally and directly (or indirectly through Satan or by using other spirits) made Muhammed falsely condemn Jehovah's own trinity nature before the trinity was even fully formulated as a theological concept. I did think of this possibility, but it seemed ridiculous enough that I doubt most trinitarian Christians would defend it.) TricksterWolf (talk) 02:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It's really not the case that "the Qur[']an was mostly complete before the doctrine of the [T]rinity was widespread". In fact, the events occurred in the opposite order (and several centuries apart). I'm not sure about "blasphemy" as such, but Muslims theologians certainly regard it as an offense against strict monotheism, tolerable in Christians, but any Muslims who adopt such views are to be severely condemned. And the Qur'an certainly does reference the Trinity, but it seems extremely doubtful that Muhammad understood the details of Christian doctrine... AnonMoos (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

P.S. The form "Jehovah" is based on an old blatantly mistaken misunderstanding of Hebrew, and is somewhat old fashioned and/or associated with certain minority denominations among many English-speaking Christians today. As way of avoiding the word "God", many would find its use objectionable. AnonMoos (talk) 11:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the clarification. My initial concern that the citation doesn't support the statement still holds, however. You need to cite a reliable source (perhaps an Islamic scholar) that describes the Trinity as blasphemous, not list verses in the Quran with dubious interpretation.

Also, due apologies for the use of Jehovah, and I realize this is not the place to discuss that issue, but since you brought it up: don't most Christians believe they worship the same deity as the Jews? I'm pretty sure the Jews have always called their deity Jehovah (or Yahweh, the abbreviated form to avoid violating the commandment against saying Jehovah by the laity). TricksterWolf (talk) 14:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I really don't know whether "blasphemy" is exactly the right word or not, and I'm not necessarily defending the article as it stands. However, there is in fact a firm consensus among Muslims that the Christian Trinity is a reprehensible departure from strict monotheism, and this continues along the line of thought already contained in Qur'an verse 5:73 etc. (though some Christian scholars strongly doubt whether Muhammad had any sound understanding of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, as opposed to a caricatured or strawman version of the Trinity).

And the written purely-consonantal Tetragrammaton יהוה YHWH certainly occurs in the written text of the Hebrew Bible, and in other written Jewish texts, but for well over 2,000 years Jews have refrained from pronouncing this word out loud in almost all or all contexts (in the 1st century A.D., supposedly only the High Priest of the Jerusalem temple pronounced the word exactly once a year in the Holy of Holies; after the fall of the temple in 70 A.D. the prevailing view among Jewish religious authorities is that it should not be pronounced at all). Traditionally, the spoken word adonai אדני is substituted for written YHWH in Hebrew; this was translated into Greek Κυριος in ancient times (see Septuagint), and becomes "LORD" in English, etc. The form "Jehovah" was created as a blatant mistake by early Christian Hebraists who completely misunderstood the Hebrew textual device of Q're perpetuum. The form "Yahweh" was postulated as a speculative linguistic reconstruction by a better-informed later Christian Hebraist in 1814. No traditionally-minded Jew would be likely to pronounce either one out loud (in fact, some Jews are now reluctant to pronounce even words such as Adonai and Elohim except in scripture-reading and prayers, replacing them with substitutes such as "HaShem", "Elokim" etc. in other contexts).

In any case, no matter which version you choose, if you use it in order to avoid using the word "God", many would find it objectionable... AnonMoos (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

For the first part, I definitely believe you are correct in your assertion; I just don't think the reference supports it. A reliable source describing how Muslim clerics have interpreted the Trinity would be more useful than referencing vaguely-written verses in the Quran (which may be obvious in meaning to Muslims, but not so much to outsiders).

