Talk:Trinity/Archive 8

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+

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)

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 -- 02:59, 26 January 2011 75.82.106.7

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).

It is after all, important that we maintain a distinction between Jews, Muslims and Christians, because we Christians have to be kept separate with our special Trinity. 24.176.58.127 (talk) 16:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

Your misunderstanding of what Christianity teaches does not warrant removing it from an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReformedArsenal (talk • contribs) 04:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Catholics do not worship icons, relics, saints, angels, or Mary like we worship God (like many anti-Catholic groups accuse us of doing). Latria is the worship given to God, dulia is the honor given to saints. We give veneration, dulia, to saints. We do not worship icons, but rather the honor given to an image is in reality given to the one depicted. Latria is given to God. 24.191.87.42 (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2012 (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)

The Scottish Episcopal Church in its most recent Liturgy (1982) omits the filoque clause from the Nicene Creed. http://www.scotland.anglican.org/index.php/publications/publication/scottish_liturgy_1982_with_alternative_eucharistic_prayers/

I was told this was done in response to the 1978 Lambeth conference (as stated above)

Kennedy Fraser — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.57.211 (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2011 (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)

Error/Possible typo under "Personhood": This sentence: "The being of Christ can be said to have dominated theological discussions and councils of the church through the 7th century, and resulted in the Nicene and Constantinopolitan creeds..." doesn't make sense. It should say "3rd century", but possibly "3rd and 4th centuries", if the "result" is the creeds. Alternatively, if we want to retain the information that the creeds did not fully resolve the contraversy then the whole sentence needs to be restructured. We could also link the creeds to their respective Wiki pages. Kevin Bennett ekv (talk) 03:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

If there are no objections in the next few days, I'll change the wording of that sentence because it is so misleading in its current form.

Kevin Bennett ekv (talk) 05:32, 29 June 2011 (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)

Um, ok, so there is heresy, which I presume is "any POV that doesn't fit into my POV". Wikipedia isn't supposed to have a POV. We need to balance any POVs so that a reasonable description can be made, showing things as multiple sides see it, if there is a notable controversy. 198.151.130.69 (talk) 05:46, 11 February 2011 (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)

I didn't know that the Christians didn't consider the Comma Johanneum to be apostolic or biblical, and I didn't even know there was a Comma Johanneum until you guys talked about it. — Rickyrab | Talk 05:55, 11 February 2011 (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)

• The New Testament is a Christian document, not a Jewish document. Thus, as far as Judaism is concerned, the New Testament was a piece of blather written by non-Jews. Most of what Christianity labels the "Old Testament" is the Tanakh, the Jewish sacred chronicles; the rest is basically Jewish stuff that Jews later dropped (unfortunately, as some of this detritus sheds light on the origins of Jewish holidays, such as Hanukkah). In Judaism's eyes, worshiping a Jew is about as idolatrous as worshiping a rock or a tree or a statue. 198.151.130.69 (talk) 05:36, 11 February 2011 (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)

But taking sides would be POV, by definition. Your heresy may be someone else's truth. Sure, you may consider that someone else to be danged to hell, but that doesn't affect the fact that this is still POV, in the lack of what many consider to be hard evidence (yeah, I know, a lot of people probably say there is evidence, but, still, it's a case of they said - they said). 198.151.130.69 (talk) 05:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Trinity3.png

I'm not sure what this diagram really adds to the aticle. It's based on the Hebrew word רוח "air, wind, spirit" having feminine grammatical gender in the Hebrew language -- but in fact in a significant minority of its occurrences in the Hebrew Bible, the word actually has masculine grammatical gender. The diagram could be considered "non-orthodox" by the criteria of the traditional mainstream of Christian doctrine, and should be labelled as such if it is to be included (which it isn't now)... AnonMoos (talk) 03:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Comparison with the Vedic concept of avatara

I'd like to know how the Christian concept of the three "persons" of God compares to the Hindu concepts of the "avatars" of, say, Shiva or Vishnu. How are they similar and how do they differ? 198.151.130.69 (talk) 05:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Unjustified revert

TN has reverted to classifying as modalism the view of George Johnson, who explicitly distinguishes between Jesus and what the New Testament calls God the Father, instead of treating them as differing only as modes of the same reality do. TN states, on the basis of what this George Johnson says, that "Many Christians, while still vaguely referring to God in the Triune sense, do not stress the Trinity doctrine, as it is not specifically taught in scripture, and is a possible pagan corruption of early church theology", although Johnson says nothing about "many Christians" nor about "not stressing the Trinity doctrine". TN makes Wikipedia state as a fact, not as an opinion of this same Johnson, that the doctrine of the Trinity is a possible pagan corruption of early church theology. TN also presents as an illustration of modalism a quotation from Martin Luther, no modalist. Esoglou (talk) 10:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I changed the Martin Luther quote, because it is contentious, and replaced it with a more reliable quotation from Wilberforce. Modalists (unlike Trinitarians) do not say Jesus is eternally coexistant with the Father in some form of mystic "Godhead"; instead they view him as "Emmanuel" or God with Us-In other words God in the flesh. I will remove the "many Christians" wording, because there is currently no sourcing for that. However, I think that the idea that the Trinity doctrine borrowed heavily from Stoic sources is well referenced and others besides Johnston (including Buzzard) dispute the biblical status of the Trinity.--  Novus  Orator  05:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I added more scriptural references and also added a subsection on the baptismal formula controversy.--  Novus  Orator  11:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Definition of Person in the Holy Trinity

First: This is a carry over from a discussion in talk:Holy Spirit (Christianity) adapted to be continued here:

- In this article there is a statement about personhood in the Holy Trinity (Holy_trinity#Personhood), properly referenced, and the book itself is well known, that had found its way to the lead of the article Holy Spirit (Christianity):
the lead in the Holy Spirit (Christianity) article was modified so it better resembles the lead of this one

the statement:

(Personhood in the Trinity does not match the common Western understanding of "person" as used in the English language—it does not imply an "individual, self-actualized center of free will and conscious activity.")

plus this other:

To the ancients, personhood "was in some sense individual, but always in community as well."

The referenced book, The Story of Christian Theology, 1999, ISBN 139780830815050, is acredited to Roger E Olson, an evangelical Arminian professor of theology.

- I don't have the book in my hands but that quite reads opposite to this other reference:

the term "individual substance" is placed in the definition of person, as signifying the singular in the genus of substance; and the term "rational nature" is added, as signifying the singular in rational substances.

comments: Note How this reference adds the term "individuality" to the definition of "person" and how it opposes the previous definition (in the story of Christian theology) as "personhood does not imply an individual center of free will".

In complete form:

I answer that, Although the universal and particular exist in every genus, nevertheless, in a certain special way, the individual belongs to the genus of substance. For substance is individualized by itself; whereas the accidents are individualized by the subject, which is the substance; since this particular whiteness is called "this," because it exists in this particular subject. And so it is reasonable that the individuals of the genus substance should have a special name of their own; for they are called "hypostases," or first substances.

Further still, in a more special and perfect way, the particular and the individual are found in the rational substances which have dominion over their own actions; and which are not only made to act, like others; but which can act of themselves; for actions belong to singulars. Therefore also the individuals of the rational nature have a special name even among other substances; and this name is "person."

Thus the term "individual substance" is placed in the definition of person, as signifying the singular in the genus of substance; and the term "rational nature" is added, as signifying the singular in rational substances.

