Talk:Trinity

Archives

• /Archive 1
• /Archive 2
• /Archive 3
• /Archive 4
• /Archive 5

Trinity and Relativity

It is very amazing to me that so far nobody has made the connection between the trinity of the Christian religion and the Theory of Relativity expressed by Albert Einstein. Compare each of the attributes of the three persons in the godly trinity with each of the three components of the famous formula relating energy to mass, E=mc^2.

E is energy measured in joules (J). Like the "father" in the trinity, energy is formless, timeless, all present, etc.. Like the "son", who is the physical form of trinity, mass (measured in kilograms (kg)) is the physical form of energy. The holy spirit or ghost, is the "person" that makes things happen, as the speed of light squared (299 792 458 m/s squared) is what limits or controls the relationship between mass and energy.

Is the trinity a personification of relativity (E=mc^2)? Is there a relationship between the trinity and E=mc^2?

Before the Big Bang, there was no space, no time, no mass, no light, nothing, just energy. Thus, did the 2nd and 3rd persons exist before the Big Bang or like space, time, mass, light, did they come into existence only within the first nanoseconds after the big bang?

Does energy have an intelligence and if so is it the first person of the trinity?

Maybe the reason is that there is only a very thin connection, if any at all?

"Formless, timeless, all present etc." are attributes also of the Son (though not of His physical incarnation) and of the Spirit; to describe the Son as the "physical form of the Trinity" stresses only a very limited portion of His being and is, if taken as a description of God the Son, quite misleading. That the Spirit "limits or controls" the relationship between the other two is also wrong, as well as "he makes things happen".

Essentially, this is similar to many other "parallels" with the Trinity: If we look only at certain, usually very limited aspects and express them in vague enough terms, we can probably construct a "similarity" between any three things and the Trinity.

As an aside: "to exist before Time came into being" is a rather ... interesting concept. ;) Varana 15:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I certainly found this comparison enlightening. Is there a published source for this revelation or is it yours? I enjoy comparisons of spiritual entities and worldly entities, such as the scriptural "God is light", which explains His omnipresence and also triggers some thoughts regarding the relationship between speed of light, time travel, etc. ByteofKnowledge 16:16, 9 October 2006 (EDT)

It is not published, as I thought of it all by myself. I may not have presented it properly as I see others were able to find flaws. Had I organized the connections better, the connection might have appeared more possible. A theory may be 100 % correct, but if not presented properly can be made to appear 100 % wrong.

I personally think there is a connection, but it is something that would have to be reserached further.

One issue with this theory is that it is missing an element. "E" could not equate the Father, but would have to equate to God. This post would have "Father = Son/Spirit^2", which is not a representation of the trinity. In my opinion, any attempt to find a good analogy of the trinity in the physical world is destined for failure because the physical world is logical and can be submitted to human reason. E=mc^2 is logical. The trinity cannot be submitted to reason and relies upon the mysterious and the mystical. Jacob 19:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Please take this to email or something. Article talk pages are for working out article content, not for general discussion or for working out our own private theories. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Pagan trinity omission

Nice article BTW. An example of a pagan trinity that came to mind is that of Jupiter, Neptune and Pluto: the rulers over the Heavens (Father), Seas (Son) and the Underworld (spirit). These closely correpond to the greek gods Zeus, Poseidon and Hades. Or another influence could be Roman gods Jupiter (Father), Latona (Mother), Apolo or the Greek: Zeus (Father), Hera (Mother) and Apolo (Son). Any thoughts? --Cplot 07:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It's one thing to include allusions to Pagan influence, it's another thing to paint it as truth. You should have included at least a sentence to discredit the link, merely on the basis that there is no public consensus on pagan origins of the trinity. History is full of coincidences. The article is unfair to not point this out, because the article is not discussing the influences on other religious faiths like Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Tribal views. Spinifex00 13:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Spinifex00 11:30, 16 August 2006 (Pacific Time)

There is also the so called Triple goddess from western Europe, probably most commonly found in the modern day worshiped by Wiccans. There is also the Druidic Awen. Hungarian, or specifically the Magyars have a traditional creation story involving "The Heavenly Father" the "Heavenly Mother" (she is sometimes referred to as Boldog Asszony) and their son, Magyar, the Golden Duck. The number of trinities found in non Christian traditions and religions abound. -- Lucy, 09:09, 5 September, 2006 (UTC)

A 'group of three Gods' does not make for a correspondance with the Christian Trinity. DJ Clayworth 13:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

unfortunately, Trinity (CHRISTIANITY) kinda makes it impossible to validly reference the pagan trinity, except perhaps as a relevant side-study. Perhaps you would like to set this up? Locriani 04:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Scriptural support for nontrinitarian beliefs?

There is a section entitled, scritural support for the doctrine of the Trinity[1]; however, there is not a corresponding section for those who do not support the concept of the Trinity. I generally do not like scriptural citations in articles, but given the presence of the first it may be possible to introduce it without getting into a conflict. What are your thoughts? Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that the linked antitrinitarian article would be the best place for the opposing list; this article presents the thesis that the doctrine of the Trinity is based on biblical texts (and mentions dissent), the contrary article presents the dissent in detail and the thesis that the doctrine of the Trinity is based on other sources (e.g., paganism, church tradition). One would expect to find a "support" list in the article about the Trinity, and a "deny" in the article against the Trinity. My thoughts anyhow. » MonkeeSage « 03:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Monkey, that sounds like an unnecessary fork? Neither article is so large that it could not be combined in one article and forking it seems to be disjointed. Maybe I should check the history and find out if it was a concious choice of past editors or not. Do you think they could be combined? Do you think it would be a more balanced approach to the same subject?

I did read the mentioned dissent, but it is so weakly presented and couched within so much apologetic langauge that it is almost lost. Thoughts? Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Neither article is too large to be combined?? If you click on the article edit button, you currently get the following message:

This page is 61 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size.

In any case, the Trinity article already devotes ample space to alternative views and counterarguments. It's simply not the purpose of the Trinity article to devote exactly 50% of the space to Trinitarian arguments and the other 50% to anti-Trinitarian arguments -- that kind of "balance" is neither necessary nor desirable. AnonMoos 06:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Cool the jets, my intention is not to get anyone's feathers wet. I don't believe in 50/50 splits in article to cover pros and cons. Much of the con is followed by apologetic answers; not really a true counter, rather it is "and this is why we are right". The questions are:

1. Is there a fork to the article that should not exist. Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian are two sides of the same coin.
2. Should the two articles Trinity, antitrinitarianism and nontrinitarianism be a single article. This article does a lot of repeating and could be pared down. I certainly beleive the other two could also. I agree, this would take a lot of work. Then again, it may just be better to let sleeping dogs lie.

These are just questions; I am not advocating a path, but asking "why not?". I am not even certain that there was a concious fork. It may have just evolved in this manner. I simply was reading the article and there is a list of supporting scriptures for the Trinity and none for those that do not support the concept. In addition, those comments that are critical are often followed by apologetics. I think we would all be pressed to say this is a balanced article and meets WIKI standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Storm Rider (talk • contribs)

I don't really have a preference regarding merging the articles. But i would say that I don't see anything wrong with apologetics in an article, so long as they are verifiable/not original research. Policy dictates: "Debates are [to be] described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular." It would not be fair to give only the Trinitarian argument, not the counter-arguments; or to give the counter-arguments, but leave off the rebuttals to the counter-arguments. And where applicable, rebuttals of the rebuttals should be given as well, and so on; til the debate is properly described, represented, and characterized. At least that I how I have understood the policy; but I am open to correction. » MonkeeSage « 08:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I have just inserted in the main article a note of criticism of the use of Matthew 4:10 as "scriptural support" for the dogtrine of Trinity: as the note I have added explains, the relative comment inserted (by whom?) in parentheses (...) is very week and artificial as a support for the trinitarian doctrine. In fact, the non-trinitarian explanation which I have proposed, is IMMO much more straightforward.

More in general, I have noticed that there is a systematic use, in the "Scriptural support" section, of what I believe to be non-NPOV discreetly put in parentheses (...): the result is strongly biased.

I am considering two alternative ways to amend this situation:

• either to add systematic "altenative non-trinirarian notes"
• or to introduce a new section, specular to the "Scriptural support" section, where the "altenative non-trinirarian POV" is shown.

