Talk:Trinity/Archive 9

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

May I recommend the removal of the third paragraph ('Terms such as "monotheism" and "incarnation", are not found in the Bible, but they denote theological concepts concerning Christian faith that are believed to be contained in the Bible. Even the term "Bible" is not found in the Bible. "Trinity" is another such term.'). Biblical terminology in general, does not seem pertinent to the topic. The fact that the word 'Trinity' is not biblical is irrelevant. The doctrine can be said to have been introduced in passages such as 1John 5:7. I also suggest that the reference to Matt Slick's article is unnecessary, indeed, unhelpful, since it is just one of tens of thousands of similarly ephemeral and unaccredited articles on this topic that have been introduced to the internet during the past twenty years. Katbun (talk) 08:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

As an Orthodox Christian, I agree with you that the fact 'Trinity' is not biblical is indeed irrelevant, and I think the paragraph/sentence does contain rather more verbiage than is really needed. But I would tend to think that there are a good many Protestants who would consider the fact as relevant, because the Sola Scriptura doctrine is so widespread. So I do think it appropriate to use Matt Slick's article or something else along the same line of content, somewhere in the article. I also think that its current placement in a paragraph alone is a misplacement, and too much of an emphasis on just the one bare fact, and that it would be better merged into the fifth paragraph. I can't help but agree that this particular article has little to recommend it in the way of credentials, and is quite likely to prove ephemeral, so it's possible to challenge the source on the basis of WP:RS. However, the content itself looks to me to be fairly mainstream Protestant and a good deal more solid than many such questionable sources that are brought here, so I'm not going to push for removal on that basis. I would suggest that the article could be improved by its replacement with a more substantial source to back up the point.

I'm going to be bold and make a change to the article. If anyone objects, just revert me and return here, and discussion can continue. I have no interest in trying to unsettle things in any way. Evensteven (talk) 17:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what happen in the most recent unsigned, anonymous edits to this section of the topic. Can someone please review it? Thanks! :) Camille G. Weston (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

This position was echoed by the late Herbert W. Armstrong, a 20th century radio preacher who founded The Worldwide Church of God, whose position brought others to describe him as an admixture of Mormonism ("social trinitarianism" might be called "social conception of Deity") and the Jehovah's Witnesses ("simple Godhead" or "simple unitarianism").

The fact that nontrinitarian translations of the English Bible appeared so early Christendom is another key point that illustrates the widespread social acceptance within Christendom of the (seemingly) minority conception of 'Theology proper' (the nature of Deity) among churchgoers professing to believe.

Scoping out the broad historical matrix in which this discussion was carried out publicly AND theologically among scholars within and outside Christendom is something Wikipedians could hope to do, and their doing so with succinct rigor could offer a great intellectual service to inquiring readers. --20:19, 15 September 2012‎ MaynardClark

We have an article on Binitarianism, but it's never gained much support within traditional mainstream "orthodox" Christianity. Otherwise, I'm not sure how you would propose to improve the article. AnonMoos (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Someone explain why the sourced references to two Church doctors on logical coherency, Augustine and Hilary of Poitiers, (and the Athanasian Creed) were removed as "unsourced opinions". And why we have an unsourced reference to Bernard Lonergan which does not even explain his position (I have never heard of him). Reading the wikipedia article on Lonergan, he stated the trinity "is a theological mystery in the strict sense and can only be understood analogically." What does that have to do with logical coherency? Lonergan will not be understood until the opinions of at least Augustine and Aquinas are stated, but why does this reference a 20th century Jesuit priest rather than a doctor of the Church? Or shall I add just Augustine and Aquinas and leave out Hilary? Or pull in an Orthodox doctor? The section on logical coherency is lending undue weight to one opinion since 2010 and needs to be fixed. As I had explained the Trinity is regarded by most Christians as a mystery (especially the Orthodox), and questions on logical coherency seems to be only addressed from within the Catholic tradition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Webber (talk • contribs) 16:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Did I miss whatever source you cited for your claim that "the questionable logical coherency of the doctrine of a Trinity defined as three persons is apparent in the Athanasian Creed itself"? I still can't find it. And "unfathomable" does not mean "incoherent", an idea that moreover lacks a reliable-source citation. Esoglou (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I had rewritten it, that was removed - but for the reason that the Athanasian Creed isn't accepted among the Orthodox. Hilary's statement that God is unfathomable has nothing to do with logical coherency, its to the infinity of God which will never be understood - thus most state its a mystery and leave it at that. Its still incomplete - if Lonergan (or someone else) said something significant I would really like to know what it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Webber (talk • contribs) 03:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Good. Esoglou (talk) 08:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

---

I'm not sure whether someone in the discussion above may be referring to the occurrence of the word "incomprehensible" in the Athanasian Creed, but that's actually a 16th-century mistranslation of the Latin word immensus, which means something like "unlimited" or "infinite" much more than it does "incomprehensible"... AnonMoos (talk) 13:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I tried to find this issue in the archives but I could not find it. What is the problem with using the word "holy" for the Trinity? Could I add it to the article? thanks in advance...CICMI (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Not completely sure what you're asking. It's not Wikipedia's role to assert on our own initiative that the Trinity is holy, but if many people commonly use the term "Holy Trinity", then we can report on that. It probably shouldn't be the name of the article, though... AnonMoos (talk) 06:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

They may have a point, as the term (referring to the Christian doctrine) is usually prefixed by the word "Holy" in my experience, so it is both customary and disambiguating. But I'm not necessarily advocating for the name change... Saegeas (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Oops, I see that there are other sections here which treat this topic in greater detail. There are 3 or 4 sections (here in Talk) that could be merged around this. Saegeas (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Social Trinitarianism is NOT defined as "three gods in three persons." That is Tritheism. The Wikipedia article on Social Trinitarianism (which is linked to the words "Social Trinitarianism" in the third paragraph) does not make this mistake. This needs to be corrected.108.228.164.215 (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Carey Vinzant 12/19/2012

Is this better? ~

talk

) 23:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Why is it that this article has no criticism section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.227.135 (talk) 09:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Because 1) Criticism sections are more tolerated than encouraged at Wikipedia and 2) Various opposing and dissenting views are discussed over the course of the article... AnonMoos (talk) 19:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

trinityis my own name that I see and here a lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.249.54 (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Why is it that, throughout most of the article, the word "formula" is used to denote the idea of the Trinity instead of the word "doctrine?" A doctrine is an important ideology in an organization. Shouldn't the ideology of the Trinity be referred to as a doctrine instead of a formula? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Praestituat (talk • contribs) 04:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

"Doctrine" is used many times (31) throughout. Everywhere I see "formula," (10) we're talking about a specific creedal formula or the baptismal formula. --JFH (talk) 14:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with JFH. a quick check showed both Tillich and Justo González make explicit use of the word "formula" for set phrases which are a particular way of expressing the content of a doctrine and I am sure more invetigation would provide other examples. Jpacobb (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I see a problem with consistency in this article: sometimes the word "Trinitarian" is used, whereas in other parts we see "trinitarian". Wouldn't it be best to reach a consensus on the matter? Likewise, if the proper term is "Trinitarian", wouldn't that force "nontrinitarian" to be written "non-Trinitarian"? After all, in the Hyphen article, it reads, "Certain prefixes (co-, pre-, mid-, de-, non-, anti-, etc.) may or may not be hyphenated. (...) A hyphen is mandatory when a prefix is applied to a proper (capitalized) adjective (un-American, de-Stalinisation)." Dontreader (talk) 08:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

"Definition of TRINITARIAN

1 capitalized : of or relating to the Trinity, the doctrine of the Trinity, or adherents to that doctrine

2 : having three parts or aspects : threefold" (Merriam-Webster).