This is taken from:

Summa Theologiæ (Summa_Theologica), 1920 edition (originally written in the 13th century) ascribed to a certain Thomas Aquinas, saint and named Doctor of the church.

- and it also contradicts this other reference

Matthew 24:35-37 (English Standard Version)Mt 24:35–37

35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

No One Knows That Day and Hour

36"But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. 37 For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.

comments: Note How this reference states the Father knows something that the Son does not and how it opposes the previous definition (in the story of Christian theology) written like "personhood does not imply an individual center of free will and conscious activity". It contradicts because the Father is conscious in knowing the day and hour the earth will pass away but the Son doesn't have that knowledge, so that, in my poor understanding, that the Father is a Holy Person consciously different from the Son, that together with the Holy Spirit they are One Substance but three different Persons.

Because of this reasons I would like that statement either removed or replaced by a theological statement accepted by the major Christian communions in the way it is officially formulated in reference to the definition of Holy Person in the Holy Trinity
(such theological correct statements are found in the article just after the cites from the aforementioned book, reason for which I think a simple remove would do) Ctmv (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Ctmv, I am sorry but I can not agree with the approach you are taking. This is a classic case of using WP:Primary to enter WP:OR territory through debate. Aquinas wrote on the issue of "knowing the hour" so much that he ran out of paper. Of course the 1918 Circa quasdam propositiones document by the Vatican set the Catholic view in order and also please see the Catholic Catechism item 474 which clearly states the clarification of the issue. History2007 (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, The challenged source reads as:"it does not imply an "individual, self-actualized center of free will and conscious activity."

It reads opposite to:

1. Roman Catholic Cathechism: 254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another. "God is one but not solitary."86 "Father", "Son", "Holy Spirit" are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: "He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son."87 They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: "It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds."88 The divine Unity is Triune.
2. Jesus said: "the Father is greater than I" Jn 14:28 and "It is my Father that glorifies me, of whom you say that he is your God." Jn 8:54
3. As previously quoted: the term "individual substance" is placed in the definition of person, as signifying the singular in the genus of substance; and the term "rational nature" is added, as signifying the singular in rational substances.

There are three accepted, scriptural, dogmatic sources that are officially adopted by major Christian denominations that read opposite to the quoted source.

On the "knowing the hour" thing

We know that: Jesus doesn't have faith, He has Beatific Vision, For He is Eternal, present before the Creation. He doesn't understand the things the way we do, he sees everything at once, and knows everything for he is the alpha and omega.

now, in this portion of the catholic cathechism:

- 474 By its union to the divine wisdom in the person of the Word incarnate, Christ enjoyed in his human knowledge the fullness of understanding of the eternal plans he had come to reveal.108 What he admitted to not knowing in this area, he elsewhere declared himself not sent to reveal.109

We can get to know that there's something Jesus admitted to not to know Mk 13:32 and He clarifies, it is because He was not sent to reveal those times that the Father by His Own Authority has set. Acts 1:7

therefore, the Father and the son are different persons.

Theologians are nevertheless right on that the Word of God knew everything before He came (for He is Eternal).

But the scripture does make a clear sole exception (on several gospels) about a knowledge only held by the Father

also the Father cannot be Generated nor Sent, as the Word and the Spirit.

On Interpreting the scripture

- The Scripture cannot be broken (greek: λυθῆναι) (the scripture cannot be canceled/undone) Jn 10:35

- The Enlightenment of the Holy Spirit is necessary, and within the clergy different positions are held previous distinct unctions, Although the Holy Spirit is merciful to reveal the Truth to whom He wishes, it is also true that the maximum authority is the pope who by the Apostolic Succession is the designated Apostle to bear the human responsibility of Peter of guiding the fervent. Therefore the Dogmas declared with infallibility are pronounced by Peter as moved by the Holy Spirit of God Who prevents the successor of Peter to even fail in Dogmatic teaching.

- The scripture there (Mt 24:35–37) has a clear meaning as it is written and it cannot be undone, its interpretation hasn't been subject of further Doctoral or Papal interpretation moved By the Holy Spirit.

- The mentioned "Circa quasdam propositiones" document released by the vatican: I haven't found it in the official Vatican Web Site, nor the theological statements therein contained have found its way to accepted Doctrinal or Dogmatic ineffability status (for that the Pope has to say it, in an official encyclical, apostolic letter, or similar pronouncing when being ruled by the Spirit of Christ).

Conclusion

* The Story of Christian Theology, 1999, ISBN 139780830815050 reads opposite Three sourcesJn 14:28Jn 8:54, therefore WP:Primary policy cannot be invoked.

* Scripture cannot be undone. Jn 10:35

* Circa quasdam propositiones is a document that cannot be found, it is not as prominent (historically, Doctrinally) as Summa Theologiæ plus no theological work can contradict Infallible Dogma (see Dogma of the Holy Trinity ). No theological work can contradict scripture.

Ctmv (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Trinity

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

Can we have info about the possibility of the Trinity being El Elyon (The Father), Yahweh (The Son) and Asherah (Holy Spirit)?

Grevenko Sereth 122.49.186.194 (talk) 07:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Such discussion would belong on Talk:Trinity. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

That is false on many levels the most obvious and leasts synthesis being considering the Bible says we are to follow the Holy Spirit and to ignore Asherah and refers to Elyon and YHVH and El Shaddai and all the other names as the same exact person. I for one 100% disagree with this pages definition of trinity as complete Heresy but if the majority of people believe heresy I suppose it will be a heresy definition that takes the weight.--174.45.204.216 (talk) 05:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Father, Son, Holy Spirit is completely heretical and apostacy

Mat 1:18. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Ghost.

Thus we see that the true father of Jesus Christ is the Holy Ghost, not the evil jewish deity "YHWH, the LORD"(a burning bush esteemed by all jews, islamics, protestants, and the vatican II apostacy)

This means the true and real trinity is Notre Dame, the son, and the holy ghost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.190.173.221 (talk) 09:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

First, your comments would seem to be infused with a fair amount of what in ancient times would have been called Marcionism and/or dualistic "Demiurge" variants of Gnosticism, so it might be better to refrain from throwing around loose accusations of "heresy". Second, the idea that Mary is one of the members of the Trinity owes a lot more to the speculations of Carl Jung and/or certain interpretations of one particular passage in the Qur'an than to any form of attested Christianity. The only historical Christian group that we know of which remotely approximated the idea of Mary as part of the Trinity were the Collyridians (and of course we don't actually know that they had any concept of the Trinity at all). AnonMoos (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I would also point out that the KJV describes it that, "...she was found with child of the Holy Ghost." The key word 'of' not 'from' is important. It is possible that this describes a condition in which the influence of the Holy Ghost was required for her to conceive (i.e. the Holy Ghost played an influential role, not an absolute role). The problem according to the grammarians is how 'of' was used archaically. Consider the term, "the book of mine." Also, there is no 'c' in 'apostasy'. Peacefully,--Canadiandy talk 02:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Do not call others heretics when you reject an Ecumenical Council's athourity. You are dealing with anathema. 68.192.134.169 (talk) 23:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

So be good for goodness sake! 69.51.152.180 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC).