For the second part, I again apologize. I have no problem or shame in referring to God as God. It's just confusing to speak from an interfaith perspective when you need to specify to which god you are referring, without laying claim to which god is the "real" God. Many Christians do not believe that Allah is the same god as God/Jehovah/the-Jewish-god, for example (as opposed to seeing Allah as a misinterpretation or different point of view on the Jewish God). I don't know of a neutral way to talk about the subject without offending anyone, but anything you can say to educate me is (sincerely) appreciated. :) The problem with text-based environments is it's difficult to read emotion and intent; mine here is not to insult or belittle anyone's beliefs. TricksterWolf (talk) 23:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

A reliable scholarly source for Muhammad denouncing (what he understood to be) the Christian trinity might not explain in detail (for people without prior knowledge of Islam) the particular Qur'an verses involved. It would likely be written by a scholar for other scholars, not for beginners.

Muslims seem to be somewhat internally split on "Allah" vs. "God" (or equivalent) when speaking languages other than Arabic. Some insist on using "Allah", while others are against the practice insofar as it may tend to give non-Muslims the impression that "Allah" and "God" are different. Arabic-speaking non-Muslim monotheists use the word "Allah" to refer to the God of their religions in Arabic texts. A few years ago, part of the government of Malaysia tried to prohibit Christians from using the word "Allah" to refer to their God in the Malay language, and received a lot of pushback (including some from fellow Muslims), and had to abandon the attempt. (There later was a second attempt, but I'm not sure where it stands in the legal system now.)

In any case, Christians are not divided on this matter... AnonMoos (talk) 01:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The Authenticity of the Trinity Doctrine

Jehovah is no part of a triune god. In Exodus chapter 7 through 12 we have a record of ten plagues on Egypt. The number ten in the Bible represents a complete number and in this particular case it stood for all of Egypt’s gods. At Exodus 12:12 it states in the original Hebrew, “For I will pass through the land of Egypt on this night and strike every firstborn in the land of Egypt, from man to beast; and I will execute judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am Jehovah.” The tenth plague was the execution of the first born of all Egypt. In doing this Jehovah made his name famous to other nations who would certainly hear of Egypt's calamities. After their deliverance from Egypt Jehovah gave the Israelites ten basic commands so that they would not make the same mistakes as the Egyptians. The mistake they had made was having too many gods; one of which was the triune god comprised of the god Osiris, the goddess Isis and their son Horus. Regarding this Exodus 20:2, 3 states in the original Hebrew, “I am Jehovah your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You must not have any other gods besides me.” This would certainly rule out triune gods would it not? This is about polytheism; having more than one god.

Centuries later Jehovah God again emphasized he is not a triune god. Isaiah 42:8 in the original Hebrew plainly states, “I am Jehovah. That is my name; I give my glory to no one else, Nor my praise to graven images.” Here Jehovah is making the point as crystal clear as possible. He is not, nor has he ever been, a triune god; he is a singular being, he is One god. At Isaiah 43:10,11 in the original Hebrew we read, “You are my witnesses,” declares Jehovah, “Yes, my servant whom I have chosen, So that you may know and have faith in me And understand that I am the same One. Before me no God was formed, And after me there has been none. I — I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no savior.”

These few scriptures - and there are hundreds more - show the trinity doctrine to be a false teaching and a lie when it comes to biblical authenticity. Jehovah lovingly used words like “face”, “ears”, “eyes”, (1 Peter 3:12) “fingers” (Psalms 8:3) and “hands” (Psalms 19:1) to describe his actions in ways that are humanly comprehensible. However as a spirit being Jehovah does not actually have a face, ears, eyes, fingers and hands. The point? If Jehovah God made his intention and actions clear using human attributes so that we can understand he would have also done the same in describing himself as “three gods in one”. In other words Jehovah would have made the concept of the trinity explicitly clear. BUT NO WHERE IN THE BIBLE IS THE CONCEPT FOUND. Not within the Old Testament and certainly not in the New Testament.