I would be happy to receive comments before I proceed.(Miguel de Servet 19:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC))

Scriptural support for trinitarian beliefs: a controversy

---

User Csernica has just trashed and erased three laborious and carefully worked out changes to the main article, including a relevant one on "Scriptural support". I have sent him an e-mail and also invited him to discuss such drastic "removals" as his on the talk page, before showing up as a self-appointed censor (Miguel de Servet 20:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC))

I reply to your email here, which is the suitable forum for content disucssions. I have no objection to discussing this via email, but it's more common to do so on the talk page. In particular, it's more convenient to use internal links to show where particular policies are given, or other references, as well as inviting the participation of others.

You should not contribute to Wikipedia if you're going to be terribly offended by others "trashing" your "laborious" work. It happens all the time. It's happened to me many times. That's how the process works. But reverts are simple, requiring nothing more than a few mouse clicks. Old edits are easily recoverable via tha page history, where all past contributions are preserved.

You do not appear to have read the discussion in the foregoing section. In general, we do not carry out back-and-forth arguments in the bodies of articles. Although one sees this from time to time in articles on contentious subjects, it really should not be done and is unencyclopedic. Presentation of alternate POVs can be done, but the POV should be presented and then left alone. Otherwise what you get is not so much an article, but an archive of an argument. In this case, the alternate POVs are adequately covered by the articles describing them, and which are linked from here extensively in the "Dissent from the doctrine" and "Other views of the Trinity" sections. If you feel those articles do not adequately cover dissenting views, then the thing to do is to fix them. The trouble here really is that the arguments and counterarguments are so extensive that they cannot be covered concisely in a single article. Splitting the subject into several articles is one way to deal with this, and has essentially been done here.

There were problems with these "counterarguments" anyway. You appear to have missed the point in the citation of Mt 4:10 since your footnote didn't really address what that paragraph was saying; this was the "strawman". You also stated a particular interpretation as a bald fact in your discussion of 2 Cor. 13:14, without admitting others. There were systematic problems of this sort in your edits.

If one is going to cry "censorship", then you are tarred by the same brush in your subsequent edits, where you cut as "POV" text whose very purpose was to present the POV that is the subject of this article! I'll leave it to others to fix, though. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

@ Cernica (TCC)

I will reply your reply of 21 June 2006 herebelow, commenting point by point on your passages which I will quote in italics

You should not contribute to Wikipedia if you're going to be terribly offended by others "trashing" your "laborious" work.

Do spare me and others your patronizing piece of advice! It’s already taken care of by "the system" anyway (see editing note: «If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.»). Ask yourself, instead,, if it is not a bit exorbitant to “trash” three "laborious" contributions exactly 11 minutes after the last one of them was inserted!!!

But reverts are simple, requiring nothing more than a few mouse clicks. Old edits are easily recoverable via tha page history, where all past contributions are preserved.

I wonder if yours is a serious proposition? And, immediately after, you talk "wisely" of things “unencyclopedic” (sic)!

Presentation of alternate POVs can be done, but the POV should be presented and then left alone. [evidence mine]

I wonder what you mean (I doubt that you do).

You appear to have missed the point in the citation of Mt 4:10 since your footnote didn't really address what that paragraph was saying; this was the "strawman".

I will repeat herebelow the citation of Mt 4:10 (and the relative "comment in support"), with my counter-comment footnote (deleted by you), so everybody can best judge for themselves whether my footnote did or didn't “really address what that paragraph was saying”:

• [original text]Matthew 4:10: "Jesus said to him, 'Away from me, Satan! For it is written: "Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only."'" (These and other verses exemplify the argument that Jesus did not refute the Old Testament prohibition against worshipping any god but God, and yet he states that the Son and Holy Spirit are to be involved in worship as well, implying that the Son and Holy Spirit must be, in some sense, God.)

• [my footnote] It should be noted here, though, that a much more obvious (non-Trinitarian) explanation is possible: Jesus simply refuses to worship Satan, who had promised to grant to Jesus all the kingdoms of the earth, if he would bow down to Satan and worship him (Matthew 4:9: "All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me.")

You also stated a particular interpretation as a bald fact in your discussion of 2 Cor. 13:14, without admitting others.

As above, I will repeat herebelow the citation of 2 Cor. 13:14 (and the relative "comment in support"), my counter-comment footnote (deleted by you), so everybody can best judge for themselves. BTW, I notice that you did not dare to tackle the Mt 28:19 issue: it would not be a “strawman” case, but more appropriately a case of an “implant”. [More on Mt 28:19 in the future]

• [original text] The importance for the first Christians of their faith in God, whom they called Father, in Jesus Christ, whom they saw as Son of God, and in the Holy Spirit is expressed in formulas that link all three together, such as those […] in the Second Letter of St Paul to the Corinthians: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all" (2 Corinthians 13:14)

• [my footnote] 2 Corinthians 13:14, is the formula of salutation at the conclusion of Paul’s epistle. Unlike Matthew 28:19, it does not distinguish a Father entity within the Godhead. Also, by referring to the Holy Spirit in terms of “fellowship”, it does not imply any personalistic character of it. [no "particular interpretation" here, just "bald facts", I'm afraid]

If one is going to cry "censorship", then you are tarred by the same brush in your subsequent edits, where you cut as "POV" text whose very purpose was to present the POV that is the subject of this article! I'll leave it to others to fix, though.

My “elimination of unnecessary and POV comments” from Scriptural texts was deliberately calculated. They were, in fact, appallingly POV comments which did not even have the decency of being relegated to a footnote, but craftily inserted (in parentheses!) in the main text. A sight for sore eyes! It is rather amusing to read that, although apparently “reverts are simple, requiring nothing more than a few mouse clicks”, you wisely "leave it to others to fix". Bravo! Let's see who bothers!? --Miguel de Servet 23:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Why KJV?

I really don't see any reason to change the scriptural verse quotations to KJV (which is not how they were originally added to this page) -- it adds quaint charm and rolling rhetorical sonorousness, but really does absolutely nothing to increase comprehensibility to those who didn't grow up on it, or who have not made a study of Jacobean language. AnonMoos 08:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I was just about to say the same. If I can find the original submissions I'll change it back. No need to make life harder for our readers. DJ Clayworth 17:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The KJV has the advantage of more widespread acceptance, and aside from the archaic language is not particularly controversial, as the NIV is in some circles. Familiar quotations from it also enjoy more common recognition. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Up until the mid-20th century, the KJV was certainly safe common ground among most English-speaking Protestants -- however, I'm not sure that this is really decisive for writing a Wikipedia article now. Today is not sixty years ago, Protestants are not all the Christians, not all Protestants prefer the KJV -- and most importantly, terms with conflicting archaic 1611 vs. altered modern meanings, such as "Ghost", are a stumbling-block for a large number of those who didn't grow up intimately with the KJV. If you want to know what "Holy Ghost" conveys to the average typical English-speaker who has not been specially imbued with and habituated to 1611 language, then just go to http://www.thebricktestament.com/books/holy_trinity.html ... AnonMoos 03:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

KJV is less clear on important passages. In Col. 2:9, the archaic "Godhead" is often interpreted by modern readers as something like "God [title]" as in "God lives in my heart", rather than the actual meaning of "Godhood [quality]". Other reasons for using the NIV would be readability, its use as the de facto translation in popular study aids and popular as well as scholarly commentaries (e.g., The Bible Speaks Today series, the NICNT series), its use of current textual critical insights and texts, and its general popularity ("The NIV is the most widely accepted contemporary Bible translation today. More people today buy the NIV Bible than any other English-language translation." [2]). Reasons against using it would be its alleged sectarian bias and-or non-catholicity, and its dynamical renderings (e.g., "sinful nature" for "flesh" in many passages). » MonkeeSage « 22:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I've used the KJV very often for study. It's the only version approved in my diocese for public readings of the Gospel. I worked for many years at a Renaissance Faire known for its attention to historical accuracy (as such things go) where the KJV's rendering of Psalm 23 was used for dialect training. I've been in the position where I was the only person in the audience for a production of Shakespeare laughing at the dialogue.