C.G Jung

C.G Jung had a few things to say about the trinity, he wrote about this topic in the psychology of religions and i think it would be an intresting section to add some of his comments to this article.--212.181.199.36 (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

If these have the status of mere alternative speculations, which had no existence before the 20th century, and have had no substantive significant influence on Christianity since then, then they probably shouldn't be mentioned in the article. AnonMoos (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

"...mere alternative speculations.." The whole discussion is about completely made up stuff, and you're being sceptical about a reasonable scientific input? A good article would make very clear that the trinity dogma was a political decission, signed by some bishops near Konstantinopel, an idea made up by some normal humans. If the vote would have turned out different, we might not even have this discussion. These historical facts, in contrast to the biblical sources, and the idea of cristianity's schizoprenic psychology are legitimate, and essential points of the trinity description, but are barely mentioned, if then only as sidenotes, or not at all. The biblical texts, subjective perceptions, and personal beliefs in contrast, are portayed as if they are universally accepted and objective. This reduces the academic value of the article extremely, and makes it closer to religious preaching. This article is written with a lot of bias and emotion, and therefore contains mainly information, which non-christians wouldn't consider some. So, if you wanna remove "speculations" from the article, there wouldn't be much left to be honest. Jsswssclst 15:37, 03 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JesuswasaSocialist (talk • contribs)

Whatever -- this article, by its very nature, is mainly about the traditionally mainstream or "orthodox" Christian doctrine of the Trinity, however ludicrous you may think it is. If the speculations of Carl Jung have had minimal or no influence on the understanding of the Trinity by the vast majority of Christians, then there's very little reason to mention them on this article... AnonMoos (talk) 11:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly my point. If something doesn't fit "the understanding of the vast majority of Christians" you will ignore it. As I said, this is religious preaching, and not an objective academic article. That is the ludricious part, not the idea of the trinity itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsswssclst (talk • contribs) 14:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

We won't necessarily ignore alternate speculations, but we'll give them their proper place within the intellectual history of Christianity (which is the main purpose of this article). AnonMoos (talk) 23:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

'nontrinitarian' vs. 'Non-Trinitarian'

Hey all. I have been having a deuce of a time on another article page. It is stated that Mormons are "nontrinitarian'. I agree that they do not ascribe to the common belief of one God in three forms, but if Trinitarianism is a pattern of belief or philosophy and thus capitalized (though I have seen it both capitalized and lower case mid-sentence throughout the articles) is it not appropriate to identify Mormons as 'nonTrinitarian' (meaning not following the Trinity creeds) as opposed to 'nontrinitarian' (which can easily be misunderstood as believing in more or less than a Godhead or deity in three parts or figures).

I know this becomes a matter of common practice, but, unless I'm mistaken the common practice may be flawed, or at least subject to improvement.

In short, I propose:

Non-Trinitarian: (not in keeping with the traditional view of Trinitarian thought or belief)

nontrinitarian: (believing in a deity in which there are more or less than three unique figures or characteristics)

Is this type of style usage heretical? It seems to me that it helps clarify things in much the same way as the reference "small 'c' conservative" does. I'm not expecting everyone to shift over to my usage, only to know if this proposal is appropriate and helpful in shaping the way we reference Trinitarian belief. Is this the right page for this? Is there a style page where this would be better addressed?--Canadiandy talk 02:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I am seeing no opposition (or support)to my proposal. I also notice this page uses the term 'Nontrinitarian' (capitalized) midsentence as well as 'nontrinitarian' (lower case). This seems to support my position that the term 'nontrinitarian' is an open usage term. As I see it, the term is meant to communicate those who do not believe in the definition of the Trinity as practiced in a common or traditional way. My recommendation then is that the term be punctuated as Non-Trinitarian so that it is not to be seen as an attempt to form "Original Research". The addition of the prefix 'Non' (capitalized) is obviously common in the public domain, as is the existing term 'Trinitarian'. In essence, we are not creating a new word, but applying both common usages to make the point of the sentence (article) more clear.

I do not want to jump in and make any changes yet but if there is no opposition after a while I am going to be bold and make the change. Any input? --Canadiandy talk 00:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

That's more something to be discussed on the Talk:Nontrinitarianism article talk page, and this article should be consistent with what's decided there. There have also been disputes about "anti-Semitism" vs. "antisemitism", and it seems that "antisemitism" is generally currently preferred. Anyway, there have been complaints in the past that "Nontrinitarianism" is a made-up Wikipedia word... AnonMoos (talk) 11:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, AnonMoos. I am bringing it up at Talk:Nontrinitarianism as well. You make a good point. At first blush they would seem comparable, however one is referring to a group of people while the other is referring to a philosophy, and not only that but the philosophy of God (common usage of 'God' in specific form is to capitalize). Think of the statment that the White House is a white house. The Trinity is a trinity. And I believe there is a case for there being two usages here. Thus;

The Jewish communities, generally, are 'non-Trinitarian' (in that they do not follow the common Trinity creeds) and based on their belief in one god they are also 'nontrinitarian.' While Mormons are 'non-Trinitarian' based on their rejection of the early Christian creeds on the definition of the Trinity, but they are not nontrinitarian because they do in fact believe in a godhead composed of three distinct individuals.--Canadiandy talk 05:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

People of Jewish faith are neither Trinitarian or nontrinitarian, since they don't have that debate in their faith. It is a Christian-centric debate about whether God is Triune or simply a single entity. Trinitarian and nontrinitarian are opposite sides of one coin, not two distinct and independent ideas. As COgden suggested, nontrinitarian is really just a subarticle or fork of the Trinitarian article. -- Avanu (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

For those following the nontrinitarian discussion I should point out that I am not responding to Avanu (he seems to have some issue against myself and Mormon theology and is becoming more and more disrespectful in tone and language) and will only step in to suggest a couple of key points so that the discussion here is not confused. First, the theology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is just as removed from the Trinitarian doctrines as the Jewish faith in many ways. The Church is a restorationist church meaning that it does not claim any relevance to the Athanasius or Nicene creeds at all. Mormons weren't there, weren't invited, and would have likely skipped the whole thing even if they had been invited. This is an apples and oranges thing. The belief is that the priesthood authority was lost before roughly 80 A.D. and then did not reappear until 1830 A.D.. So for COgden or Avanu to suggest the Church can be appropriately labeled 'nontrinitarian' suggests it ought to also be labeled 'nonlutheran,' 'nonevangelical,' 'nonanglican', and even 'nontomcruisian' (apologies to fans of Tom Cruise). The doctrine of the Trinity is a construct of other faiths, LDS don't even go there. Can any even minded person tell me why it is better to refer to LDS theology as 'nontrinitarian' (a term which is foreign to most LDS people) when terms like 'restorationist,restored Christianity,' or even 'modern revelationist' are much less elitist, more accurate, and identify what LDS people believe in (not what they do not believe in)?--Canadiandy talk 03:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually I've bent over backward to attempt to demonstrate inclusiveness and good faith with Canadiandy. I do believe his work here is to facilitate a change in the page favorable to his view that Mormons are 'trinitarian', and not 'nontrinitarian'. While several editors have tried to patiently explain the predominant view of the Trinity and why labeling The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as 'trinitarian' would simply be misleading and contrary to a proper understanding, we've asked Canadiandy to rely on and provide sources that support an innovative definition for the Trinitarian or nontrinitarian, and he's simply taken it to another forum at this point. -- Avanu (talk) 03:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I was actually encouraged to bring the discussion here by another editor. While I will not respond to Avanu's criticism I will identify the position I have taken and let fair-minded editors draw their own conclusion.