What’s the point of this really long post? To show from the Bible that the Trinity doctrine is not only a biblical lie but it should not have any attachment to the Bible itself. The doctrine should be treated in the same fiction as the Book of Mormon’s Jaredite and Nephites. The historical authenticity on Book of Mormon Wikipedia article does a wonderful job of dissecting the doctrine and exposing it for the lie that it is. The Trinity doctrine needs the same treatment. It should not be passed off or justified as biblical fact. Gorba (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Whether Jehovah is part of a triune god or not is all based on how the scriptures are interpreted. Those who believe in the Trinity as defined can quote scripture to support their view point just as easily as someone can to defend the opposite. It is a matter of viewpoint and belief. In the same manner, the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon is based on viewpoint and belief. Whether or not the Trinity is true, or whether or not the Book of Mormon is true is irrelevant to Wikipedia. What is relevant is that there are people who believe in both, and as such deserve to have their belief included in Wikipedia's pages. If you want to add something like this into the article then you are going to need some credible sources to back it up. I believe the section on Nontrinitarianism does so sufficiently, however you are welcome to add additional credible research into the article. Providing your own interpretation on the matter without reference is considered WP:OR and is not suitable for article content. Dromidaon (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Gorba -- If you want to talk about things found nowhere in the Bible, then the form "Jehovah"[sic] is based on a blatantly mistaken misunderstanding of Hebrew, and is "not within the Old Testament and certainly not in the New Testament"... In any case, Wikipedia's role, as Dromidaon has alluded to, is not to either prove or disprove Mormonism or the Trinity, but rather to report what various reliable sources have said about such topics. AnonMoos (talk) 00:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you very much for clarifying. I respect both of your comments. I have an observation. Since the bible is used to authenticate the trinity doctrine then should this same principle apply to all religious Wikipedia articles where any holy book is the source? For example the Sacraments or sacred mysteries section on the Catholic article uses many scriptures to authenticate beliefs and doctrines. Why is the bible's use not allowed on the Jehovah's Witness article to authenticate their beliefs and doctrines? Any time I've tried to add scriptures to provide a biblical authenticity the Editors have quickly removed it. This seems like a double standard to me. If the practice is okay on one article it should be okay on all. Gorba (talk) 04:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't speak for those editing the other articles, but 1) The Bible is a "primary source", and Wikipedia rules discourage excessive reliance on primary sources. 2) Just about all Christian and quasi-Christian groups appeal to the Bible to support their doctrines. 3) The New World Translation has some controversial features (the beginning of the Gospel of John extremely controversial, a number of other passages at least somewhat controversial). AnonMoos (talk) 07:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

In this situation, and in most others where it is doctrine that is being presented, a secondary, reliable source should be used. Interpretation is the main issue and simply stating a verse to support a doctrinal position is not acceptable. There are a plethora of references from excellent sources that support why Trinitarians believe the doctrine is Biblical; use them. Primary sources should only be used when there is no disagreement regarding its interpretation. --^StormRider 11:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The reason that you are seeing scripture references in the Sacraments or sacred mysteries section on the Catholic article is because they are directly quoting scripture. It's not that they are being used as references in this case. You could do something like "[religious group] does not believe that Jehovah was part of the trinity because [scripture verse] says '[quote]'". This doesn't state that it is fact, but rather that a specific religious group counts it as fact. You would still need a reference to someone that has stated that somewhere, but something along those lines is perfectly acceptable (this would be your secondary source). FOr example: most people, even if they don't believe that the Book of Mormon can be backed by history, can at least agree that Mormons believe that. Using a scripture verse to explain why someone believes something is actually beneficial to an article as it creates a better understanding of why the belief is there. However, if you change the sentence just a little bit it becomes something that is going to get reverted. Phrasing it as "Jehovah was not part of a trinity because [scripture verse] says '[quote]'" is stating this as a universal fact, and not everyone believes that to be a universal fact. Dromidaon (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Trinity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Trinity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120914170051/http://www.zenit.org/article-26288?l=english to http://www.zenit.org/article-26288?l=english

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)