The point of which is, I forget sometimes just how opaque many people find the language. I wonder if there's a reasonable middle ground that avoids the problems some have with the NIV without sacrificing comprehensibility. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with Csernica, but then again I have always used the KJV. I have many other versions/translations which I have studied, but the KJV is the one I find most like "home". It does not matter how scriptures are initially edited just as it does not matter about any initial edit, we should have uniformity. Didn't Wesley have a suggestion that it does not matter when referring to a site that an individual's preferences would bring the preferred translation up (I might be confusing articles)? That seems like an easy answer. Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The Bible Gateway can do that, I think, but the problem also has to do with which translation should be used for inline quotations. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems like someone has reverted the quotes back to NIV from KJV while this discussion is going on. Yes, I did understand that it was for inline quotes. Those who have not grown up with religion do find the KJV opaque and that may be reason enough to use something else. Regardless, let's just keep it to one version throughout the article. Given the topic/title of this article, I would think a Catholic version should have some preference (I speak as a non-Catholic so please no POV accusations). Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

ESV, like the NRSV, is a modern committee-based translation/revision of the 1971 RSV. It has an essentially literal translation philosophy, reads very well, is more transparent to the Greek (and I assume Hebrew) than the NIV, and has been endorsed by all different kinds of Christians (including the Bishop of Lewes). It is available from BibleGateway using the template {{esv}}. I've just created a new template, {{bverse}} (see User:MonkeeSage/Bible templates) that allows using NRSV and several other translations not available in {{bibleverse}} and {{bibleref}}, as well as ESV, KJV, &c. » MonkeeSage « 03:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The NRSV is a product of Catholic scholars, a wide variety of protestant scholars, and even Jewish scholrs (for OT). It is widely used in academic settings (I know of no university Theology Department or serious seminary course that doesn't rely on it as the standard English translation), it is recent and therefore reflects the best modern scholarship, and is even acceptable in Catholic and most mainline/non-Fundamentalist Protestant denominations (of which I am aware) as a liturgical alternative to the NAB. The KJV has some wonderful poetry, and some glaring errors in translation -- a serious encyclopedia should make use of the NRSV as the standard text for quotation for most purposes.Amherst5282 04:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. The NRSV is a perfectly good translation, and much preferable to the KJV. Incidentally we should be careful quoting passages where there is controversy over the translation to ensure that appropriate coverage of the disagreement is given if it is relevant to the subject under discussion. In my view the KJV should be used only when the subject under discussion is some view that relies exclusively on the KJV translation for support. DJ Clayworth 18:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Done then. Does anyone know if WIKISOURCE has a copy of the NRSV? If so, we could tie to it there. If not, would someone volunteer to align all references to the NRSV? I suspect we might revisit this in the future with new editors, but I will appreciate having uniformity in the article. Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know if WIKISOURCE has a copy of the NRSV? If it does, it's a copyvio. That's one problem with using it: as far as I know there are no online sources for it so we cannot link to quotation sources directly and contribution wrt Bilbical sources is effectively locked out for those who don't own this version. It's not even at BibleGateway.com. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

There are online sources for it. And there is now a template that makes it available (see my comment three posts above yours). » MonkeeSage « 00:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The copyright page of the NRSV specifically states that up to 500 verses may be quoted without attribution, as long as the verses quoted are less than 50% of a given Bible book, and that the text quoted is less than 50% of the total content of the article. So the non-lawyer's conclusion is that it's no problem for us to use here. --Blainster 19:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

To use, yes. But the question was whether Wikisource had a copy.

Thanks, MS. I saw the earlier talk about the templates, but had forgotten about it right then. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

As TCC says, Wikisource cannot have a copy of the entire NRSV, as that would be a copyright violation according to the license page I described. The bverse template links to Crosswalk.com, who must have negotiated their own license, which may partly explain why their page is adorned with banner ads. --Blainster 22:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I googled for the NRSV and found several sources, but my skills were lacking. I could get a reference to the chapter, but not the verse. Oremus seemed to be a good resource. Thoughts for using another source? Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I imagine someone has made this point but the Eastern Orthodox Church does not accept the KJV, but rather has approved the NRSV which is accepted by the three branches of Christianity. Also theologians and biblical scholars do not use the KJV, and we should strive to be as scholarly as possible in this series. JWPhil 6/14/06(UTC)

This is untrue. The NRSV has been specifically disapproved by at least one English-speaking Orthodox Church. [3] TCC (talk) (contribs) 17:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't point to a reference, but I highly doubt that we're going to find any English translation that is acceptable to all branches of Christianity. Even the document referenced by TCC states that the KJV is not fully acceptable. In my experience at a Presbyterian-run seminary in the US, NRSV was the preferred translation for any sort of serious study, though others were often acceptable. However, KJV was very much discounted as a serious translation for study, although it was respected as a significant part of the Christian tradition. Essentially, almost any modern, non-paraphrase translation was considered as better for study than the KJV, which is based on inferior manuscripts and has significant language issues. I'll have to dig a bit to find it, but one professor pointed to a place where the meaning of an English word used in the KJV has drifted since the KJV was written to the point were the word now means the exact opposite of what it meant then. –RHolton≡– 18:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This sort of thing is well-known. I only meant to refute JWPhil's inaccurate claim about Orthodox acceptance of the NRSV, not re-open a broader discussion. TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

TCC is correct regarding Orthodox disapproval of the RSV and NRSV translations. I think that at least one reason is their heavy use of the Masoretic Text, which is thought to have been heavily influenced by "post-Temple Judaism" (for lack of a better phrase). Reading the Old Testament as a Jewish text rather than a Christian one is much in vogue in a number of Protestant seminaries, and probably other universities as well, but the Orthodox Church reads the entire Bible as a Christian text. And the NRSV's use of gender inclusive language may be controversial in some circles. Wesley \

Having said all that, I still open my NRSV when I want to read 4 Maccabees, as it seems rather hard to find in English. And I personally find the NIV much more consciously biased in its translation. The NKJV seems to read well while avoiding the worst of the KJV's language problems. Wesley 05:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The Bible accepted by the largest Church of Christinity (e. g. Catholicism) is the Douay-Rhiems. It reads like the KJV but doesn't have as many problems. Though my comment will probably be ignored, I propose that this article should use the Douay-Rheims Bible, which you can find at this link http://www.drbo.org/ StThomasMore 07:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Douay-Rheims has the same problems as the KJV, only more so, and has long been superseded. Actually, the official Bible text for the RCC is the Vulgate as currently revised. Current specifically Catholic English translations are the NAB and the NJB, although Catholic groups have sponsored others such as the REB. There's also a Catholic edition of the RSV. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

We seem to be going in a circle. Should someone just make a motion and let's move on. I am not interested in seeing a long debate on which Bible possesses the best translation. Let's just pick one and move on; does that work? Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought we had settled on the NRSV. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Trivial point

"Fulness" was not actually a misspelling (though by now it's a little old-fashioned, I guess...). AnonMoos 14:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Trinity symbols

Does anybody think it would be a good idea to group together visual symbols of the Trinity all in one place. with some discussion (as opposed to commons:Category:Holy_Trinity, which is an unannotated heap of unsorted images)? That place would probably not be this article... AnonMoos 14:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Geza Vermes (Jews, Muslims & Strict Monotheists)

The Trinity - a Muslim Perspective A lecture by English convert to Islam, Abdal-Hakim Murad, given to a group of Christians in Oxford, 1996

I have to confess I am not a Biblical scholar, armed with the dazzling array of philological qualifications deployed by so many others. But it does seem to me that a consensus has been emerging among serious historians, pre-eminent among whom are figures such as Professor Geza Vermes of Oxford, that Jesus of Nazareth himself never believed, or taught, that he was the second person of a divine trinity.

- Abdal-Hakim Murad[4] ------- submitted by Drogo Underburrow 23:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Neither of authorities cited is very likely to hold anything but non-trinitarian beliefs:

* Abdal-Hakim Murad is a Muslim

* Geza Vermes, Hungarian Jew, temporarily converted to Roman Catholicism, where he became even a priest, reverted to Judaism after a crisis

Having said that, I am also persuaded that both Jews and Muslims can provide the "fences" within which Christians can retrieve a deeper, truly scriptural sense of the Trinity, reaffirming the Strict Monotheism that (original and genuine) Christianity shares with both Judaism and Islam, all three of them being Abrahamic faiths. This will only be possible when Christianity ultimately recognized the Pagan, Egyptian and Hermetic nature of the Doctrine of Trinity which emerged from the Council of Nicea , 325 CE (Miguel de Servet 20:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC))

The above ideas are illogical and unfounded. Jesus does make reference to being on par with the "Father in heaven." That truth put aside for a moment, even if Jesus had not claimed any divinity, it is not sufficient proof that he was not divine: Reason being, for those that understand the gospel accounts, semitic peoples in Jesus' time were a constant danger to his life. More than once did he have to flee crowds, for the sake of not being arrested before the "appointed time." Jesus would have had many reasons to talk in parable (as he did) and to never make it perfectly clear how he did or did not relate to the Father God, nor to the Holy Spirit/Ghost, for that matter still.

"Per Se"

The article states in the Economic / Ontological section:

The main points, however, are that "there is one God because there is one Father" and that, while the Son and Spirit both derive their existence from the Father, the communion between the Three, being a relationship of Divine Love, is such that there is no subordination per se.