"Nontrinitarian" seems to be a Wikipedia invention (2 dictionaries), and as such should be excluded from Wikipedia, which does not admit original research. Cf. this result of a search for "non-trinitarian dictionary". The article Nontrinitarianism thus seems to require renaming. Esoglou (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Esoglou. At least you seem to be establishing that throughout this article the word "Trinitarian" must be capitalized, so I'm willing to do that if no one comes up with a counterargument; however, although the term "non-Trinitarian" might not show up in dictionaries, it is probably because it's a very technical term but it's taken very seriously by many people who don't agree with the concept of the Trinity. Here's one example: http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/About.FAQ/ID/251/What-Does-Non-Trinitarian-Mean.htm

Besides, although the Wikipedia article about "nontrinitarianism" (which should apparently be called "non-Trinitarianism") does have some original research, I believe it provides a vast amount of useful verifiable information that cannot be found in this article. In theory, one would think that the article about Unitarianism would be enough, but it has a link to "nontrinitarianism" for a reason, surely. It says, "To avoid confusion, this article is about Unitarianism as a religious movement (proper noun). For the generic form of unitarianism (the Christology), see Nontrinitarianism." Since I'm not an expert, hopefully others will express their opinions, too. Dontreader (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there is any objection to "Non-Trinitarianism" as a title for the other article; but I think the present title, "Nontrinitarianism" is unacceptable, not being commonly used outside of Wikipedia. The title of that article should be changed and references to "nontrinitarianism" in other articles should be changed to "non-Trinitarianism". Esoglou (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I have conducted my own research based on your claims, Esoglou, reaching the same conclusions. "Trinitarian" is a proper noun and must therefore be capitalized unless it does not have a religious meaning; this capitalization is also required for "Trinitarianism". Also, based on my research concerning hyphens, "non-Trinitarian" is the correct form, as you pointed out, plus indeed it's the way the term is spelled in theological articles (not "nontrinitarian", which is incorrect). Does anyone disagree? Dontreader (talk) 23:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I concur that it should be capitalized as "Trinity". To Christians, this is another name for God, used particularly when we feel it is important to distinguish between God as Trinity and God the Father. Similarly Jews use several names for God, all capitalized, the Divine Name (the Tetragrammaton), Elohim and Adonai, all of which are capitalized. M-Lee-T (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I came across a statement in

.

Therefore, I believe that claim should be removed unless we can demonstrate that what Raymond E. Brown wrote supports it without any bias, which I believe is impossible. The only reason why one can argue that "There is no significant tendency among modern scholars to deny that John 1:1 and John 20:28 identify Jesus with God." is because the vast majority of scholars are Trinitarians, and therefore they are biased. The non-Trinitarians (who are also biased) are much smaller in number but they disagree completely with that assertion. In my opinion the claim that is being made does not show a neutral point of view, which is essential to Wikipedia. Dontreader (talk) 06:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

There would be faulty logic in a claim that a scholar who believes Jesus is God cannot be cited on the quite distinct question whether a particular text refers to Jesus as God. Similar faulty logic would be found in a claim that a scholar who does not believe that Jesus is God cannot be cited on the, I repeat, quite distinct question whether a particular text refers to Jesus as God. Read this article by Brown. Esoglou (talk) 07:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the article, Esoglou. I wish every Evangelical Christian in America would read it. Definitely Brown was a brilliant theologian, and I noticed that some of the scholars he cited are not Trinitarians, so he was very open-minded. I still wonder, however, if the assertion that is being made should be attributed to him. Since you seem to agree with me that the reference given for the claim is from a book that he wrote, shouldn't we specify that according to Raymond E. Brown, "There is no significant tendency among modern scholars to deny that John 1:1 and John 20:28 identify Jesus with God." That seems like standard procedure to me. Thanks again for sharing. Dontreader (talk) 08:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Although I have three of Brown's books, I don't have the one referred to in the footnote and I don't feel like searching for it just now. I do believe that the citation is accurate, but you may prefer to reword the article. Esoglou (talk) 08:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Esoglou. I did something like that on one occasion, specifying who had made the claim (based on the source that was provided), but back then I was able to study the source article online; this time I don't feel comfortable with making a similar edit because, like you, I don't have access to the information in the pages of the book that are cited as the source. I'm sorry for my late reply, and certainly I regret that our solid points on the "non-Trinitarian" issue did not persuade others to agree to rename the article. I wish more editors had participated in the debate. Anyway, we tried our best. Keep up the great work, and thanks again for showing up when I asked for your help. Dontreader (talk) 03:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

An IP editor 72.93.248.186 changed the original wording "can only be understood in trinitarian terms" to "can be understood only in trinitarian terms" on the grounds that this is correct phrasing. Fowler (Modern English Usage (1950) s.v.) gives the following guidelines:

1. There is an orthodox position for the adverb "only";
2. It is wrong to choose another position that spoils or obscures the meaning;
3. However, a different position is justified by history and colloquial usage provided the meaning remains clear;
4. Furthermore, rhetorical needs may require this change.

Having reread the passage from McGrath, I consider that the original text is unambiguous and represents his thought better and have reverted to it. Jpacobb (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Given the length of the text and the density of footnotes required, I suggest moving to the

) 17:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

NPOV notice in the source comments

I have restored and strengthened the qualified and indirect language used in the introduction, to reflect better the fact it's only a claim. Since the vast majority of English Wikipedia readers and editors come from some kind of Christian Trinitarian background, it's easier to assume it's self-evident, obvious or natural. However, we still have the responsibility to present things which can be verified, and as such, we can only verify that certain people say things one way or another in their particular doctrine. And as the introduction is the part many people end their reading with, it requires even more care.

To make sure it stays that way, I have added a notice in the source comments before the introduction text. If you have any suggestions to the wording, that is of course welcome. mathrick (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The Holy Trinity is NOT like Hannah Montana and Miley Cyrus, i.e. the Water, Ice and Steam example. This is modalism. Rather, the Holy Trinity is one God. And within the Trinity is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who is "God" (i.e. attribute). But it is the Trinity itself who is God :) 129.180.152.199 (talk) 12:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree about modalism... AnonMoos (talk) 08:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The second half of the first paragraph seems to have largely been taken from the Jehovah's Witness publication "Should You Believe in the Trinity" yet this publication is not cited at all. The primary portion of the text that is reproduced are quotes from various sources, but the selection, editing, and presentation of the quotations is almost verbatim that of the JW publication. Googling many selections in this paragraph brings up the JW publication as one of the top results consistently. I'm concerned that this is biased and may be plagiarism. Chriscub81 (talk) 07:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You are correct. I have duly edited the passage for correct weight and for definition of the source. Evensteven (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

> Terms such as "monotheism", "incarnation", "omnipotence", are not found in the Bible

This sentence, currently found in the article, is totally absurd. The Bible also contains the Old Testament (Torah) wherein the holiest "Shema" prayer is clearly recited as the supreme statement of monotheism: "Hear, oh Israel, Adonai Elohim is our God, the only one God!"

In fact there has never been any "hard monotheistic" religion found in the world, provably ouside the Abrahamic descent of tradition. Therefore it is impossible for the Bible not to contain the term of monotheism, because monotheism could not then exist at all! The term ec'had (~ only-one) perfectly defines monotheism. Abrahamic arabs (muslims) call the same word "tawhid". 82.131.156.176 (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The idea is there, but not the term. You won't find the term in any verse. Esoglou (talk) 08:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

82.131.156.176 -- Believe it or not, words for "religion" and "Judaism" are not attested in Biblical Hebrew (though a kind of equivocal verb form occurs in the late Biblical Hebrew of Esther 8:17). The ancient Greeks had a habit of comparing and contrasting philosophies and belief systems in the abstract, and coining suitable technical terminology for such analysis. The Israelites/Jews did not do this during the Biblical period -- and when some Jews started imitating such Greek types of analysis during the Hellenistic period, they were more often located in Alexandria than in Galilee or Judea...