It is true that Mormons do not ascribe to the Trinitarian (capital 'c') creeds. However, Mormons do believe in a Godhead composed of three distinct beings (Heavenly Father, his son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost). Therefore, while it might be technically correct in elite academic circles to use the term 'nontrinitarian' (even this is debatable on the grounds of its use here at WP being original research) it would be misleading to refer to Mormons as nontrinitarian as the term could imply they were either monotheistic or polytheistic. In the early discussions I suggested simply using two common terms hyphenated thus 'non-Trinitarian'. This was as large a compromise as I felt I could support. By capitalizing 'Trinitarian' at least it was a little more clear that the negation was to the Trinitarian creed and not a trinity of Gods. Then I came up against the wall of accusations that this would be original research and so I simply suggested dropping the term altogether and find a more appropriate term. There actually seemed to be good consensus until Avanu showed up and began what might best be termed a filibuster. Feel free to follow the filibuster at the talk pages for the articles 'The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' and 'nontrinitarianism' but you will likely find them TLDNR.--Canadiandy talk 04:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

A 'filibuster'? Funny. Typically I end up calling that 'how consensus works'. If you recall, after you proposed the change to 'non-Trinitarian', I almost immediately changed it on the page for you. However, you kept pressing for more and more pro-LDS changes, and that is what caused more resistance from me, and a reluctance from others to unequivocally support such changes. While I might have a point of view, I am not actively pressing for a redefinition of long-used terms. It is difficult to tell what you would like to have as an outcome, but again, it comes back to "reliable secondary sources". For better or worse, this is what Wikipedia considers first. And unless a lot of sources have decided that Mormonism is now Trinitarian or trinitarian, I don't see this change making it very far. -- Avanu (talk) 11:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Canadiandy1 -- by the standards of historical mainstream "orthodox" Christianity, Mormons are heretically Trinitarian -- in fact, extravagantly and flamboyantly heretical. The very phrase "a trinity of Gods"[sic] reveals the problem right off... AnonMoos (talk) 09:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

@ Avanu

@ AnonMoos, Mormons are not "heretically Trinitarian". Lutherans were accused of heresy (not something we do these days in the interest of religious respect and courtesy) as they left their Catholic roots. Mormons, on the other hand, were never part of the Trinitarian tradition as they organized centuries after the Trinity creeds. As I said earlier, if you are going to refer to Mormons as nontrinitarian then you will need to begin labeling Jews, Muslims, and TomCruisians (okay I made that one up) as nontrinitarians. It is like referring to field hockey players as nongymnasts. True, perhaps, but irrelevant. It seems there is an apples and oranges thing going on here. For Wikipedia to label Mormons as nontrinitarian is as much POV as it would be to label Lutherans as heretics. To Catholics, Lutherans are heretics. To Trinitarian Christians Mormons are nontrinitarian. But for WP neutrality it is only fair to write that Lutherans are Protestant and Mormons are Restorationist.--Canadiandy talk 19:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, I believe AnonMoos meant that the only approach to use the label Trinitarian for Mormonism is in a non-conventional way.

From the online etymology dictionary:

heresy

"an opinion of private men different from that of the catholick and orthodox church" [Johnson], c.1200, from O.Fr. heresie (12c.), from L. hæresis, "school of thought, philosophical sect," used by Christian writers for "unorthodox sect or doctrine," from Gk. hairesis "a taking or choosing, a choice," from haireisthai "take, seize," middle voice of hairein "to choose," of unknown origin, perhaps from PIE *ser- "to seize" (cf. Hittite šaru "booty," Welsh herw "booty").

The Greek word was used in N.T. in reference to the Sadducees, Pharisees, and even the Christians, as sects of Judaism, but in English bibles it usually is translated sect. Meaning "religious belief opposed to the orthodox doctrines of the Church" evolved in Late Latin in the Dark Ages. Transferred (non-religious) use from late 14c.

But back on track, Canadiandy, you, are proposing that trinitarian be used in Wikipedia to describe Mormons/LDS, and with a distinct meaning from Trinitarian. Besides the obvious confusion with people misinterpreting the 't' vs. 'T', what are the sources that show Mormonism is either trinitarian or Trinitarian?

Quoting from FAIR "Thus, most believers initially believed that there were three persons with a united will. It was only later that this group was “won over” to Athanasius and his group’s brand of Trinitarianism, which is the basis for today’s understanding in most of Christianity." ( http://fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_the_nature_of_God/Trinity/Nicene_creed )

"The view of God worked out in the early [postapostolic] church, the "biblical-classical synthesis," has become so commonplace...."

-- John Sanders; cited in Clark Pinnock, Richard Rice, John Sanders, William Hasker, and David Basinger, The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 60.

Keep in mind, this is from FAIR. Very pro-Mormon/LDS group, and they (and their sources) even acknowledge the pervasiveness of the definition of Trinity. -- Avanu (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Canadiandy -- I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say, but I very clearly said by the standards of historical mainstream "orthodox" Christianity and so was not personally accusing any group of anything (that's not what Wikipedia article talk pages are for). But what I do know very clearly is that there is no established or accepted "trinitarian" vs. "Trinitarian" contrast (not listed at Capitonym to start with), so such a distinction does not belong on the Trinity article... AnonMoos (talk) 23:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos, I took absolutely no offense at your reference to Mormon "heresy". Thanks for pointing out that there is no established trinitarian v. Trinitarian contrast. This makes it all the more important to be prudent when labeling the LDS theology as such (or not such). It would seem to set a precedence that is tantamount to original research. I think this would be a wise time to drop the discussion here over the matter. I actually ended up here because I was encouraged to bring up the discussion with those like you who are more familiar with the term. What I did not expect was that Avanu would follow me over here and the polarization would taint any hope for new eyes on the topic. AnonMoos, if you have any more insight or advice please visit me at my talk page. Also, it was never my goal to have Mormons labeled either Trinitarian or nontrinitarian. Both are problematic, but my effort at compromise would have favored non-Trinitarian (lesser of the three evils). If I was to recommend anything it would be to simply refer to Mormon theology as believing in three distinct Gods; Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. The phrase which keeps coming to mind is "differently trinitarian" but I am in no way proposing that one. Any thoughts?--Canadiandy talk 04:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Canadiandy1, several editors have repeatedly encouraged you to base your assertions on reliable secondary sources. Looking at your contribution history, in quite a few articles now, you push for an unusual change, get unhappy when people push back and challenge the unusual change, and then walk away with a parting remark about how the encyclopedia is filled with people who just are mean or anti-whateveryousaid. I've looked at your contribution history and it is almost exclusively LDS-related articles or edits, and while I have no problem with someone choosing to specialize, many other editors who are also pro-LDS have disagreed with your points of view as well.

I'm not 'following' you all over Wikipedia, but I don't want to see you run over to another page like this (its called WP:FORUMSHOPPING) just to try and get a 'win' on a extreme point of view, and come back to the LDS-articles saying how we have to change those now because maybe editors weren't actively watching here. It is certainly not just a coincidence that immediately after 'nontrinitarian' was discussed at the LDS article, you come here to get support for a new interpretation, is it? Again, the appeal to reliable secondary sources will get you a lot further.