What does the article mean by "per se"? Is this to mean that there is no subordination in a figurative, relational sense, but that there is a subordination in that the Son and Spirit derive their existence from "the one God / one Father"? Jacob 03:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

This quote strongly infers that the Father is the One God and that the Son and Holy Spirit are somehow secondary in that they come from this One God. The statement "there is no subordination per se" does little to answer the obvious question that begs to be asked, "How can there be no subordination if there is one God the Father and the others come from Him?" I did not understand the doctrine of the Trinity to say as much, maybe Arianism... Nobody has any comments or clarification? Jacob 19:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The quote is correct as far as it goes, but what is not said in context it's an expression peculiar to the East. (I believe the quote is directly from Bp. Kallistos Ware, who is paraphrasing the Cappadocian Fathers.) In Trinitarian theology the Father is the Eternal Source or Principle (arche) eternally begetting the Son and from whom the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds. This is nothing more than a natural consequence of how the Son and the Holy Spirit relate to the Father. The Divine Unity is here conceived of in personal terms in the hypostatic mutual indwelling bound by a continual movement of love. Because they act with one will, there is no "subordination" in the ordinary human sense of obedience, since (for instance) the will of the Father is the will of the Son. There is also no subordination since they all possess the same essence and therefore they are all equally God.

The above doesn't quite look to me as if I've answered your question. I'm not sure that I'd characterize the eternal relations among the persons as "subordination", and perhaps the "per se" (which I did not add) was intended to express that subordination of one hypostasis to another should not be seen as a consequence of their relations. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I am a bit surprised by the language being used here. As a Latter-day Saint, I could easily say the same thing about our concept of the Godhead; virtually word for word. The third sentence would be a bit foreign in that the vocabularly is not common to LDS. It is also not my understanding of the concept of Trinity. I would like to get some more people to confirm that this is an accurate statement. If nothing else, per se seems unacceptable; it clouds/weakens the absolute oneness defined by the Trinity. Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

"There is one God because there is one Father" is a true Orthodox expression of faith and doctrine. See http://holytrinity.ok.goarch.org/Orthodoxy/Holy-Trinity.html to confirm that statement, in the section "One God, One Father." I think the later parts of the description would distinguish the Orthodox concept of the Trinity from the LDS concept of the Godhead. Another good reference, both longer and much older, is St. Ambrose's Three Books on the Holy Spirit, book two. Wesley 17:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Now, I am no expert on these issues, but I concur with what Wesley wrote. Regarding the expression "per se" I think it is unfortunate and ambiguous and not actually needed. The passage talks about ontological and economic subordination - "per se" does not answer this issue. Orthodox doctrine (whether RC or EO) holds the three hypostases to be ontologically and substantially one, while (from the economic perspective) both Son and Spirit originate from the Father (by being begotten and by proceeding, respectively). I will therefore change the "per se" bit into "according to substance". Are there any more issues? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No, this is incorrect. The hypostases are one in essence, nature, will, operation, love, knowledge, and are Three even though there is no division between them. This is an ontological statement; and the begetting of the Son and the procession of the Spirit occur eternally and ontologically.

The notion of the economical Trinity is about the way the hypostases relate to each other with regard to the work of Salvation, where the Father sends the Son and the Son sends the Spirit. It's distinguished from the ontological Trinity because it's primarily about how God acts, not the relations within himself. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I now note your edit to the article. "Per se" may be unclear, but I'm afraid "according to substance" is almost meaningless in context. To the extent it reflects the understanding you indicated above, it's incorrect. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

I just added a question about this article's POV, because I read it for the first time and long passages sounded like a missionary tract to me. They weren't writtten in the dispassionate tone of an encyclopedia, but were written as if advocating the point of view they were describing. I'd like to hear what others think.--SEF23a 01:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi I would tend not to agree as a new Wikipediast. The article does make some very general statements about the Trinity - Para 6 in particular refers to the views of different Christian groups about the doctrine of the "one essence and three persons". However the paragraph does not point out that most mainstream Christian chuches believe that the reason why Christ cried out "My God, My God,Why have you forsaken me?" on the Cross was because the mystic oneness of the Trinity relationship was being temporarily fractured so that He could bear the sins of the whole world on His shoulders and die in our place. The physical pain and suffering that He bore was compounded beyond mortal understanding by the breaking of His link with the other two Persons of the Trinity and that caused Him untold pain and distress.

Articles such as this cannot be merely factual because they deal with matters of heartfelt belief - however they should record the main beliefs about the issues under discussion without actually indicating which are correct. Otherwise most of the article is well written and researched. The author has tried hard to cover the main aspects of the Trinity doctrine and suceeded very well generally. (Frankie502004 14:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC))

Any citation for the 'mainstream' Protestant belief that the Trinity was fractured when Jesus died on the cross? I remember thinking that way myself once, but I always thought it was my own mistake made when I didn't know better. If Father, Son and Holy Spirit truly share a single divine essence, it makes no sense to think of the Trinity fracturing that way. If they are three separate beings that just share some kind of link that can be broken, then it starts looking a lot more like a three-member pantheon. I don't mean to argue the point or convince you, just wondering how widespread the belief in a once-fractured Trinity is.

To address SEF23a's NPOV concern, I would just say that in general, an article like this needs to present what the beliefs or doctrine is, but it needs to present it as "what these people happen to think", not as what Wikipedia thinks and not as though it were universally believed by everyone. If it manages to just document what trinitarian Christians think of the Trinity, then it's done its job satisfying the NPOV rule. Wesley 16:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Wesley I agree with your point about NPOV concerns - such an article can only set out the main lines of differing belief about the Trinity but should concentrate on those who accept there is a Trinity as generally accepted in mainstream Christianity.

Re the fracturing of the Trinity relationship, mainstream evangelical Protestant teaching is that as God the Father cannot look on sin, in order for Jesus to take on himself the punishment for sin he had to be separated from God (for a time), as continues to be the case for all individuals who do not accept nor believe on Christ as Saviour. The work He did on the cross was to act as our surrogate taking away the stain of sin. After His death He was in Hell for three days and triumpantly arose from the dead, at which point He was in full communion with the Trinity again. If in fact the Godhead was an an entity which was absolutely one divine essence and could not be separated, then the sacrifice for sin which Jesus undertook would be void i.e.He could not have taken our sins upon His shoulders, as the Trininty God (which includes Jesus as an integral member) cannot look on or have any dealings with sin or rebellion. This is why He suffered such great anguish on the Tree - He had to separate Himself from the Father and the Spirit in order to achieve His great saving Work.

This deals with the problem of sin and our total inability to approach or please God on our own merits; Jesus as saviour is our advocate with the Father and as a result He (the Father)overlooks our sinful nature provided we accept and love His Son.

• I basically agree with Wesley that the main thing that needs to be done is a judicious use of "trinitarians believe..."-type statements. But rereading the article, I do think more are needed. Entire paragraphs of the "Ontology" section simply present the doctrine as if it were baldly true, rather than a particular type of belief. (E.g. first paragraph of "one God" subsection, second paragraph of "God exists in three persons" subsection, etc.) A bit of rewriting to make this sound more like reporting some group's belief and less like the article was taking a position would do the trick.SEF23a 20:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that the first sentence of the "one God" paragraph reads quite blunt, it is explained by the following statement. I tried to make that clearer by replacing the full stop with a ":". That way, it is a statement about what the "Hebrew scriptures" say, and the following citations explain it. (Though to open the paragraph with that blunt statement and then to explain it, was imho better style...)

Generally: I don't think that we need to add "Trinitarians believe" to every statement. The whole article is about a belief held by Trinitarians; if anything is said about God within it, it is of course according to Trinitarian belief (except explicitly stated otherwise). If I read an article explaining a certain belief about God, and it says "God is...", I naturally assume that that means "according to those who hold that belief". Anything else is not necessary, imho. Varana 19:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Certainly we don't need to add "Trinitarians believe" to every statement. It's a question of overall tone and balance. It seemed to me that it was off -- that it had toppled into outright advocacy. If others disagree, then fine. But it sounded that way to me. SEF23a 05:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that even in articles of faith we need to be careful that WIKI is not perceived as advocating a position. I also agree that an abundance of "Trinitarians believe" are necessary, but a sufficient number of qualifiers are required to ensure that casual readers never get the impression that WIKI is teaching a "Sunday school lesson". Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It really does not seem to me that this article violates the NPOV policy, it seems quite clear to me that the article is about beliefs within the belief system, and does not relegate the information as a "sunday school lesson." I had several friends, of different religious beliefs (christian, atheist, muslim, and hindu) read this article, and each of them agreed with my observation that it does not violate a NPOV. Of course, that is only 5 perspectives. "Trinitarians believe" seems more than a little ridiculous, imho, because i have yet to meet a christian who subscribes to this belief system that calls him or herself a "Trinitarian." Locriani 04:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Removing NPOV tag

Since there's been no discussion on the matter in the last three weeks, I will remove the NPOV tag in a day or two... AnonMoos 16:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

On reguards to dispute about a Trinity

If anyone is doubting the fact that there is a Trinity, read Genesis 1:26. NLT says " Then God said, "let us make people in our image, to be like ourselves. They will be masters over all life..."