The kind of numerical compounding seen in a Greek word such as "monotheism" is not really a native ancient Hebrew type of word formation, and when it was felt that Modern Hebrew needed such a set of numerical prefixes, the prefixes were borrowed from Aramaic and Greek (חד, דו, תלת). It would be hard to compose a single word meaning "monotheism" within the typical morphological patterns of Biblical Hebew (unless the "theism" part were left out and understood by implication, as with the Arabic word tawħīd), and such a word is not found in the text of the Old Testament.. AnonMoos (talk) 13:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, since the idea is there (as pointed out by 82.131.156.176), but not the term (as pointed out by Esoglou), what exactly is the point of pointing that out in the article? Is this not an example of rather pointy nit-picking that might better be omitted? Evensteven (talk) 02:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Some people make a big deal of the fact that no word for "Trinity" is found in the Greek New Testament, but the Israelites/Jews did not traditionally have habits of mind that would naturally lead to the coining of such abstract technical terms of philosophical or theological analysis (when some ancient Jews eventually imitated such Greek analysis, they tended to be Alexandrians, and the New Testament was not written in Alexandria). AnonMoos (talk) 04:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Right. That's partly why I'm asking about its

pointiness. If someone feels the need to make the point, then it should be up front, neutrally-stated, appropriately sourced, and relegated to the proper article section. We shouldn't allow slithering references to what are in fact different points of view. There's no reason to hide those points away, but there are mechanisms for making them balanced coverage that do not insinuate. When I see a talk page section open with "absurd denial", then regardless of which side someone is on, I think that can be an indication that the POV has not been neutrally handled. Only pointing out that "term x" does not appear in Biblical text does not cover the point that is being made, and full coverage is what is called for (if notable, which this probably is). Who makes the point, and what meaning it holds for them need to be made explicit. Evensteven (talk

) 07:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Since the newcomer who made the comment has not returned, let us just drop it. Esoglou (talk) 07:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, and with the coverage given later in the article. My question was centered on the appearance of the observation in the introductory paragraphs (where actually I think it is handled well also), but was geared towards reducing the volume of reactions such as those of our visitor. The point is a notable reaction to the Trinity doctrine, but not what I'd call an absolute requirement for inclusion at the article's start. Sorry I didn't make that clearer in my comments farther above. Evensteven (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Please excuse my obtuseness. I should have understood. The reason that the short paragraph is there is that, earlier, paragraphs kept appearing stating that the doctrine of the Trinity is non-Biblical, since the Bible doesn't speak of it; and this called for responses like those given here in this section of the Talk page. Esoglou (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Please excuse mine also. Once I thought about it, I figured that must have been the reason it was there. This sort of thing always seems to raise somebody's issues. In fact, that's what this whole talk section was about. Isn't hindsight wonderful? Evensteven (talk) 08:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I propose to remove this image from the article as being in very poor taste, but was accused of censorship by a one-time drive-by IP when I tried it on Oct 15th. I don't feel bound by the opinion of just one editor who does not contribute regularly, so I want to ask the community its opinion. If there are objections to its removal, please speak in its favor. Evensteven (talk) 01:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree it's ugly and adds little value. You might replace it with something for that spot.--JFH (talk) 02:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Done - actually the article should have one same-appearance image, so I've moved it down. There are better ones though. Johnbod (talk) 02:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

That's an improvement; thanks. I'd still prefer to remove the Leiber, though. I'm not much with images myself, and Orthodox iconography never depicts the Holy Spirit as a humanoid figure. I'm not conversant enough with western art to have a good idea where to look. Help would be welcome for a replacement. Evensteven (talk) 02:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Suggest you read the section here or the main article. Or look at the Commons category. The article is still rather under-illustrated. Removing all images not compatible with Orthodox norms would be censorship, so I suggest you don't do that. Johnbod (talk) 02:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll take a look. Not seeking something Orthodox necessarily, just saying that that's what I'm more familiar with. Evensteven (talk) 04:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Fridolin Leiber was a kind of popular pietistic artist, well known for his illustrations of guardian angels watching over children walking on the edges of cliffs, etc. I really don't know that I would use his images to illustrate subtle points of theology... AnonMoos (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Leiber's Tritheistic image

The image is situated next to the section on perichoresis and would be better substituted with an image of the Nicene council, say

or perhaps a more contemporary Coptic representation of Athanasius.

Three figures gives a completely misleading impression of historic notions of the Trinity, let alone of perichoresis. It's not just in poor taste, it's grossly inaccurate. Any ordinary reader would justly assume the Trinity just means three gods. Cpsoper (talk) 13:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I have substituted the crass depiction of the three Persons at the head of the article by an image of St Patrick's traditional if perhaps apocryphal shamrock. This statue is in profound conflict with the convictions of the principal enunciators of the doctrine, and would be regarded by all apologists for the Trinity in the first three centuries, as nothing but a crude idol. Athanasius, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Martyr's polemic against pagan idolatry (to name but four) would be meaningless hypocrisy if such an object was to be found in their churches or homes. Such depiction of the Father is widely still regarded as a profound violation of the Second Command, even outside of Protestant circles. It has all the charm and comeliness of a Hebdo cartoon on the Mohammed page, the Eritrean flag in the article on Ethiopia, or a spitting images puppet on Queen Elizabeth's and none of the humour. Cpsoper (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

This is your opinion? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Is that a rhetorical question?Cpsoper (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• I couldn’t agree less with the reasons invoked to replace the picture and with the gross terms chosen to describe it. This is an encyclopedia, not a theological text of early Christianity. And this kind of symbolic and naïve depiction of the Trinity was very common at the time it was made. The fact that this type of representation was common in contemporary churches and convents is enough proof that it wasn’t rejected as crass or heretic. And reason enough for being considered encyclopedic in an article about the subject. Thus, I have restored the original image until some consensus is reached here to replace it. Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The commonness of idolatry of this particularly extreme kind in Portugal needs referencing, it connotes a profound ignorance of the 2nd commandment and just as importantly in this article's context of the writings of the Early Church writers who frequently cited it. This image has no place here. I have restored the shamrock, which represents a more universal and far less contentious representation until a consensus is reached. Cpsoper (talk) 11:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• No dogmas or arguments of authority here, please! Once again, this is not a doctrinary text but an encyclopaedia. Please check in here the same kind of "idolatry" in other countries and other times. Reverted again. Please be patient and wait for other reactions, the image seems to be contentious only for you. Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The views, or 'dogmas' if you prefer, of the authors of the doctrine are the subject of the article, and the views of those who actually profess the doctrine are also its subject. Anyone who has perused cursorily them will know what I have written is accurate. This image stands in profound violation of those views and is both unrepresentative of and profoundly denigrating to their subject. These views are based on RS authorities, both primary and secondary, if contested, references need to be supplied promptly. Cpsoper (talk) 12:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I would be suspect because I know well the Portuguese traditions and so I have the duplicate duty of impartiality. By the way the shamrock leaf, employed by Saint Patrick, according to the legend and tradition, is also a good traditional symbol. Probably countries emerging from this tradition, as Portugal (in the case), are among those who have created more traditions of the Holy Trinity. There are here no idol, but a widespread symbology in Portugal and in the world in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, a time of great orthodoxy but which still reflected the long heterodox traditions. The Son out of the Father's womb, connected to the Holy Spirit - the Holy Trinity. A symbology of those centuries.

Interestingly the Tradition of the Cult of the Holy Spirit strongly linked to the Trinity, created in Portugal (by Templars and Franciscans at the end of the 13th century and the beginning of the 14th century) and spread around the world, from Brazil to the USA and Canada (persecuted by the Inquisition in the 16th and 17th centuries, especially in Europe and Portuguese India, where the ortodox organization had more means), avoided always the physical and idolatrous representations (had not in fact representations in its space and temples - the Empires, nor in its Symbols), having the Flag, the Dove, the Imperial Crown, the Sceptre, and the Emperor sometimes (represented by a Person - sometimes a child) as symbols. However this representation (in the article) was widespread by the people in the 16th century, and it was a vision of the time, not an idolater - or if it is considered idolatrous had no such intention - of the Trinity, but symbolic.