If you look at my history, you will see I take in quite a wide variety of articles, and one advantage of doing so is that you aren't as personally wrapped up in each, and it provides other avenues for one's time. You may find that by broadening your input at Wikipedia, you could have more interesting and satisfying interactions.

Again, if you base your claims on reliable secondary sources, you will get heard more often. If you just bring up an 'outside' point of view, and don't bring sources, its very hard to support. -- Avanu (talk) 06:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Avanu, no response.--Canadiandy talk 17:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Quite a few people have tried to assume good faith with you and be helpful toward you. Please keep that in mind. -- Avanu (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually almost everyone I've dealt with has not merely tried, they actually have assumed good faith. And I have sensed civility from almost everyone at WP. Now, if you have nothing to add to the topic, please let's close discussion.--Canadiandy talk 18:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Faithfulness to cited source

Citing the Encyclopaedia Britannica, Excavator writes in the article: "The doctrine (of the Trinity) developed as early Christians tried to reconcile the traditional Jewish monotheism recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures with their portrayal of Jesus as also divine". The Encyclopaedia Britannica 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 ... The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies". I think this corresponds not to Excavator's text but to the text that Excavator changed, which made no claim that all the early Christians (in particular the earliest) portrayed Jesus as divine and, like the Encyclopaedia Britannica, says that fitting in their idea of the Holy Spirit was an element in the development of the doctrine of the Trinity: "The doctrine (of the Trinity) developed as early Christians tried to reconcile the monotheism insisted on in the Scriptures that they accepted as authoritative with their understanding of Jesus and of what they saw as the presence and power of God among them, a presence and power that they called the Holy Spirit". I think Excavator's text is not sufficiently faithful to the cited source.

Rather than have an edit war with Excavator, I ask for comments from others. Esoglou (talk) 13:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Found a more relevant source and replaced. Peace. --XKV8R (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

This old (1919) merely-41-page source is unfortunately not available online, and so "This (template) is particularly helpful for sources that are not available online or are difficult to obtain in order to check the editor's interpretation."

You cannot prevent other editors making their contributions on the basis of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, a much more up-to-date reliable source and one that can easily be checked. You know that, if there is a conflict, both should be used, giving them due weight. Esoglou (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

esoglou, your source does not address the issue i am editing. you added the enc. brit. source after undoing/editing my previous edit. i then made edit, but did not change source. you objected. i have since made edit with appropriate, scholarly source speaking to issue at hand, not the general encyclopedia article you have been citing. you do not own this article, and if this issue were to come to the attention of another editor, i am certain he/she would raise the issue of precisely why you are making undo/restrictive edits to new, sourced, scholarly information that may or may not happen align with your own personal set of beliefs (which may or may not be the source of your edit restrictions). i shall add this article to my watch list as you have done, and shall continue to make scholarly, sourced edits to it. you may also contribute, but any further attempts to undermine scholarly collaboration on this article will more than likely be seen in light of your edit restrictions as an attempt to regularly reintroduce POV into article. Peace.--XKV8R (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)--XKV8R (talk) 19:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The Encyclopaedia Britannica has long been cited in the article. It says the doctrine of the Trinity developed through efforts at reconciling with monotheism Christian ideas not of Jesus alone but of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. The article is about the Trinity, not a Binity, surely. Unlike your action in removing the mention of the Holy Spirit as part of the development of the doctrine, I have not removed your edit with your "appropriate scholarly source speaking to the issue at hand" but from which you still have not provided the requested quotation upon which you base your exclusion of the Holy Spirit. Please don't remove the appropriate scholarly source speaking to the issue at hand that does bring in the Holy Spirit. Cannot both views be allowed to stay in the article? שלום לך Esoglou (talk) 19:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Just trying to point out that there was an issue at the beginning reconciling monotheism and Jesus as divine. HS as divine was also an issue, but the lion's share of ink (and blood) was spilled on the nature of Jesus. The Islamic rejection of the trinity is also worth mentioning, since the monumental DotR Qur'anic text facing the Church of the Holy Sepulcher is significant. I prefer non-KJV-sounding English translations when possible. Cheers. --XKV8R (talk) 20:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Here, I think, we are talking about the development of the doctrine before the rise of Islam. Can we agree to let the article keep the statement that fitting the Holy Spirit in was an essential part of that development? Esoglou (talk) 20:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Faithfulness in quotations

Excavator insists on changing the quotations "nor will the favoured angels. Whoso scorneth" and "It befitteth not" (from this source), to "nor will the favored angels. Whoever scorns" and "It does not befit". I think quotations should be reported exactly.

Rather than have an edit war with Excavator, I ask for comments from others. Esoglou (talk) 13:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Added 'adapted' to ref and removed Old Eng to modernize (or shall i say modernise ;-) Brit Eng to American Eng. Peace. --XKV8R (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

My contention is that we must quote exactly, not adapt. Adding "adapted" is not enough to give us the right to adapt. Esoglou (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Manual of Style seems clear: "Preserve the original text, spelling, and punctuation." Esoglou (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Rendered moot by citation of verses 4:171-172 and 19:33-37 in Qur'an and quoting of verses from Sahih International at www.Quran.com. --XKV8R (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You surely know that Wikipedia requires sourced edits. The English translation that you dislike is a sourced quotation. And Wikipedia asks you to preserve the original text, the original spelling, the original punctuation of that English translation, not to make your own personal adjustments. Esoglou (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Faithfulness to Edit Restrictions

Esoglou, is the Doctrine of the Trinity an 'Eastern Orthodox teaching or practice'? Yes or no? If yes, then please honor your edit restrictions. --XKV8R (talk) 14:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

If you sincerely think I am not allowed to make the edits that you have repeatedly undone, do take it up with some administrator. Esoglou (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that, for some unknown (or perhaps known) reason, you have removed the text of your editing restrictions that were previously available on your Esoglou talk page (still available here), which previously read: "Esoglou will not make edits or talk page comments regarding Eastern Orthodox teaching or practice." You made this deletion after I raised the question of whether "the Doctrine of the Trinity is an 'Eastern Orthodox teaching or practice'." Are you still prohibited from editing Wiki articles that pertain to 'Eastern Orthodox teaching or practice' like the Trinity, or are you just looking to hide that fact? --XKV8R (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course I removed it and for the obvious reason: you have shown that there are Wikipedia editors who misunderstand it. See if you can get your misunderstanding accepted by anybody with enough understanding to have been accepted as an administrator. Esoglou (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I shall be developing a short section on Trinitarian beliefs in other religions

I shall be developing a short section on Trinitarian beliefs in other religions. It is thought by some that the very possibility of a Christian Trinity arose from the observation that several other religious systems predating Christianity also employed triads of divine rulers. I shall work on the paragraph and insert it when finished. this should greatly help the 'history/background' of the article.--XKV8R (talk) 13:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

If you use the specific word "Trinitarian" to refer to completely non-Christian religions (as opposed to "Triads", "Trios", Triple deities or whatever), many will take objection to it, and it's bound to stir up controversy. In any case, most pre-Christian triads were either rather minor and undeveloped parts of their religions (e.g. Zeus-Poseidon-Hades), or were very divergent in composition from the Christian Trinity (e.g. in being all female, or containing a prominent goddess component, as with Osiris-Isis-Horus), or were rather remote in time or place from the origins of Christianity (e.g. Hinduism). AnonMoos (talk) 12:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It will make clear that these are early conception of three beings ruling together, and is different from the Xn concept of three unique beings that happen to be also one and the same being.--XKV8R (talk) 13:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Where Plotinus ?