For any confusion, I also looked up the Amplified Bible version, as I was confused myself. The only difference was that us was changed to: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

If we really want to dispute facts that are given about Christianity, maybe we should all become a little bit more knowledgable with our Bibles. Because in the end, they provide us with all the answers. Saved365 05:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

This page is for discussing issues with article content. It's not a general discussion forum. However, I should point out that notes and marginal theological explanations in a Bible (even if they happen to be typeset inline and not as marginal notes) do not carry the same weight as ancient authorities. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The usage of 'us' in Genesis 1:26 can be explained by the usage of the word 'Elohim' which is usually translated as 'God' but also erroneously as 'angels'. Elohim is a plural noun. So the plurality of God does not necessarily point to Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit being present. I am a member of a loosely affiliated group of Christians who do not believe in the Trinity, but do believe in the Godhead type of entity which forms part of the Mormon doctrine. The simplest explanation of this is in comparison with a human family. A husband and wife are 'one'. But they are their own person. A son or daughter are distinctly related to their father and mother in that they carry all the genes (including defects) from their predecessors. So Jesus was born of God's seed (the Holy Spirit) in Mary's womb, which made him a human with a spiritual father. ByteofKnowledge 20:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the stuff about Genesis. Nope, sorry. Hebrew shifts pronouns around when referring to God because to apply a fixed moniker to God would presume that God can be understood/domesticated. Arabic does the same thing. Sometimes the pronoun is he, sometimes she, sometimes "you" in plural form (think y'all) and sometimes you in the singular. Also, you must understand that if Genesis was a preexilic document, Hebrews were not yet hard monotheists, they were henotheist. They would have recognized their god as one among a pantheon. "Us" could therefore be construed as referring to the various tribal dieties with which the authors of Genesis were familiar. Moreover, if the symbology was so obvious as to indicate a tripartite diety, would not the Jews have been at least dualistic in their worship? They've had a great deal more time with the material than the Christians, their scholarship has always been quite advanced, and they would certainly have noted that textual clue. You need to look elsewhere. MerricMaker 05:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting last point. There has been some hypothesis made that Jews in some practices seemed to be almost recognising a female deity as a kind of Dualistic partner to the male-father-god Yahweh. The concept of a loose non-monotheism has been documented. Of course, it has also been repressed by powerful forces. The traditions at stake are powerful enough to warrant people with axes to grind to take extreme action. We learn little from history...

Notwithstanding, it is also true that in the English speaking world we have dropped the use of gender articles and made clear distinctions in plural and singular in many ways and forms, so it beggers pain and conscientious effort to back-step and realise that the ancient writers were utilising languages that made no clear distinctions at all. As a point in check, we can even criticise the old King James, which uses the passage "and the lord spoke unto my lord..." This is enough to cite the problem of some older languages that have not evolved or been updated: Sometimes the context itself leaves some ambiguity as to the subject and object, gender or number. It takes great pain and even perhaps some admission of uncertainty. It seems quite bombastic on the part of some to hold a position and claim it to be above debate. Be all the above as it may or may not, Monotheism as an issue, in antithesis to trinity, is a spurious one at times. With the various interpretations of trinity, this can be seen without need to refer anywhere else. An interesting study can be made of the Old Testament and also of the Quran to some degree, and lead on to the question: If the possibility of other gods besides the "one true" is so vehemently held to be false, then why did the ancient Monotheist God always appear to so protectively ask for worship? Since being, the other gods are not there at all and hence need not the worry? Still further is the claim of understanding at a human-level. Monotheist or Trinity, or any other combination for that matter, we anthropomorphise God by so doing. Even Islam is guilty of this. We cannot rightly speak in terms of God being just "one being" in so much as this limits God--something which Muslims claim we should never do. God is not like a person or distinct being, reason being, it is arbitrary to think so. Even when the sacred books may allude to his being a distinct-being, it is at best just that: An allusion for imperfect human reader's minds. This could be considered for article content, for it concludes us to a point: Trinity and Monotheism are both labels to give humans understanding, without really identifying an even deeper reality to God.

All the "jealous God demanding worship stuff" comes from henotheist periods in Jewish history. You rightly note that if there was only one God, what would that God care if someone was worshipping a different God? There have been times when the Jews forgot their God and worshipped Ba'al. Injunctions against this in the OT were about the Jews maintaining their culture. Forgetting YHWH meant abandoning Jewishness, and if Jewish scripture in its earliest form cared about anything, it was the viability of the tribe and its continued Jewishness. MerricMaker 16:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Let us assume for a moment that the genesis passages do not refer to God being a plurality of persons, but instead merely a writer's attempt to magnify God's glory on paper through the use of the plural form. Why the plural? God's name is Yahweh (I am that I am) but his unique title is a plural. Why not use something else besides plural "Elohim". It's consistently used as a singular form all over the Bible. That does not mesh well with the notion that "let us create man" was the Genesis writer's own leftover pantheism creeping into the writing. Why? because the entire phrase is "Let us create man in our own image, after our own likeness", and this certainly would affect how 6th Century B.C. priests would interpret things! God is referring to a fundamentally united image, and likeness, implying that whoever else God is referring to as "us" would be essentially identical to He Himself. But since God is conversing and articulating the words "us" and "our" then there must be some area between monad and pantheon. Somehow the concept of God being naturally plural in his capacities was not lost on ancient religious folk. Just like the concept of a Soul and Spirit were not lost on them either. We today have the hardest time understanding that at least, the Bible differentiates between a soul and spirit. But this was also articulated in other religions in antiquity. So, let us not assume that the writers of the old days were too dull or dense to understand the philosophical concepts we discuss now. If I recall, in Egyptian, Caananite, and other mythologies, the Chief Creator God had an opposing or contrary consort... not one whose image is united, and not one who mirrored their essence. Shu and Tefnut were not of the same form, or essence. Astharte and Ba were not of the same esssence. If God... no, if the writer who wrote that statement, was eluding to another god or gods participating in the creation, then it would be "Let us make man in our own images, after our own likenesses". Remember, the Trinity is a word to articulate HOW God is described IN the bible. I do not know where this nonsense about the Trinity being an external force added to Biblical interpretation. I grew up believing that the Trinity was in itself a force greater than God, but instead when I read the Bible, I understood that the Trinity was the only logical explanation for what I read in the Bible. It is a word, generated from a concept that we can barely wrap our minds around. We sit here and make straw-man arguments against a duo or triad, which is not what the Trinity articulates. --Zaphnathpaaneah 11:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Arguments against Trinity exposed

There are four groups that have a strong argument against the Trinity.

• Mormons
• Muslims
• Jehovah Witnesses
• Oneness Pentecostals

Here is the problem. They all claim that the Trinity is a roman invention created explicitly to debunk the truth of their religion. But they cannot all be right. The arguement is a statement in silence.

The Trinity itself (and should be clarified in the Article) is regarding the fact that in the Bible Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit interact with each other (not just humanity), and thus have a relationship with each other. That is the essential doctrine. Everything in the Catholic and Trinitarian doctrine eminates from this fundamental fact. Oneness advocates try to redefine the relationship as being one person interacting with "himself" or by playing down one of the two identities interacting...so saying "Jesus was such-and-suching" or "the Father was just doing this or that".

A living relationship where "he, I, and you" occur, where one speaks of "yours, and mine" and "his" requires more than one person being present. You cannot use a manifestation in the place of a person, becuse the manifestation is merely a mirage.