Wikipedia articles are not to please dogmatic views, but to give the reader an insight throughout history on the subject.--LuzoGraal (talk) 13:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Addition: I understand your argument. Its not a completely encyclopaedic argument, but theological, and very important for the article. I assume that this "Protestant" argument would be indicated to the Sistine Chapel and much of Christian art, Catholic and of other Churchs. Interestingly, all architectural construction and the artistic of the Sistine chapel and all the Vatican at the beginning of the 16th century is based and inspired, according to the Pope at the time, and above all, Michael Angelo, amongst the other Achitects and Artists, mostly in the Prophet Zechariah, but also on Prophet Jeremiah and other Prophets also - the New Jerusalem, but also the king Solomon Temple - , based in the Torah, the Tanakh, the Old Testament. Also sustained by Waldemar Januszcak`s work (reputed art historian) and others --LuzoGraal (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Inserting an image of this nature is itself a dogmatic assertion. Habbakuk for example describes such depictions as a 'deceiving guide', Jeremiah as 'a doctrine of vanities', and 'the work of errors'. The shamrock, despite its modalistic undertones, is a much less pedagogic, more neutral image, rich with historic, catholic allusion and meet for wiki. The authors alluded to in this article would regard this image as deeply offensive, dishonorouable and unrepresentative, not to mention their own Author. However if you insist on breaking the Second Commandment, please look to the consequences. Cpsoper (talk) 10:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The subcategory, "Non-trinitarianism" includes the

) 04:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

If they reject the doctrine of the Trinity, they're antitrinitarian. Simple as that. If you would like to make a note in the article similar to what you wrote above, that would be appropriate. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 04:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@Spem Reduxit: The History section to which you added material about the 2016 murder of Father Hamel is devoted to the history of the Trinity as a church doctrine. It describes changes and controversies within Christianity, and the last date mentioned before your addition is 1331. The recent terrorist attack does not belong in that section. If you insist on adding the material again, there is an Islamic views section later on in the article where it might be more appropriate. However, I advise against restoring it. The terrorist's opinion, which you quote, doesn't seem to be about the trinity as such, and if it were, it wouldn't establish the trinity as a "negative focus". I'm pinging @Editor2020: who reverted your addition once already, seems to specialize in this area, and is a more experienced editor, in case they would like to comment. HazelAB (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@HazelAB: Thanks for your input. Actually, we cannot establish that Editor2020 reverted my edit for that reason, because my original edit was in two separate spots. S/he may have been removing it because of the *other* para... It matters not when the last entry in the history section is dated (1331). It matters simply that the Trinity is a focus of Muslim terrorists. This is both newsworthy for the Trinity and very topical history. Spem Reduxit (talk) 22:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay then @Spem Reduxit: I'm not going to engage in an edit war and it's clearly pointless to argue with you. The page has a lot of traffic and quite a number of watchers. We'll see what the consensus turns out to be. HazelAB (talk) 23:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

It's

primary source. Editor2020 (talk

) 01:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for raising the primary source idea. From that page, we find: "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." so it doesn't seem to fit. "An account of a traffic incident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the event; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources." It is not those either. This seems to be a misunderstanding on @Editor2020:'s part.

I disagree with

talk

) 22:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

You are correct, it is not a primary source.Editor2020 (talk) 22:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

This section is rather POVish - it is slanted against economic hierarchy. It seems to be cherry-picking theologians, and even quotes from those theologians - as well as giving unattributed summaries and interpretations. For example, it says "Augustine also rejected an economic hierarchy within the Trinity." But the quote that follows could well be consistent with economic hierarchy. The only secondary source we have here is van Buren on Calvin, and even then I believe there might be a difference of opinion among scholars as to what Calvin believed. StAnselm (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

---

I concur that it is slanted. I'm new here, so won't say too much. I would rather get the experts involved, people with whom I am in contact. There are lots of good secondary sources here that are never mentioned. I know Warfield's work and question that slant on him. Warfield clearing defined his terms as those terms were used in his era circa 1910. To use them as they are used today is inappropriate. I was taught my trinitarian theology by one who was Warfield's student. I was puzzled by the comment on the "economic Trinity" since in fact it is slanted that way, downplaying the "immanent trinity". This segment hugely lacks balance. As for citations, one very distinguished contemporary author who is never mentioned is Fred Sanders, "The Triune God". I could name others. M-Lee-T (talk) 05:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Thinking further. I think this section needs to be split somehow. The rest of the entire Trinity article seems to focus on the mainstream of Christian thought through 20 centuries. The above discussion enters the sphere of controversy, as yet unresolved, among the broad swath of the evangelical churches, primarily in the United States. It is important information, but needs to be separated from the overall historic presentation of the Christian faith in general. It has been called the Great Trinitarian Debate. One further comment, it is appropriate to focus on the immanent Trinity, since the economic Trinity is dependent on a clear understanding of the immanent Trinity. That is one of the reasons behind the current confusion in evangelicalism. I suggest a pair of books by the same author, Fred Sanders, a renown scholar in the Doctrine of the Trinity. His book 'The Triune God' is more heavily theological and comes at the Trinity from the POV of the immanent Trinity. Then, because it is easier for many people to think of the Trinity using the economic Trinity as a starting point, he followed up with a book called 'The Deep Things of God' from the POV of the economic Trinity. Since the immanent Trinity, put simply, deals with who God is, it is hard to get a coherent sense of the meaning of what God does (the economic Trinity) without it. If one sees one person do a certain thing, the implications might be very different if the same action is taken by a different person. The economic Trinity without strong roots in the immanent Trinity thus becomes very subjective.M-Lee-T (talk) 16:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

This referenced had been "orphaned" and was causing a cite error on the page.

• /^[1] /* — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itohacs (talk • contribs) 22:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

If this ref is orphaned, why not simply delete it? Evensteven (talk) 22:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@Vectro: I appreciate that this section you removed could use some work. But it was sourced, and the source anyway is allowed to have POV, and the article can describe that POV neutrally, so the stuff is not irreparable. Furthermore, however poorly the "stuff" was stated, either by editor or by source, it still has a direct place within the theologies of most Christian branches, one way or another, and there is clear mention in the Bible, which is why it exists in theology. In addition, it is relevant in the article in that I have heard it said within both Orthodox and Anglican communions (almost certainly in Catholic ones also) that it is the loving relationship of God within the three persons of the Trinity that is a well-spring of that love that Bible and theologians talk about. So, it seems to me that the section ought to be retained, flawed though its current state may be, and perhaps tag it for the work that it needs. In the short term, re-word so the article itself does not speak in POV. I'm sure there must be better sources, but certainly better ways for editors to present the material. I don't know offhand, but I'll take a look around as I am able. It will not be within the next week. Evensteven (talk) 22:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Roger E. Olson says that a number of evangelical theologians hold the view that there is a hierarchy of authority in the Trinity with the Son being subordinate to the Father. "The Gospel of John makes this clear as Jesus repeatedly mentions that he came to do the Father's will."^[1] Olsen cautions, however, that the hierarchy in the "economic Trinity" should be distinguished from the "immanent Trinity". He cites the Cappadocian Fathers, "the Father is the source or “fount” of divinity within the Godhead; the Son and the Spirit derive their deity from the Father eternally (so there is no question of inequality of being). Their favorite analogy was the sun and its light and heat. There is no imagining the sun without its light and heat and yet it is the source of them."^[1]

Benjamin B. Warfield saw a principle of subordination in the "modes of operation" of the Trinity, but was also hesitant to ascribe the same to the "modes of subsistence" in relation of one to another. While noting that it is natural to see a subordination in function as reflecting a similar subordination in substance, he suggests that this might be the result of "...an agreement by Persons of the Trinity – a "Covenant" as it is technically called – by virtue of which a distinct function in the work of redemption is assumed by each".^[2]Rafaelosornio (talk) 03:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Why must they be removed? StAnselm (talk) 04:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

They believe in the Subordinationism, I respect the ideas of these authors, I just added the section Subordinationism to the article of the Trinity.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafaelosornio (talk • contribs)

This article isn't "The Trinity as defined by the Catholic Church," but just "Trinity" (granted, with the understanding that it's the Christian Trinity). Groups that identify as Christian which have views on the matter should be given

WP:DUE weight, even if we disagree with them. Ian.thomson (talk

) 04:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

As some other users have also noted, the article was, at some point, renamed as Trinity.