The trinity is already present in Greek philosophy, particularly in Plotinus. 1)One [Beeing] (God) 2)Nous [Logos for Pytaghoreans] (Son) 3)Agape (Spirit) About the spirit: From God to Son and from Son to God (but born in the God as Son) [Question of Filioque] There is also the idea of the Procession "lat.: Processio" of Agape. (eternally generated) Many church fathers were neoplatonists and studied in neoplatonists schools.

In the philosophy of Plotinus there isn't idea of "Person" "lat. Personae". For neoplatonists God wasn't Person. Problem was posed the first time in the philosophy by the Incarnation of Jesus. The Logos were too big for a Human and cannot to be limited by Person charactheristics (Question of the nature of Christ). The idea of God / Logos / Spirit as 3 persons is typical of Christianity. However, the Jews did not have this problem because God of Abraham was Person.

A reference to Plotinus in this article would be desirable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.223.59.88 (talk) 09:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Plotinus may have had an indirect influence by clarifying or developing some general philosophical concepts which were "in the air" and widely known in Greek-speaking civilization at that time (just as overall speculations about the Logos influenced the Gospel of John). However, his specific direct influence seems to have been mainly on Gnosticism, and it would appear to be doubtful whether Church fathers specifically and consciously drew on Plotinus in order to explicate the doctrine of the Trinity... AnonMoos (talk) 20:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

James Rendel Harris

The relevance of this person in the Christian History is of limited transcendence at best. Thus I see no reason for the citing, and allusion, on the most prominent place of the article, the lead section, I would opt to get rid of the inclusion of this name. Ctmv (talk) 06:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

"Attributes" (lead section)

Currently there is this referenced statement in the lead section:
Whatever natural attributes and power God the Father has, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have as well

- First at all, the "whatever" kind of writing seems too inappropriate for an article that should go to the highest quality.

- Secondly, No, the statement is Not correct. It is better to stick first to what the Catholic Church Teaches and rely primarily on the official sources: The Precedence of the Persons in the Most Holy Trinity has to be Understood. It is not The Son who is The Father, nor is The Spirit who is the Son. The Son is eternally Begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from The Father and the Son. The Father cannot be begotten thus he cannot be the Son, The Spirit can only proceed or better bet sent forth.

So if we can so speak in our limited human language, for example, The attribute of being a Son is only of the Divine Wisdom, Jesus, The Son of God. The Father cannot be sent forth because on the contrary He is the One who sends Both His Spirit and His Son. So the Divine Persons are of one same Divine Essence, but the precedence is different, thus are different Persons, with same Power. Ctmv (talk) 06:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Encyclopedic Writing (avoid heresy)

Firstly. The encyclopedia article should summarize, manifest, expose, what it has been declared as Truth. The article contains some Heresy, precisely in the lead section, as a result of not sticking to what it has been declared as truth by the Holy Catholic Church, and that as a matter of fact is shared across most of the Christian Denominations.

A paragraph in the lead section, reads like The Holy Trinity is an invention of 4th Century Christians. Such statement is a major Heresy. The article should not be a field of discussion but a brief exposition of what is known already, and Today The Dogma of the Most Holy Trinity is an infallible Truth.

In short, The Most Holy Trinity, is The Triune God, as it is manifest in the Old Testament:

Genesis chapter 1:
1 In the beginning God created heaven and earth. 2 And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the spirit of God moved over the waters.

Proverbs chapter 8:

26 before he had made the earth with its fields,
   or the first of the dust of the world.
27 When he established the heavens, I was there;
   when he drew a circle on the face of the deep,
28 when he made firm the skies above,
   when he established the fountains of the deep,
29 when he assigned to the sea its limit,
   so that the waters might not transgress his command,
when he marked out the foundations of the earth,
 30 then I was beside him, like a master workman,
and I was daily his delight,
   rejoicing before him always,
31 rejoicing in his inhabited world
   and delighting in the children of man.

Psalm 33:
By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host.

From These verses we can say:

- God The Father Created Heaven and Earth and the Divine Wisdom was with Him in the Beginning before anything was made.
- God The Father Created everything Through The Eternal Word, The Divine Wisdom (These two statements are in John Chapter 1)
- God The Father Created all of his hosts by the breath of his mouth, His Spirit (The Spirit of God is the Creator Spirit)

Ctmv (talk) 07:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

---

---

The Trinity is in some interpretations of the Old Testament -- but Jews would vehemently disagree. In any case, the historical evidence seems to be that the doctrine of the Trinity was not fully developed or worked out until the early Christians had been challenged by attacks based on Greek philosophy, and had responded to those challenges. This happened before the 4th century, but after the books of the New Testament were written down in their original form. AnonMoos (talk) 03:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Religious belief

The readers know that it's a religious belief as opposed to scientific fact and does not require "according to", "claims that", "allegedly" etc in every other paragraph. SlightSmile 00:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Islam about Trinity, source?

AFAIK (I'm not an expert) the Qur'an would be a more natural source for muslems' view on the Trinity, rather than the Dome of the Rock on al-Haram esh-Sharif in Jerusalem? Or? The section from the Dome of the Rock would certainly be preserved in some article, but as far as I can see it declares the standpoint of Islam in much broader terms, such as "O People of the Book! Do not exaggerate in your religion" in an article on the Trinity only contributes to the bulkiness, not to the relevant content. So it would be better if the Dome-of-the-Rock stuff was moved elsewhere and replaced by something from the Qur'an. I think IMHO. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The Dome of the Rock inscription collects together (in slightly paraphrased form) a number of different Qur'an passages about Christianity and its alleged defects; it reflects the thinking of the Umayyad caliphate authorities just before 700 A.D. Not sure whether that's directly relevant to this article... AnonMoos (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Rursus. And the remedy is simple. Keep the two Qur'anic passages italicized in the translation of the inscription - there are only two - omit the rest, and cite the Qur'an itself rather than this particular inscription, whose importance is minimal in comparison to that of the Qur'an. Esoglou (talk) 14:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Monotheism

The section on monotheism ("One God") gives four texts which it says declare belief in one god, but two of them don't. The two are:

• The Shema of the Hebrew Scriptures: "Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one."[Deut 6:4]

This is saying that Yahweh (i.e., the word translated here as Lord) is one god, but what it's really saying is that Yahweh is the prime god, above all others - it's not denying the existence of other gods, just their power.

• The first of the Ten Commandments—"Thou shalt have no other gods before me"[5:7].