The other issue is the erroneous idea of what a person is. A being is not a person, just like a fruit is not an apple, even though the opposite holds true. But Oneness and others argue as if that is the case. They argue that a being is a person, and therefore a singular divine being is capable of being only a singular person. I would agree, except the Bible describes otherwise. "let us create man in our own image" and "The father has sent me" etc. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Definition from Websters Dictionary of PERSON: "1. A human being; a man, woman, or child. 8. Any of the three modes of being in the Trinity." The definition of a person then is "A human being." Oneness people seem to be saying that there are not three persons or human beings in the Trinity and that there is only one human being which is Christ . The Father and Holy Ghost being Spirits are not human beings or persons therefore saying there are three persons in the Trinity is incorrect according to them. Spirits not having corporal bodies must then "manifest" as spirits and any human personage must be manifest through Christ. Really makes sense if you think about it. GWr

Webster's has virtually no standing when we're talking about theological or philosophical language. For that you need an Oxford Theological Dictionary or some similar text. Person in the context of a discussion of the Trinity does not refer to a human person or being of the sort that might wear a name-tag. Person, particularly in discussions of Trinity carries a much different meaning. Boethius' definition continues to be used in reference texts today, which is "an individual substance of a rational nature." You will note that human-ness is nowhere implied in this definition. Hell, a being at all isn't even mentioned. MerricMaker 04:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want to get technical let us go to the original Greek . "Person" can be properly translated as "Persona" which is Mask. So now we have the three masks of God. The Modalists are ahead again. (By the way, please be respectful and do not use curse words on a Talk Page about religious subjects. Thank you.) GWr

People, Wikipedia is not a place for arguing over the truth of something. It is a place for writing encyclopedia articles. DJ Clayworth 13:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

LDS

I think you have the LDS (Mormon) view of the Trinity wrong. LDS do not believe it is a Roman invention adopted by 4th century Christians as formal policy. I do believe you will find that we believe that Christainity was influenced by Roman philosophy, but we would also say that the Nicene Creed is a doctrine of man created by the councils of men.

I apologize, but the rest of your edit went over my head. LDS believe that there are three, distinct persons: God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit/Ghost. They are separate. Where we differ is the concept of essence of substance...we simply do not use that terminology and do not have a corresponding concept. In many ways we would say if it is not in the Bible, then let us use care.

Fundamentally, the Nicene Creed is a doctrine that attempts to ensure that Christians can acknowledge a single God when confronted with three different beings. It allows for a monotheistic approach to the Father, His Son of God, and the Second Comforter, the Holy Spirit. On the surface it is very confusing to the uninitiated and to non-Christians. LDS have a similar confusion, but it may be a bit worse. The Book of Mormon teaches there is one God, but three beings. It sounds very similar, but it is yet different because it does not attempt to describe essence or substance. Cheers. Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well you elaborate my point. The LDS belief system has changed. The articulation of the Nicene Creed is not a doctrine created out of an external application onto the Bible, but from consistent and reliable interpretation of the Bible. In other words, there is no sense in what you say, because you do not care about the implications. Our discussion about, person, being, and substance are our own interpretations of philosophical idea. To say that there is one God who is "three beings" is nonsense because God is a "being". There is no further breakdown of a being beyond your own "LDS definition OF a being". It does not sound similar at all to saying one being which is three persons. Your LDS idea is merely a semantic institution, much like saying a Triangle is three shapes, or a circle is a round square. We're not even talking about religion at that point but instead allowing you to entertain your method of gaining converts through a misuse of philosophical terms. Lets see how the Muslims, Oneness, and JWs fare. --208.254.174.148 07:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me make it more clear. If your saying that God is three beings, then your saying that a "being" is a concept composed of parts. (And that becomes the word play). In English, everyone else understands the being to be the irreducable fundamental part, essence, the area that can not be broken down any further of identifying one living sentinent lifeform. So now we have the LDS counter-trinity. That is "God is three beings". Now lets hear the JW, and Oneness and Muslim interpretation of the Biblical God. --208.254.174.148

07:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Also I apologize, but I do find it consistently dishonest for you to rely on prepositional phrases to allow for ambiguity on your position. "LDS do not believe it is a Roman invention adopted by 4th century Christians as formal policy. " That is such a non committal position, but consistent in how I have heard Mormons discuss these issues. Optionally true statements. Stop that. --208.254.174.148 07:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

A troll is as a troll does. There is no communication here, but you seem to desire to provoke. Good luck. Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The trinity appears to be, and has always been, a subject that intrigues academics with too much time on their hands - also mobs who need a reason to burn someone, another group with too much time on their hands. Some time ago I read my father's Bible, I am a pretty good reader - catch subtlities usually - and I honestly couldn't find anything that would suggest the creation of such a dogmatic concept. There are several other theological concepts that seem likewise to be tortured interpretation - plain misreadings in some cases that seem to be religiously adhered to. I believe somewhere in the Bible it says that the Bible is not made up of tricky wording - when I see tricky concepts you can bet that you aren't going to find them plainly stated anywhere in the Bible, Let's face it they had 1000 pages, if it was really important then they could have wedged it in somewhere or even added a page or two.

I was tempted to reply to this thread, but instead I'm going to ask everyone involved to move it to their user talk pages -- or even better, email -- to the extent it's veering in the direction it appears to be. This page is for developing article content, not theological disputes. The article should describe the doctrine of the Trinity as it actually exists without advocating it, just as Nontrinitarianism should describe that doctrine without advocating it. What personal conclusion anyone may have come to in their private interpretation of Scripture is utterly irrelevant. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"Curse Words" in Religious Discussions

First off, sorry if my use of "hell" was troubling. However, language is used to carry meaning and sometimes meaning is carried best by that lovely collection of one-syllable terms called "curse words." Aquinas used them, Calvin and Luther used them. The question is not of their use, but of their appropriate use. I don't mean to invite a storm of those words, but if you're trying to get meaning across in informal discussion there are some words which are the best choice for the connotation you are trying to carry. "Heck," "Poppycock," and "Malarkey" just don't quite cut it, particularly not in text (unless you added italics). I can promise you that, when needed, such words are used by professional theologians, whose job is largely one of communication. I can tell you about very interesing panel meetings at AAR symposiums in which everyone was "working blue." Also, as a final note, "hell" stopped being a curse word about the same time Queen Victoria died. So again, sorry if I offended, but please remember the context of the use of the word. That is much more important than the word itself. MerricMaker 16:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

No one of note cares about your use of "hell". Anon editors can log in and identify themselves if they want to put their foot down about something. Besides, this talk pages is no place for a religious discussion. It's for encyclopedia-related discussions. TCC (talk) (contribs) 17:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand MerricMaker. I just thought I would mention that many people, although not all, may find such words out of place in a religious forum. I just came from another forum where an individual tested the waters with a few slang words and ended up littering the page with vulger language. Again not all people find slang offensive, however there are so many more beautiful and powerful words in the English language that are so much more effective that I personally prefer to use. I am sorry. I did not mean to offend. As far as anonymous users, I am new both to Wikipedia and to the computer but from what I can see taking time to log in is just a waste of time because doing so does not identify anyone. EVERYBODY is an anonymous user here. I click on names and most of the time I get absoloutly no names, location, or credentials of most people writing on these pages. Without knowing who is editing there should be a disclaimer on all articles saying that this is not a true encyclopedia and information may or may not be true. With that said I agree with the above that this should be used to discuss the article . It should discuss what the Trinity is to those that believe in the Trinity and NOT about opposing views. These can be briefly addressed in a small section of the article but certainly not scattered throughout the article as it now is. Thank you. CWr

This is not a religious forum. This is an encyclopedia, and this page is for discussing the content of an article that just happens to be on a religious subject. Thre are no religious qualifications for editing here, and you will find far worse things than "hell" on other pages. (Even in article content -- see WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not censored.)

Proves my point exactly. People with no religious qualifications, training, or knowledge can come in and edit something they have absolutly no knowledge about at all. It makes no sense. And yes you will find worse slang on other pages but that still does not make it appropriate for a civil, educated gentleman or lady to do. Slang is a shortcut for the absence of more powerful words to use. Just my opinion. GWr

"Hell" is not slang. Nor is it even remotely obscene. I suppose one might consider it vulgarity, but you might be surprised how earthy was the language used by many saints. It is a powerful word; look how it made you react! As for qualifications, even an otherwise unqualified editor can read source material and report it accurately. Wikipedia articles are verifiable, not THE TRUTH. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

And I for one am not anonymous. In a real sense, even those who do not choose to edit under their real names as I do aren't anonymous. Their reputations in the community of Wikipedia editors is tied to their usernames. As far as Wikipedia as such is concerned, a logged-in user puts his name on the line with every edit. An IP address, particularly one from an AOL account since it can be used by any one of a large number of people at any given time, does not.