The official Roman catholic church definition (1 billion followers) is:

• Holy Trinity in english [1] as in "III. THE HOLY TRINITY IN THE TEACHING OF THE FAITH"
  
• The Most Holy Trinity in Latin (Sanctissima Trinitas) [2] as in "III. Sanctissima Trinitas in doctrina fidei"

The forms Trinity and Blessed Trinity are also used when the context implies it: for instance: "The faith of all Christians rests on the Trinity." St. Caesarius of Arles, Sermo 9, Exp. symb.: CCL 103, 47. (note how the phrase is attributed to st. Caesarius not just simply Caesaurius, although he could be refered to by his name only, given the context)

The official Orthodox Church (250 million followers) definition is:

• Holy Trinity in english [3]

Depending on the context simply "the Trinity" could be used, but never as the title.

• Holy Trinity in greek (Αγία Τριάδα) [4]

In the russian orthodox church is referred to as Святая Троица (Holy Trinity) however the russian wikipedia article uses the wording Trinity and contains references in english and very few to Russian language so it seems like a carry over from the english article.

Also, The article on the Holy Spirit is named like that, not just simply Spirit because you don't like the terminology "Holy". The article on Saint Peter is named like that not just simply "Peter" because you don't like him to be called Saint. Wikipedia has to comply with information sources.

Please cite your sources in which Trinity for the formal definition (main subject in a title) is preferred over the most common "Holy Trinity" (1.2 billion followers prefer that definition, therefore is the mainstream definition unless you can prove otherwise), the sources in the article body that use the wording Trinity are not as widely adopted as the official definitions by the religious movements. It could be said that philosophical/historical views on the subject prefer not to use the wording "Holy" but, as I said, 1.2 Billion people prefer to use "Holy" in conjuction with Trinity. Ctmv (talk) 02:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The names "Trinity" and "Holy Trinity" are both commonly used. All the sources you cite above use both names interchangeably. In fact, the first mention of the concept in the first source you list just calls it the "Trinity". The second source you cite is the same as the first, only in Latin. The last two sources you cite are the same page in English and Greek from OrthodoxWiki.org, which is not a

reliable source because it is a wiki and anyone can edit it. (Wikipedia is not a reliable source either for the same reason.) It is perfectly acceptable to just call it the "Trinity" in a title; otherwise we would not have titles like Trinity Guide to the Trinity by William J. La Due, published in 2003 by Trinity Press International, a Catholic book publisher. "Holy Trinity" is certainly the more complete name, but, since the word "Trinity" itself can really only refer to the "Holy Trinity" in Christianity, I do not think there is necessarily a need to disambiguate here. I am fine with this article being titled either "Trinity" or "Holy Trinity"; either name is fine. I probably would prefer "Holy Trinity" over just "Trinity," though, because it is the more complete name and I do think "Holy Trinity" may be slightly more common than "Trinity." --Katolophyromai (talk

) 03:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Good. You would be in favor to rename to Holy Trinity. (but would be fine with Trinity as well, that's neutral) Ctmv (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Holy Trinity in english [5] That link starts with the statement "The Trinity is One." Not "The Holy Trinity is One."
• The Most Holy Trinity in Latin (Sanctissima Trinitas) [6] And it also includes:
  • "Trinitas est fidei mysterium sensu stricto, unum nempe e mysteriis in Deo absconditis,"
  • "Fides omnium christianorum in Trinitate consistit."
  • "Sed in unica operatione divina unaquaeque id manifestat quod Ei in Trinitate proprium est, praecipue in missionibus divinis Incarnationis Filii et doni Spiritus Sancti."
  • "Spiritum quoque Sanctum, qui est Tertia in Trinitate Persona, unum atque aequalem cum Deo Patre et Filio credimus esse Deum, unius substantiae, unius quoque esse naturae"

and other such passages.

• Holy Trinity in english [7] That is
  user generated content
  and not usable as a source. It also says "...the Church believes that the Trinity is three divine persons..."
• Holy Trinity in greek (Αγία Τριάδα) [8] Also UGC. Also contains "Οι τρεις υποστάσεις ή πρόσωπα της Τριάδος είναι ο Πατήρ, ο Υιός και το Άγιο Πνεύμα."

Please cite your sources in which Trinity for the formal definition (main subject in a title) is preferred over the most common "Holy Trinity" Whether it is used as a title or not is immaterial, especially when it seems that even statements of dogma frequently use "the Trinity". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

you say: "The names Trinity and Holy Trinity" are both commonly used" I said: "The forms Trinity and Blessed Trinity are also used when the context implies it". How then Do you select Trinity over Holy Trinity and over Blessed Trinity?

In latin they say : "in Trinitate proprium est"... that's like saying: "The faith of all Christians rests on the Trinity." it's fine, Trinity is not incorrect in the context. But, When do you use Trinity instead of Blessed Trinity? Or When do you use Holy Trinity instead of Trinity?

In greek it is stated: "Οι τρεις υποστάσεις ή πρόσωπα της Τριάδος είναι ο Πατήρ, ο Υιός και το Άγιο Πνεύμα.": The Three Individual centers of Will or Persons of the Trinity are The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit..... Then why didn't they use Blessed Trinity instead of Trinity? or why didn't they use Holy Trinity instead of Trinity?

Let us see in day to day language: The Queen Elizabeth II of England can be referred to as Her Majesty the Queen Elizabeth II of England, or she could be referred to as Elizabeth II, or she could be referred to as The Queen, or she could be referred to as "Elizabeth" then When Elizabeth and when Elizabeth II?, when Elizabeth II the Queen of England and the commonwealth?

It all depends on style! Elizabeth, would be all too coloquial; Her Majesty The Queen, Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms, Queen of Jamaica and her other realms and territories in Jamaica, Queen of Australia and her other realms and territories in Australia, Elizabeth II would be too overly long for refer to her in the middle or title of an article.

So most naturally the article's name has to be the standard royal name: Elizabeth II, not "her majesty the Queen Elizabeth, Queen of England, etc..." nor would it be an adequate style of writing to name the article Elizabeth Alexandra Mary (that'd be too colloquial).

In the same way, "The Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, One being, Three Hypostasis, each Person being co-substantial and of the same essence" would be too long for the article name, but that's the theological definition. The Holy Trinity is the standard definition. The Blessed Trinity is the praising or religious definition, the Trinity is the coloquial one (read the simple one) when you are trying to refer to the concept quickly.

So, How do you choose? Simple, Standard definition as the title (or article's name), religious definition as something you can use when religiosity is concerned, coloquial definition when you are trying to quickly refer, long theological definition what you add to the standard definition. Placing the coloquial or simple definition first detracts in style of writing.

And that's the route other Official articles have taken, to use, for the title, the standard name: Holy Trinity instead of the Trinity instead of other longer names such as "Most Holy Trinity, Triune God, three Persons in One Ousia, etc..."

So it is a matter of official style of writing.Ctmv (talk) 04:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not confessional, and it is very doubtful that you will get consensus for this. But if you would like to actually propose to rename this page, please follow the instructions at

WP:RM#CM to open a formal discussion. The community will decide. Jytdog (talk

) 04:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Wikipedia is suppoused to be neutral not original. It is not a discussion about meaning but about form. And We do have articles with word Holly on them on their title on wikipedia as it is the correct wording in some cases, as it is with this one, it is a matter of style of writing and naming customs. I will see when I find the time to file the request and open the discussion there. Wikipedia shoudn't differ from other encyclopedia articles (or first level sources) on the subject in its naming customs (title name, names used in the body etc, etc).Ctmv (talk) 05:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

It is not a discussion about meaning but about form.Wikipedia is a descriptive body of work. As such, if your concern is not about the meaning of the term then it does not matter to us.