Same as above - the Israelites are being told to put no other god before Yahweh, not that no other god exists. The first truly universal, monotheistic statement in the Hebrew bible is the one from Isaiah - the third in the list. PiCo (talk) 01:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree here. I have read articles in Encyclopedia Britannica and elsewhere which state that at least for a while in early Judaism their beliefs would more accurately be described as henotheism. Th one question which comes to mind is the statements in clearly religious sources about this matter. John Carter (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I notice the section only has a single secondary source (Stagg, Frank. New Testament Theology. Broadman Press, 1962.). I wonder if Stagg is the one who cited those scriptures, or if it was some other editor. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

There's a thorough discussion of the shema in Mark Smith's "Origins of Biblical Monotheism", p.153. He points out that the meaning of this passage is obscure, and while it might be a statement that only one god exists (pure monotheism), this is far from certain. The Hebrew reads; literally, "Yahweh our god Yahweh one" (no "is" and no comma). To turn this into English an "is" is required, but it's position is a matter of taste - as is the position of any comma; also, the meaning of "one" is debated, it might mean "one" ("Yahweh is One"), or it might mean "alone" (Yahweh is our god, Yahweh alone"). In either case it doesn't deny the existence of other gods, it just says that Yahweh is the only god for Israel. The same applies for the First Commandment. The Stagg reference, incidentally, is only for the statement that the NT is monotheistic, it has no reference to the OT. I'd suggest using Smith as the source for the emergence of monotheism in the OT, if this is thought desirable. Actually, however, I'd recommend keeping Stagg and the material before his ref, dropping everything after (because there's no doubt that NT Christianity was monotheistic and that Judaism since the 2nd Temple began was also monotheistic), and merging it with the following section. The big question isn't the origin of monotheism, but the origin of the idea of the Trinity from within this monotheism. 05:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Having studied Hebrew, I have to agree with you when you say " it's position is a matter of taste." Hebrew commonly constructs Predicate Nominatives with no helping verb, such that you simply place two nouns next to each other with an implied "is." This is a well known and attested grammatical structure and does not simply leave the translation up to the whim of the reader. The passage is clearly saying "YHWH is our God, YHWH is one." Now, it's up to interpretation and linguistics to determine what "is one" means... but the actual translation of the passage is very straight forward.ReformedArsenal (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you meant disagree? I don't know any Hebrew, but I did spend a year learning Arabic and so I'm familiar with the way this construction works (though not with the formal terminology). The point being made about the implied "is" relates to the second half of the sentence - there';s no argument that the first half has to read "Yahweh is our god". But if the word at the end is to be translated "alone" instead of "one", then as different meaning emerges - Yahweh alone is the God of Israel. This is the point being made by Smith. It also seems, to me at least, to make more sense that "Yahweh is one" - it's difficult to see how anyone could conceive of Yahweh being split into multiple persons, although of course this is exactly what the doctrine of the Trinity holds. PiCo (talk) 00:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Trinity Refuted - Jesus original esoteric dualist monotheism regained.