The nature of this encyclopedia would cast serious doubts on its reliability if there was not such a push for verifiability. The best articles here are referenced far more thoroughly than any other encyclopedia in the world, and are therefore more reliable, not less. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Problems with Qur'an reference

In the "Other views of the Trinity" section, the statement the Quran, denounces the term "Trinity" is rather problematic. Muhammad certainly denounced what he thought to be the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, but he didn't use any special term for Trinity, but rather only the ordinary basic Arabic word for "three" ثلاثة thalatha. It's doubtful whether a special word for Trinity even existed in the Arabic language as spoken by Muhammad's followers at that time. In any case, the later standard term ثالوث thaluth (see List of Christian terms in Arabic) certainly does not occur in the Qur'an. Any Qur'an translation (and all those linked to are very old) which renders thalatha into English as "Trinity" is interpreting, not literally translating... AnonMoos 16:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Holy Trinity image

I putted the Holy Trinity image, as viewed by Maria Valtorta and Catherine Emmerich private revelations. -- User:Wikinger 12:23, 24 September 2006

And what exactly is the image supposed to illustrate, what is the information it adds? Furthermore, to me it seems to directly contradict the concept of mutual indwelling, detailed in the following paragraph. If there's no good reason why we need exactly this scheme, I would remove it. (Umm, and "private revelation"? Seems a bit fishy to me. Theology is scholarship. Who are Valtorta and Emmerich?) Varana 13:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Catherine Emmerich and Maria Valtorta are authors of two books: The Dolorous Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ (upon which the Passion movie was based), and Poem of God-Man. God revealed to them both as in my scheme. My scheme shows Holy Trinity as is, and without alterations and symbolizations. You will view the Holy Trinity as three-dimensional three-layered sphere in your eternal life. Scutum Fidei is logical/algorithmic diagram of Holy Trinity, not Holy Trinity as is. Mutual indwelling is of another nature: the Spirit-Person is inside the Son-Person, the Son-Person is inside the Father-Person, and the Father-Person is inside the human Soul of Christ, which human Soul of Christ is inside of human Body of Christ. Thus you get: I (Person) am in the Father (Person) and the Father (Person) is in Me (body+soul). My scheme is good too because Bible states: My Father is greater than Me. Christ identifies Him since Incarnation with Son-Person, His human soul, and His human body at once. Earlier, before Incarnation Christ identified Himself only with Son-Person. Catherine Emmerich is now stated blessed and her revelations valid by Pope John Paul II since October 3, 2004. Theologians uses only Bible (sola scriptura) and their concepts are thought by themselves, thus they cannot be as reliable as direct private revelations from God. Theologian concepts can be only approximations of reality, while private revelations transmits reality itself as is. -- User:Wikinger 14:58, 24 September 2006

Actually, the Anne Catherine Emmerich page says that the Pope specifically did not endorse all the details of her visions or mystic speculations as they have come down to us -- and even if he had, the Catholic church is only one of the groups whose beliefs are discussed on the Trinity article page. Furthermore, theologians would say that reason and logic (along with the Biblical text and the historical tradition of mainstream orthodox Christianity) can provide a much-needed check on possibly uncontrolled and extravagant personal idiosyncratic mystical visions... AnonMoos 14:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Problematic image Image:Holy_Trinity_Scheme.png

The image Holy_Trinity_Scheme.png is rather problematic as it was added onto this page, since it could very easily lend itself to non-traditionally-orthodox interpretations (such as that the Spirit is lesser than, and wholly contained within the Son, while the Son is lesser than, and wholly contained within the Father). The caption "The Holy Trinity Itself" was also very problematic.

For the image to be added to the article, it needs to be demonstrated that the image falls within an acceptable range of fairly widely-used traditional iconography or symbolism, and it needs to be given a link to some appropriate context and explanation. (The Shield of the Trinity diagram is relatively self-explanatory, and has a whole article devoted to exploring its ramifications, while neither is true of Image:Holy_Trinity_Scheme.png).

In the past, Image:Trinity faces.jpg was kicked off this article for somewhat similar reasons... AnonMoos 17:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. A friendly suggestion

Why not add the image to Anne Catherine Emmerich first, with an appropriate explanation of what the diagram meant to her at the time? Then, depending on how the Anne Catherine Emmerich article develops, a future decision can be made as to whether to add the image to this article also... AnonMoos 17:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

the Emmerich article has "three concentric spheres" (unsourced at that). It doesn't say which sphere was which. Until we can reference that this images labels the spheres in accord with Emmerich's vision, they have no place there. dab (ᛏ) 12:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Father Son and Spirit are different in diameter and shiverness separately, but equal in sum of these properties

In Catherine Emmerich model, Father, Son, and Spirit are different in diameter and shiverness separately, but equal in sum of these properties. I explain:

Father is big in diameter (2/3), but small in light shiverness (1/3), -> 2/3 + 1/3 = 1

Son is middle in diameter (1/2), but middle in light shiverness (1/2), -> 1/2 + 1/2 = 1

Spirit is small in diameter (1/3), but big in light shiverness (2/3), -> 1/3 + 2/3 = 1

Father = Son = Spirit, -> 1 = 1 = 1

File:Holy Trinity Scheme.png

The Holy Trinity as seen by Anne Catherine Emmerich

That means, that increasing diameter decreases simultaneous performance, and decreasing diameter increases simultaneous performance of each God's Person's properties. God's Persons are equal in sum of Their properties, but different in separate of each properties.

For Example:

Father is named Mind - low performance, big diameter

Son is named Word - middle performance, middle diameter

Spirit is named Deed - high performance, small diameter

God is omniscient, omnipotent, luminous, etc... but each of these properties for Father, Son and Spirit have low, middle, and high simultaneous performance. While Father can do something in long time, Son will do that something in moderate time, and Spirit will do the same something in short time.

That means, that that the Spirit is lesser than, and wholly contained within the Son, while the Son is lesser than, and wholly contained within the Father, but only in diameters, and *NOT* in all other properties, because lessening diameter, increases performance of other properties of each Person. That gives summarical equality of each from Three Persons.

Additionally, these Biblical passages:

I [God Person] am in the Father [God Person] and the Father [God Person] is in Me [Human Soul]. (Jesus's Soul since Incarnation contains whole undividable Holy Trinity, and this Jesus's Soul is contained within Jesus's Body. Jesus identifies Himself since Incarnation both with Person and Soul) (John 14:11)

and

My Father is greater [in diameter] than Me. (John 14:28)

are now easily understood. -- User:Wikinger 19:14, 24 September 2006

---

Please do tell me, what does 'shiverness' mean?? AnonMoos 19:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Shiverness means intensity of light shivering, and subsequently degree of light power in each of Holy Trinity Persons. I restored indents, and stopped altering other comments. More shivering gives brighter light, and less shivering gives darker light. -- User:Wikinger 20:14, 24 September 2006

I'm sorry, but it's not a word of standard English, and so does not help to advance this discussion. There are rather few Google hits on shiverness, and most of them seem to refer to bodily reactions to cold temperatures. AnonMoos 20:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Stop declarifying the comment threading indenting, and stop altering other people's talk-page comments... AnonMoos 19:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't mess with the indent levels if you don't know what they're for... AnonMoos 20:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

My messing with indents ended now. User:Wikinger 20:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

STOP MESSING WITH THE FERSHLUGGINER INDENT LEVELS IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE FOR!!! It's extremely annoying, and does nothing to advance discussion... I just had an edit conflict with you because you were messing with the indent levels after you said you weren't messing with the indent levels... AnonMoos 21:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

My messing with indents ended now finally. I thought that you mistaked. User:Wikinger 21:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Possibly clarificatory diagram

As far as I understand your intentions, it seems you would really need a 3D-diagram to clearly express your meaning, perhaps roughly along the lines of the rather crude image offerred at right; however, it's far from clear to me that such a diagram would express a mainstream traditionally-orthodox view of the Trinity, or would have a place on the Trinity article. My suggestion still stands -- go to the Anne Catherine Emmerich page first, and once you've worked the bugs out there, we'll see if anything there is useful for the "Trinity" article. AnonMoos 20:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

There are three spheres, not three cylinders

Holy Trinity consists of three concentrically placed spheres, not from three cylinders as you tried to guess. These Holy Trinity Spheres-Persons are placed like Earth's crust, mantle and kernel. Please replace in talk your bad cylindrical guess with proper spherical model. Holy Trinity has nothing to do with Towers of Hanoi type of shape. Holy Thinity rather resembles concentrical layers of any star or planet. I already got to Anne Catherine Emmerich page and placed there my Holy Trinity 2D image and explanation. User:Wikinger 21:05, 24 September 2006