And We do have articles with word Holly on them The fact that we have other articles with the word Holy in the title

is explicitly not a compelling argument here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

05:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

It is, as I was responding to Another Wikipedia user that was infering the motivation of renaming to Holy Trinity is based on confessional paradigms only, when in addition to that, it is based on being complaint with the information sources and how they choose a name for an article.

The fact that you say that you despise so much form speaks very badly about your abilities as an Wikipedia editor/user, as form conveys message in a way that equivalent semantic structure could not. And if that wouldn't be the case, You and I wouldn't be discussing about it, because you would be equally happy having the adjective added to it as if it wasn't added to it.Ctmv (talk) 05:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Focus on content, not other editors. Characterizing other editors does not convince. O3000 (talk

) 11:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The fact that you say that you despise so much I have never said anything of the sort in any discussion with you. Regardless, none of this addresses the major problems with your case which I have already pointed out.

Tell me all about it.

12:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

As per the discusion above, the only agreed upon thing, is that the terms: Trinity, Blessed Trinity, Holy Trinity are equal in its meaning with each one of them being favored on top of the others, based, it seems, on personal or social preference depending and who or what issues an statement or writing about the subject. Ctmv (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Here are a few technical arguments why Trinity may suit better. Wikipedia being a secular encyclopedia, does not need to use special case or honorifics (God being an exception when meaning "the God", not speaking of gods). Manual of style guidelines with this spirit:

MOS:COMMONNAME. This article is expected to cover the Christian doctrine generally including major denominations and nontrinitarians (although not trimurti). Holy Spirit appears to be special in that even in denominations that are not usually using "holy" prefixes like the Jehovah's Witnesses, they call it the holy spirit. Moreover, "spirit" is way too general, the holy spirit only being one of many possible relationships. That is not the case for trinity. Thus it is not only personal preference. —PaleoNeonate

– 21:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I can see wikipedia is secular. Please note, however, that in official statements, religious congregations do, Actually, prefer the terminology "Holy Trinity", with casing, as per the references introduced in that talk section, mixing up with the "Trinity" terminology in the body as they see fit. Such variety in terminology is usually addressed in WP by the "referred to as" statements at the begining. Ctmv (talk) 23:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I checked and a redirect (like for Holy Bible) already exists. I would personally not object to a mention "often referred to as Holy Trinity" while generally using trinity for the article (I note however that Bible has no such statement, but does quote "The Holy Bible" once in the body of the text). —PaleoNeonate – 23:44, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't do it like that. That's akin to editing the Batman article to say " Batman (also known as The Dark Knight and The Caped Crusader) is a fictional... " Sure, those are legitimate AKAs, but nobody knows "The Caped Crusader" and doesn't know "Batman". It's the same thing, here. Nobody knows the "Holy Trinity" and not the "Trinity".

I get that the Trinity is more important to many more people than Batman is, but adding "Holy" to this as an AKA doesn't do anything to increase our editor's understanding.

That being said, I wouldn't object to something (even in the lede) like "Most Trinitarian Christians refer to 'The Holy Trinity'..." similar to the way the Batman article handles that character's AKAs. But we need a source that explicitly says this: The sources used thus far have merely been examples of "Holy Trinity" in use, and have not, to my knowledge, ever said anything about how widely or commonly used the phrase "Holy Trinity" is.

Tell me all about it.

13:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I think this would be a great approach. —PaleoNeonate – 15:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. O3000 (talk) 21:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

WP is not up there to make statistical analysis, nor is it up there to defy the knowledge as it is. It is not WP job to demand the reality to come up with a given type of source, it is about the knowledgeable to identify the information and expose it to the public. And while the phrase "most trinitarian Christians refer to it as ..." would seem at first as lacking source because of the statistical nature of the word "most", the statement "also referred to as the "Holy Trinity" is undeniable in its validity by the variety and officiality of the sources cited. Also the treatment of the introduction of alternative forms for a term that an article focuses on doesn't require an statistician analysys previous to it, it requires a valid source that refers to it in an official manner, and a group of people that acknowledges it as valid. I can see three wikipedia editors that have no problem with the introduction of the term the "Holy Trinity" based on information found on references, and have a tendency to think it is the more common actual form; I can also see two Wikipedia users that dislike the introduction of the term "Holy Trinity" but acknowledge it as of equal meaning than that of term Trinity, thus an agreed upon valid alternative form whose absence from the article detracts from the association of the two terms by readers foreign to the environment in which they are used. Ctmv (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

That comment makes absolutely no sense that I can see. There's no logic to it, nor does it reference anything anyone said in this thread.

Tell me all about it.

21:56, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

It does make sense and it is pertinent to the section. Probably you did not read past the first line or two. Saegeas (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The way some editor had played with the wiki link and the wording made the article to read that the doctrine states that "God is not one (monotheism)" therefore implying polytheism as the core christian doctrine, which is false as per the rest of the lede composition and the references provided.

I have added an slight rewording so as to make clear up front the concept of the Most Holy Trinity doctrine which is monotheism, as stated by Augustine of Hippo (5 AD), Gregory of Nissa (4 AD), and the current catholic catechism (Ratzinger and others).Ctmv (talk) 07:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I cannot, for the life of me spot any such vandalism, and the edits you made did not ever address any such vandalism. Do not use deceptive practices to push your preferred version in the article, it can result in your ability to edit being taken away. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:38, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

It said: God is not (monothesim|one) but three persons. It is saying it is not monotheism!!! which contradicsts the sources. You are failing to the truth. class="autosigned">— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctmv (talk) 00:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Please avoid words like “truth”. No one knows the “truth”. I’m failing to see a problem. O3000 (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

You are very correct in saying no one knows what the truth is, however in religion and philosophy they are trying to establish what truth is, what's more in Christianity the main figure is the Truth that adherents believe is Jesus of Nazareth. You are using wikipedia as a means to challenge religious beliefs, and it is not what this is all about. It is about a summarization of knowledge as it is formulated outside the encyclopedia.

And I had added a first class referece from Augustine of Hippo, that cleary addresses the issue by saying: "not three Gods but one God". Again, the edits were reverted ny another user, because that's what wikipedia is all about these days. So in short we are talking about some edit that has already reverted and then corrected because indeed it had a problem.Ctmv (talk)

As of present times: Trinity, The Blessed Trinity, The Holy Trinity, and The Most Holy Trinity are terms officialy used to refer to the Doctrine/Mystery in Christianity that this article focuses on. Now the lede echoes such variety in terminology that authors from many backgrounds use (some being more popular than others depending on the context or time era in which they are used). The absence of those terms in the article detracts from its informative and encyclopedic pourposes. The inline references have been added to the lede. Ctmv (talk) 07:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

In the section Rename to Holy Trinity, it was established that many terms exist that are used when naming the doctrine/mystery. Ctmv (talk) 02:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Therefore, and according to the references, we can say Trinity is also referred to as The Blessed Trinity,^[1] The Holy Trinity,^[2] and The Most Holy Trinity,^[3]

Now, the term Blessed Trinity has gone in disuse from the 20th Century onwards, soi its actual relevance is disputed.

the term Holy Trinity is by far the most used by offical doctrinal positions of the many religious movements, and therefore the wording is the one with more preference as showcased is the official statements of the religious bodies.

as in the phrase the "Trinity also referred to as the Holy Trinity^[4][5][6]" .... states that a term is equal in its meaning to another, although its form is in some circles preferred. The preference to use the terminology Holy Trinity by the Orthodox Tewahedo Church (part of eastern Orthodoxy), the coptic Church, and the Lutheran Church - Missouri synod is referenced.