Long discussion collapsed per WP:FORUM and WP:REFACTOR

This is my view, I am Uwaysi Bin Kareem. Since it seems wikipedia is very fond of "commonly accepted truths", and I have been edited, but not at all wrong, I leave it on the discussion page only. I have been researching religion for some time, with basis in The Quran mainly. But also looking at other scriptures. At the end of the day, Trinity is a really easy concept to refute, and the original understanding easy to see. A few verses alone will clarify: John 6:63 "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. Genesis 2:7 Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. John 14:6 "I am the way and the truth and the life" Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image" John 14:20 "I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you" Explanation: The spirit is Ruach, breath of life. Which is also The Word. Also known in greek philosophy as Logos, the animator of the universe. Which is dualism, creator vs created. One animating the other. Which is what Jesus talks about "The flesh profits nothing" - aka the lifeforce is non-physical, and what we call the soul. Ruach and the soul are the same thing. We see in Genesis that Ruach is what gives man breath (life). God is also the truth. Therefore Ruach is also truth, and ofcourse the rest created, yet according to truth. All souls are some of God. "created in Gods image". Therefore everyone is some of God, or "in the father, and you in me, and I in you", as Jesus states. He is simply talking about the divine nature of life. Something the jews had forgotten, and wanted him crucified for, even though Ruach is clearly part of scripture even today. And now christians have forgotten. and the trinity replaced it as the simple feeblemindedness conjured from the minds of people with little understanding. Now, the importance of understanding this is quite high. Because other religions already know this. Such at the Brahman is Atman, of hinduism. Or the buddhanature of Buddhism. Or the Tao of Taoism. Or the Ruh of Islam. But all religions have their distortions. If you look past all distortions, all religions are based on the same, and divine nature. And once the world understands we can be rid of ignorance and war. There is only one uncreated, and ofcourse described by many, and known in all cultures. Distortions come and go, and the true religion remains throughout all of time. Even modern science "primordeal mud" was known as "clay" in the time of Adam. Therefore the trinity is a satanic lie, causes only war, and puts blindfolds on people, when Jesus originally taught universal monotheism, and the path to peace. Which is really the esoteric core of all the worlds religions. And THIS is Gods religion. Not trinities and dead men on crosses, or hadithism, or idolaterous images, pantheism, etc. And it also fits rational understanding and Aristotles logic and "primus motor". Which again is really an argument for Theocracy. Which would be paying proper respect to the concept of "natural law". Jesus crucifixion can also be refuted. I will shortly summary it here as it really does not follow the topic. Pilate finds no fault with Jesus. His wife finds no fault with him. The jews want a man who claims to be the son of God crucified. A man with the name "son of God" is released. (Barabbas) Pilate is also manipulating crowds in Flavious writings. It could even be his men shouting. And so everyone respected the tradition of releasing a prisoner, probably. If a "son of God" was released, and they found no fault with him, do you really think the man who went to crucifixion was Jesus? The text also mentions a murderer. Would it not be better to crucify a murderer, as crucifixions were for? God is just. He does not need torment of anyone to relive other peoples sins, and his will includes prison for transgressors, no matter how much they believe someone hung on a cross for his sins. And cutting in little babies penises also, has very little do to with the peacebringing message of Gods religion. And that principle can really be taken to all distorted religion. Deviance is satan, and does not represent God, nor the fools who enjoin it as it were religion. Peace Be With You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.32.31 (talk • contribs) This is what Wikipedia would call Original Research. To actually include any of this in the article, you'd have to find a scholarly (reliable source) making the argument. It would also have to be phrased in a neutral way, making sure to attribute the views to the author. We certainly can't have a statement that the Trinity is false/refuted in Wikipedia's voice. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC) This is the typical nonsense of many wikipedia editors unfortunately. What makes me, and my rational argument, not a reliable source? And why could not wikipedia have trinity refuted/false? You must have some sort of bias. I do have found trinity-believers to be very difficult to deal with, even with strictly rational arguments. It is a kind of mental immaturity, like idolaters who cling on to their wooden idol, and it`s irrational rules and stories, without any basis in observable truth. It is time for you to grow up. Information is spreading at a much faster rate than before, and the trinity is likely to die, once people find out what kind of retardation upholds it. Peace Be With You, U.B.K. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.32.31 (talk) 00:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC) Read WP:RS. It lays out the guidlines and requirements for exactly what qualifies as a reliable source. It will help you understand why, exactly, a complete and utter random person on the internet with no known credentials or reputation for proper fact checking whatsoever, would be considered an unreliable source.Farsight001 (talk) 05:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC) Yes, this is the kind of attitude one often sees on wikipedia unfortunately. Present them with clear thinking, clear verses, clear referances, they will just look in some book of odd rules. No wonder you live with retarded concepts such as trinity. The three headed god who crucified itself, to relieve it`s creations of sin, as if his almightyness, required any such thing. It would be insane, and so are you, and obviously blind to rational thought. But yes, I could print it out, call it the rational thinking on Jesus leaflet, and stick "Uwaysi Bin Kareem" on there. Ofcourse then it would be a reliable source. But hey you know what? If you truly require to put people through idiocy like that, dementia from sick beliefs is what you deserve. Now go and be happy with your three persons of trinity, chattering insanely ever present everywhere. Obviously it must be strongly present on the internet. -- 08:25, 30 June 2012‎ 84.211.32.31 Did you read what stands directly above where it says "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject"?? Unfortunately, we're not really interested in your personal opinions as your personal opinions -- we're interested in what will improve the Wikipedia article based on "Reliable Sources" and other standard Wikipedia criteria. Furthermore, you would not appreciate it if Christians or Jews used quotes from the Qur'an to prove that current-day Islamic practices and doctrines are wrong, so it would only seem just for you to forbear from trying to refute Christianity with your original interpretations of Bible verses ("Originality" is mostly not a good thing in the Wikipedia context, if you're not familiar with policies here). However, you may find File:Turs-ul-Iman Shi'ar-uth-Thaluth.svg to be of interest... AnonMoos (talk) 09:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC) You don`t get the point do you. You talk about odd rules, and ignore a rational argument. You talk about personal opinions, and reliable sources. You talk about improving the article, I said that I did not edit the article because of inane editing. Society does not move forward, if everyone is going to stick to some smuck in a meeting that claimed trinity was real. Now why would his personal opinion, be better than mine? Atleast I have scripture to refer to that harmonizes with the whole logic of religion, and not only Abrahamic, but ALL world religions. And knowing there is only one God, to experience, do you not think they would be about the same? And it is not just guesswork, science is based on logic, and so is Artistotles "primus motor (fundamental animator), which is an argument on the same. Then it is up to YOU to THINK, check the evidence, gain a more wholesome understanding. What are lexicas for if not the kind of information I provide. If you want retarded interpretations, visit irrational sects, having no sensible information. And if you corrected an aspect of Islam, using the Quran, that would just be a good thing, and believe me I do that too. Obviously a change of paradigm is needed, so that cutting edge research can be reflected on sites like this. Not just "this was in some old book so we allow only this view here". It needs to be in some section refuting the trinity, and with rational thinking on the subject. An article on trinity would not be complete without it, and seekers of truth, and current information should be able to read it. Without biased people blocking it, ofcourse. Peace Be With You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.32.31 (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC) I really don't want to be impolite, but this is NOT a place for proselytization, and it is NOT a place for general loose discussion of the Trinity -- it is a place for discussions on how to improve the Trinity article by means of reliable sources while avoiding original research, and so on through the panoply of Wikipedia policies. Your personal applications of logic to scriptural passages may seem to you to be profound, but if they don't occur in reputable third-party sources, then they're quite irrelevant to the Wikipedia article. If you continue to leave ranting tirades without useful relevance to improving articles on Wikipedia article pages, you eventually might be banned from editing. P.S. Your personal definition of the word "dualism" does not appear to be a standard or commonly-accepted one, and those who have pointed out, for example, that the literal words of the Qur'an would appear to enjoin prayers three times a day (not five), have not received a warm welcome at al-Azhar... AnonMoos (talk) 01:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC) @84.211.32.31: I understand your concern with the Wikipedia rules. I felt the same way myself once. I still do sometimes. If you know something is true, why can't you write it without a source? Why can't Wikipedia be on the cutting edge of knowledge? I think, though, that the current rules are for the best. Take an issue like the Trinity. You have the trinitarians who know it's right, the non-trinitarians who know it's wrong, and the athiests who know it's all a load of hogwash. How can you take a mix of these people and get them to agree on an article? For one, they all have to learn to treat their knowledge as if it were only an opinion, and stick to what reliable sources say. Instead of saying in Wikipedia's voice that the Trinity is true or false, they say that such and such groups/religions believe in it, while other groups/religions reject it. As a side note, you speak of sound logic, yet you yourself have committed a logical fallacy. In response to my first post, you said, "You must have some sort of bias. I do have found trinity-believers to be very difficult to deal with, even with strictly rational arguments." This is an ad-hominem argument. You seem to have assumed that the other editors commenting here all believe in the Trinity (something that I know for a fact is not true). Finally, you are right. Wikipedia is a strange place with strange rules. You are free to edit if you like, but if you don't follow the rules, you probably won't get far. If you don't like the rules, you can try to change those too, though I'd recommend getting an account and some editing experience before attempting that. Anyway, I wish you all the best, and urge you to refrain from making this talk page in to a forum, as other editors have advised. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC) As a side note, I have collapsed this discussion because it is very long, and is primarily a forum-type discussion that has little relevance to any specific changes to the article. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Obviously there are certain types of people online, who look away from rational thinking, and make judgements based on their fantasy-concepts of right and wrong. I added an entry last night on "esoteric view", which was removed. I think most people who have look at estoeric views, would consider the article quite relelvant, and something they would like to see on wikipedia. Although people like you are making that difficult. One talks about how this is not relevant blah blah, and the other this or that. He simply refuses to see my point. Now I am among one of the most intelligent men of my peers. You block my research and you block intelligence, and you block extremely good religious understand. You allow inane thinking on a concept that does not exist or is not related to God, that is innovated. And you go on as if this discussion is not related to the article, you make it collapsable. What kind of behaviour is that? The point is that you are blocking a view, and reducing wikipedia or similar site, to sites for idiots. And that is what you are yourselves aswell. None of your argumentation is valid whatsoever. You uphold your fantasyconcepts of right/wrong, without having any sense of reality. Infact you are the very problem, of idolatry. Which Jesus refuted. Which my interpretation is about. You uphold the contructs of war, and are enemies of rational thought, and human nature. Unfortunately retards like you, seems to gather online, and make strange rules and rituals just like idolaters of old times. And being a real moron blocking the path some of something really good. Squares, nerds, the socially awkward, people without a life, people who know theory alone. You are the disease, Jesus was the cure. Obviously wikipedia attracts these blockers of sanity, that instead uphold constructs of human abuse. Because they simply are beasts lacking rational thinking. And thus wikipedia is shit, and should be discontinued and regarded as unserious. Unserious for any serious individual like me. And in the end serious people run the world, not feeble idiots. So I guess my justice is that your inane babble on rules and reasons will be blocked from any sane persons mind. And you will become firespirits upholding backwardness and idiocy for the rest of your lives, never knowing decency and sanity. But proclaiming superiority from a demented mind, in a world simple beyond any sane mans understanding. To hell with you, and all editors like you, and if God gives the order, I will personally put you straight into hell. "You block my research and you block intelligence, and you block extremely good religious understand." Well... since Wikipedia is not an avenue for you to do your own research, and the only source you quoted was a blog by a totally unknown guy with no credentials... furthermore... Wikipedia is a place for encyclopedia content, not for your own personal reflections regarding the Trinity. No one removed your post because we didn't like the content... your post was removed because it was poorly researched (or at least poorly cited) and was written like a blog entry, not an encyclopedia entry. If you want to add content about Esoteric understanding, go for it... but it needs to be researched and supported by reputable and credentialed sources, and written in Encyclopedia format. Furthermore, phrases like "retards like you" and "To hell with you, and all editors like you, and if God gives the order, I will personally put you straight into hell." not only make us all realize that you're an immature whiner, are probably not worth worrying about, but also are apt to get you quickly banned from Wikipedia. Grow up, research the info you want to add, and write it like an encyclopedia and then maybe we won't revert your poor additions. ReformedArsenal (talk) 00:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)