Unfortunately, it's basically impossible to make an unambiguous drawing of a uniformly dark outer sphere surrounding a uniformly bright inner sphere -- and your 2D-cross section image with concentric circles is also very ambiguous, and lends itself to a quite a wide variety of possible interpretations. The image Image:Emmerich-Trinity-maybe.gif doesn't attempt to replicate the appearance of Emmerich's visions (which was itself necessarily a limited metaphor), but rather is a kind of 3-D graph, with encompassingness (or "big diameter" as you seem to call it) on the X- and Y-axes, and intensity (or "shiverness" as you seem to call it) plotted along the Z-axis. It's a lot clearer in representing that aspect of your apparent view of the Trinity than the lightening of the yellow inner circles in your graphic. AnonMoos 00:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Instead of your objections, my view of the Holy Trinity is as is, e.g. if you would have to look at Holy Trinity itself in Heaven, you would have see Holy Trinity as is in my drawing, in shape of big low-intensity Sun (Father) that contains middle mid-intensity Sun (Son), that in turn contains small high-intensity Sun (Spirit). My drawing looks simply like Holy Trinity photo. Your Hanoi-Tower shape is rather a logical diagram, much like Scutum Fidei, than Holy Trinity direct image. Better commentary image would be in manner of this image: http://geomag.usgs.gov/images/faq/Q5.jpg User:Wikinger 01:05, 25 September 2006

I now recently discovered in revelations by Anna from Warsaw, that Holy Trinity's bigger Persons have no cavities for smaller Persons, but each big, middle and small Person-Sphere is fully lite and all Persons-Spheres are permeating each other in manner of

  |                                                          |
 ||                                                         |
||| , thus there is no containning of Persons in manner of |   .
 ||                                                         |
  |                                                          |

User:Wikinger 01:00, 29 September 2006

---

Dragging this back on-topic

The topic of this page being development of the article. This material strikes me as a theological nullity. I suppose there's a small population of Catholics who might particularly venerate this saint and give some attention to the visions, but for Christianity at large -- particularly historical Christianity -- this is barely noticeable. Based on its notability, I don't think it merits more than a line or two in the article. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I heartily concur with TCC. Giving it a line or two in this article seems rather generous in fact. Wesley 04:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Anne Catherine Emmerich image of Holy Trinity for avoid misconcepting Holy Trinity by Muslims.

File:Holy Trinity Scheme.png

The Holy Trinity as seen by Anne Catherine Emmerich

The Trinity article lacks Holy Trinity spherical picture as present on right side, that can be useful for purpose of documenting that Christian God is One Complex God in Three Persons *BUT NOT* three separate one-person gods. Additionally, images already included in Trinity article are misleading for Muslims in this matter, because they are presenting falsely Holy Trinity as three separate one-person gods.--83.5.24.96 18:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It is, unfortunately, a picture that is theologically meaningless, not accepted by any major tradition, and misleads in a different direction. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Wikinger, see section #Problematic_image_Image:Holy_Trinity_Scheme.png above. In addition to the problems of whether Emmerich's vision was theologically sound, or is widely known and accepted, there's also the problem of whether your image clearly reflects the essential details of Emmerich's vision in a way that would be useful for Wikipedia. The idea that the lightening/desaturation towards the center in your image represents a greater "intensity" (whatever that means) is not at all obvious from just looking at it (certainly I didn't understand it until you had explained it at length). Clarity is not helped by the fact that the white at the edge of your image should be even more intense than the shade in the center circle of your image, according to the "more brightness and less saturation means more intense" rule. Nor does it make clear that the circles are supposed to interpenetrate, rather than being separate concentric onion-shell layers (if I understood your explanation correctly).

However, I do agree with you on at least one thing -- Image:La_Trinité_et_tous_les_saints.jpg is certainly rather theologically dubious. On the French wikipedia Trinity article, this image is accompanied by a disclaimer that anthropomorphism of this type would be considered completely unacceptable in the Orthodox tradition. (The other picture Image:Andrej_Rublëv_001.jpg, which shows three angels manifesting themselves in human form at Mamre as an allegory of the Trinity, is different, since it doesn't depict the Trinity directly.) If you confined your efforts to getting Image:La_Trinité_et_tous_les_saints.jpg removed from this article (instead of getting your own image added), then you would have a greater probability of success... AnonMoos 13:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You correctly understood that Holy Trinity itself is in form of three full and concentrical spheres, that are permeating themselves. Big (less lit) sphere is Father, middle (mid lit) sphere is Son, and small (most lit) sphere is Spirit. White at the edge is outer space, and this white is not a part of Holy Trinity itself, but substitition of spacial environment in which Holy Trinity floats.--83.5.24.96 15:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You have stated the problem with this image perfectly. Is there any Christian community for which the above explanation is not heretical? TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This explanation is based on Catholic private revelations from Catholic Saints, thus at least for Catholics it will not be heretical. God's Persons are equal, because each of Them is a full sphere, but with different density. Thus big Father is low densited, middle Son is middle densited and small Spirit is high densited. That means, that if God's Persons would have equalified Their densities, that is not in place, Their diameters also would be equalified.--83.5.24.96 19:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, it seems that the Pope specifically did not endorse all the details of Emmerich's visions or mystic speculations as they have come down to us -- and furthermore, theologians would say that reason and logic (along with the Biblical text and the historical tradition of mainstream orthodox Christianity) can provide a much-needed check on possibly uncontrolled and extravagant personal mystical visions. In any case, I think that Csernica was assuming that you deny divine Omnipresence.... AnonMoos 12:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't deny divine Omnipresence, I precise that God is Omnipresent by His external light emited from Trinity, but not by Trinity itself. Trinity is Holy and inpenetrable by any of God's creations. This explanation of God's Omnipresence avoids possiblility of floating created and both holy/sinful creations in God's Substance itself. These all created and both holy/sinful creations are floating in God's external light.--83.5.24.96 13:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You make is sound as if God is present only in his energies. According to Orthodox theology at least, he is only sensibly present in his energies, while hypostatically he is omnipresent throughout all the universe. (A quality expressly attributed to the Holy Spirit, but one would hesitate to deny that all Three are not equally omnipresent.) To speak of "densities" within the Godhead, when according to the dogmatic definitions of the Three cannot be distinguished except by their relations, is an error. The image is also misleading by placing God in an "environment", as if he required some pre-existing surroundings in order to exist Himself. And, as AnonMoos pointed out, these visions were never fully endorsed by any competent authority. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Environment outside God existed only since creation. Before Creation, God was self-environmental. God cannot be hypostatically omnipresent, but only can be emanatically omnipresent, because if He would be hypostatically omnipresent, He would be profanated by sinful things such as e.g. various filthy adult XXX elements placed inside His Substance, that is not in place. Various created things, including sinful things are placed only in His external emanation. This explanation avoids placing inside God's Holy Substance various filthy elements, that would be profanation of God.--83.5.24.96 21:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You know what the ancient Greeks said -- παντα καθαρα καθαροις. Anyway, the upshot of all this, is that you haven't even provided a verifiable bibliographical reference or direct quote from Emmerich's reported visions (which would allow us to assess independently whether your image is a valid visual representation of her reported visions) -- much less shown that this is fairly widespread and accepted traditional mainstream Christian iconography (which is the criterion for putting images on this page, as has been explained before). AnonMoos 21:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't change my indents. At this depth the text column becomes absurdly narrow if we indent one more level for each response.

You confuse substance with hypostasis. Be that as it may, there is no "outside" to God. Do you realize what you are saying here? That sin has power over God? We cannot repel God merely by sinning. If you think the Roman Catholic Church teaches something different, I refer you to [5]: "[A]s every kind of Divine action ad extra is really identical with the Divine nature or essence, it follows that God is really present everywhere in creation not merely per virtuten et operationem, but per essentiam. In other words God Himself, or the Divine nature, is in immediate contact with, or immanent in, every creature -- conserving it in being and enabling it to act." Moreover, creation is not an "eternal emanation" from God. It is temporal and finite, and is the result of a free-willed act of God and not an involuntary emanation.

The point of all this WRT the article is that the model presented is incompatable with the teaching of any significant Christian body, and for that reason alone ought not be included, even if it were well-known enough to be notable. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. As an Eastern Orthodox Christian I should add that I don't agree with the quotation above. However, lex orandi, lex credendi and we constantly pray to God "who is everywhere present and fillest all things." TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't talked that sin has power over God. I talked how God avoids possibility of sin having power over God, and I talked that sin has no power over God, due to using only external God's emanation by God for sustaining created reality.--83.5.24.96 21:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

External links

There are a lot. I can't imagine that all of them are covered under WP:EL. I'm taking out some, but someone who knows the article better may want to check and make sure I don't take out anything important. -- Anaraug 08:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)