The lack of the term in the lead introduces the possibility that a reader, foreigner to the concept, might not associate the term Holy Trinity with the christian doctrine Trinity and thus the article would fail in its informative role. As it stands the "also referred to as" phrase complies with WP standards in being neutral and referenced. Ctmv (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

also bear in mind that the lack of meaningful response to the arguments hereby exposed grants consensus for absence of argumented contradition.

If you have arguments about this edit [9] please weigh in here, as it has been reverted claiming lack of consensus, when the edits haven't even been challenged by arguments. Ctmv (talk) 22:44, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

which goes like:

" According to this central mystery of most Christian faiths, there is only one God in three Persons: while distinct in their relations with each other ("it is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds"),[13] they are stated to be one in all else, co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial, and each is God, whole and entire.[14] Accordingly, the whole work of creation and grace in Christianity is seen as a single operation common to all three divine persons, in which each shows forth what is proper to him in the Trinity, so that all things are "from the Father", "through the Son" and "in the Holy Spirit".[15] C.S. Lewis makes the analogy to a cube and its six square faces: God is like the solid mass of the cube, invisible inside it, while the three Persons are like the squares, which are each equally its visible faces.[16] "

I think it could be removed as it is a further expansion from the first paragraph. maye a couple of senetences could be used to enrich the first paragraph (i.e about the relations). Besides who is Lewis? another favorite theologian for a wikipedian maybe! We already have prominent figures writing about the topic so as to begin citacions with some other lesser theologians. Ctmv (talk) 09:57, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Merged some phrases of on that (now former) second paragraph into the first and removed the others as they were redundant Ctmv (talk) 10:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Once again, and after my edits were reverted, I insist on the second paragraph to be merged into the first, as that second paragraph contains reduntant information to the first, and a quote from C.S Lewis that really makes no sense in the lede nor in the body of the article (see the separate talk section below). Ctmv (talk) 01:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

besides, the following statement:

"makes the analogy to a cube and its six square faces: God is like the solid mass of the cube, invisible inside it, while the three Persons are like the squares, which are each equally its visible faces.^[1]" And when I ask who is Lewis, the question is rhethoric, and I intend to say that his social/historical trascendence, and that of his writings, pale in comparisson with other religious figures that are being referenced in the article. Ctmv (talk) 01:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

It is not the explanation of the Trinity with more mainstream support, nor is it one that is very very well known nor is it accurate or well articulated. Infact there is great debate in physics so as to what mass and energy is, to even begin using scientific and theoretical concepts that are foreign to the theological and philosophical foundations of the doctrine we are writing about, and as of now, such natural science theories are being challenged by other rivaling theories. I Already had deleted that phrase but the edits were reverted with no major explanation in the talk page, please explain here. Ctmv (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

He is a popular Christian apologetic and fiction writer, so in this case would be part of culture, like Dante would be on a topic like Hell. A question of interest: do other tertiary sources like encyclopedias mention him on the topic? Such sources are often used to determine what should be included. If they don't or only briefly mention it, the article could mention it but it would be unsuitable lead material. If they dedicate a paragraph or more about his writings, then it would even merit a mention in the lead. —PaleoNeonate – 21:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Reflection, proclamation, and dialogue led to the formulation of the doctrine that was felt to correspond to the data in the Bible.[16]

That line should be removed in favor of a paragraph that echoes the misunderstanding of the doctrine (within Abrahamic religions and in philosophical circles too), the evolution of it, the rivaling views that have led to the establishment of new religious branches.

Romans 8:9-11 implies the interdependency or interrelatedness of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, while examining the redeemed individual, saved by grace, as evidenced by the indwelling Spirit of God.

That line is a repetition of everything that is being said elsewhere so it is redundant and thus should be removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctmv (talk • contribs) 01:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

the paragraphs:

Trinitarian theologians believe that manifestations of the Trinity are made evident from the very beginning of the Bible. Genesis 1:1-3[13] posits God, His Spirit and the "creative word of God"[14][15] together in the initial Genesis creation narrative account. While the Fathers of the Church saw Old Testament elements such as the appearance of three men to Abraham in Book of Genesis, chapter 18, as foreshadowings of the Trinity, it was the New Testament that they saw as a basis for developing the concept of the Trinity. One of the most influential of the New Testament texts seen as implying the teaching of the Trinity was Matthew 28:19, which mandated baptizing "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit". Another New Testament text pointing to the Trinity was John 1:1-14, in which the inter-relationships of the Triune God are reflected in the gospel author's description of "the Word", again showing the elements of the Triune God and their eternal (always was, always is, and always shall be) existence. (Revelation 1:8)

and

While scripture does not contain the word Trinity,[17] an indication of three distinct persons can be found in 1 John 5:7 for the validity of which exist a controversy known as Johannine Comma. Early Christian belief in the deity of Jesus Christ existed since the first century in the writings of John the Apostle (John 1:1, 20:28), Paul the Apostle (Titus 2:13, Romans 9:5, Hebrews 1:8-10), Peter the Apostle (2 Peter 1:1), as well as in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch,[18][19][20][21][22] a disciple of John who was born about the beginning of the Apostolic age (c. 35). Jesus is also quoted as attesting to being one with and equal with the Father, sharing in the glory of the Father before the world began. (John 8:58, 10:30, 17:5).

and

Romans 8:9-11 implies the interdependency or interrelatedness of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, while examining the redeemed individual, saved by grace, as evidenced by the indwelling Spirit of God.

and

Subsequently, in the understanding of Trinitarian theology, Scripture "bears witness to" the activity of a God who can only be understood in Trinitarian terms.[23] The doctrine did not take its definitive shape until late in the fourth century.[24] During the intervening period, various tentative solutions, some more and some less satisfactory, were proposed.[25]

---> Too much repetition. Besides why is Ignatius of Antioch being referenced with five inline book references? Was he the sole author of the doctrine? Is he held as the one whose statements are of no contradiction?. Many Church Fathers speak at great length about the Trinity and there is no need to mention them by name in the lead when something they said is tried to be added to the article's lead section. This is not an article about Ignatius of Antioch but about the Trinity. Ctmv (talk) 02:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

The one to monotheism? Note that sources need to be spread out among the various denominations, not mainly the Roman Catholic Church. Doug Weller talk 10:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

the article has, since then, edited, reverted, reverted, edited and now doesn't show up the statement contrary to the rest of the article, and thus the hidden vandalism has been fixed by another user by removing the "not" in the statement. Ctmv (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ctmv: I don't know if you're familiar with the Gish gallop or not, but understand that we here at WP have developed an effective response to it. We completely ignore the person doing it.

In case you're not getting my hint: You need to stop spamming your thoughts and try to engage one comment at a time, staying on a single topic and actually engaging with what other editors are saying.

12:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Ctmv, it sounds like you might have an easier time editing Catechism of the Catholic Church, or related articles with a narrower focus. O3000 (talk) 13:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

It seems you think the rest of the talk page entries are aimed at you when in reality they are aimed at the previous editors of the article and the ones reverting my edits. I introduced edits and were reverted by some users that do not show up any further for discussion (see the main article's history) with the argument of not enough debate having taken place. I sincerely doubt that some of the wikipedia users that have recently posted in this talk page have even read the entirety of the books that make up the biblical canon in any of its denominational transtlations, leave alone the original language versions (that admitedly are not the original manuscripts either, for the most part), or read (or even understand) any of the sources that the article currently cites, I sincerely doubt it, and thus I sincerely doubt we can move any further. This article has a mess of a lead section and thus has to be fixed fisrt and to engage in any meaningful discussion the participants have to be knowledgeable about the subject matter. The disussion entries will be left there for when there are users that want to take the task up upon themselves. As for me, arguing with revert buttons and no substance discussion makes little sense.Ctmv (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whom you intend to address, what matters is who responds to you. And once again, you're talking shit about other editors instead of engaging in good faith. Stop it, or you will be blocked from editing.

Personal commentary about other editors is not permitted on Wikipedia

. Address content, not contributors.

Also, you were told explicitly that there was no support nor justification in the sources for including the "holy" adjective in the lede, yet you lied in your edit summary in order to go ahead and insert it yourself. Your participation here has, thus far, been characterized by a

Tell me all about it.

15:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I have, thus far, never ever, seen that you articulately write about the subject, introduce inline references, speak with substance about the subject matter and yet you accuse.

Tell Us, therefore, Are you really knowledgeable about this subject matter? Have you even tried to go through all the information sources (there are thousands and thousands of pages) because for me it is very clear you hold a view that is not what this present article is all about, which is about summarizing a very polarizing teaching on a very complicated subject (that is even held by followers of the religious movement as impossible to fully discern) and I doubt you have the tools to undergo the simpler task to summarize what has been agreed upon in historical/social/theological relevant scenarios, outside of WP. For me, it is very evident that constructive discussion requires knowledge (and even Wisdom) first which I doubt from revert style of editing. reliable aources were introduced, changes were made, hinting at possible courses of action has been made. besides this is not a featured article (very far from it) that requires a lot of discussion before any change is made, and If you only have revert button, there's very little sense in me copying many sources in the talk page. I will add some proposals when I find the time and possibility to do it but it'd be for other users to see and analyze. Ctmv (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

What part of "comment on content, not on contributors" did you find so difficult to understand?

Tell me all about it.

16:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

The doctrinal essence of Trinitarism is that of monotheism on a plurality of centers of will (Hypostasis). Any sentence that deviates from that is contrary to the formulation of the doctrine in its trinitarian form and thus you have the many variations that the lead speaks about. But the first paragraph has to echo the official trinitarian formulation. Now it is fixed as per my above line, by another user. so this talk page entry is no longer of use. Also as per the other talk page entries there are many repetitions of ideas and thus much redundancy, do comment there, with content arguments. Ctmv (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Do you understand that this is not a Catholic project, and we will not give Catholicism special or preferential treatment? The concept of the Trinity itself is not universal within Christianity; suggesting that we must go even further and align this article with Catholic doctrine or be factually inaccurate is a

POV push

and completely ignorant of the views of other forms of Christianity.

As for your other comments, I'm not touching those. If you want engagement, make consise, on-topic points completely devoid of personal commentary on a single issue at a time and I will happily respond, though I suspect you will not like my responses, given your repeated insistence on a a Catholic POV.

Tell me all about it.

16:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Should "Holy Trinity" be mentioned as an alternate name somewhere in the lead section?

There is a hatnote that

redirects here, and the image in the "infobox" section is a painting titled "Holy Trinity", but that phrase only occurs once in the entire article, in a direct quote.

Wikipedia style discourages religious epithets (the article is

) 22:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: also see the end of "Rename to Holy Trinity" above. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 23:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I deliberately started a new section to avoid the walls-of-text there, but there are several good comments there. The other option is to expand on the term in the "Etymology" section (if there are references to support content there).

π, ν

) 23:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

As I said in the section above: I'm okay with that. It's the "AKA" use I don't like, and the refs Ctmv was providing don't directly support it, anyways. We would need to find sources discussing "Holy Trinity" vs "Trinity" though, which might be a problem. I've certainly never heard of such a discussion before. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Thought the discussion was heading toward consensus. Why start another thread? O3000 (talk) 00:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Dodging collapsing walls. See power's comment above mine

Tell me all about it.

13:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Ahh, the dust got in my eyes. O3000 (talk) 13:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

While a topic on Christian theology would be expected to rely primarily on Biblical references, it feels like there are too many direct and sourced quotes in the lead section. The reference to Romans 8:9-11 seems the most excessive. I think the claims that Genesis 1 refers to the Trinity are interpretation; and that is undue in the lead as well.

) 22:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

It may even be a minority view (the claim). —PaleoNeonate – 23:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I've checked the source and it never even mentions the Trinity. I've never heard of Genesis 1:1 being used as a justification for the Trinity, but I have heard John 1:1 being used for that a few times, as it explicitly distinguished between God and the Logos which is generally associated with, and personified as Jesus. So I think we might find a ref saying what the lede currently says about Genesis 1:1, but saying it about John 1:1 instead. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Why is the article under this name about the Christian Holy Trinity when such trinities exist in other major religions? That would be like the article for cola being solely about Coca-Cola, or the article for army being solely about the United States Army. Please explain why Trinity is not an article about trinities in general. Morganfitzp (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this addresses your concerns, but see Trinity#See also, Trinity (disambiguation)#Religion, Trimurti, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 18:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

You can read about our policy on this subject at

WP:COMMONNAME. Basically, 99% of the time someone mentions "trinity" in the English speaking world, the subject of this article is what they're talking about. That's not meant to diminish the other 1%, just to avoid unduly promoting one of those meanings. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

22:06, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Morganfitzp -- sorry for belated reply, but other religions have divine triads, or triple gods/goddesses, but not usually "Trinities" in any very meaningful and specific sense of the word... AnonMoos (talk) 08:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Eg. "As we will see in the next section, the same problem also arises in terms of the will among the commander/normer/legislator, the commanded/normed/legislated, and the process between them: is each Trinity's Person lex sui or not?"

This was in the earliest version I could find, November 2011 and of course still is.[10] Something happened then as the first version of this article actually shows over 100,000 bytes removed. Perhaps that's when contribution histories started. Doug Weller talk 05:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the talk page, it seems that people are arguing over semantics when a much bigger plague encompasses this article -- it's chock full of unreliable sources. I was quite astonished when I started looking at it. For example, is the blog site Patheos reliable, even if the author of the blog is a professor? No. There are many confessional sites without any academic background cited.

Right now, I have other projects I'm focusing on in Wiki so I can't directly intervene just yet. For the moment, if any other editor is willing to take on the gauntlet, I can point them to some substantial reliable sources on the topic, including the Cambridge Companion to the Trinity (Cambridge 2011), Wesley Hill's Paul and the Trinity (Eerdmans 2015) and the edited volume The Bible and Early Trinitarian Theology (CAUP 2018).Wallingfordtoday (talk) 16:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I've begun cleaning up the article a bit.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 04:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I think the Trinities.org site would be allowable, even if it's technically a "blog"... AnonMoos (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Are you aware of

WP:RS?Wallingfordtoday (talk

) 22:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Your response seems a little snarky, since I previously linked to it in my comment of 17:48, 16 February 2019 directly above. In any case, have you looked at the site? See also Talk:Trinity/Archive_6#External Links... AnonMoos (talk) 01:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

You're right, I was snarky. I did look at the site. It's a blog filled with opinion pieces mostly written by philosophers (not historians nor theologians). That's the definition of unreliable as far as I'm concerned. I can easily make a better case for citing larryhurtado.wordpress.com.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not a theologian or a philosopher, so I can't personally fully evaluate that aspect, but at least in earlier days it seemed to me and some other people that it mainly consisted of people with reasonable academic credentials conducting Trinity-relevant discussions at a reputably academic level. I admit that I haven't visited the site very often since the turn toward podcasting... AnonMoos (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

In general terms Wallingfordtoday is right, the article lacks proper (in the Wikipedia sense) sources - Bible quotes and direct quotation from primary sources don't count.PiCo (talk) 07:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

To editor PiCo: PiCo, looks like we're here again. You've tried to, I'd say, force an edit into this page without actually discussing it with anyone on the Talk Page as if you've got an immediate consensus on this topic. Given the fact that you don't, as I find the edit to be flawed, we can try to reach consensus here. The fact is that "the term is not in the New Testament" is not "history" and it's already conveyed twice elsewhere in the article and so redundant. On top of that, I can hardly imagine that such a small point deserves a whole section added to it. There are too many problems with the edit.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Wallingford doesn't like having a section on the presence of the Trinity in the New Testament. Or rather on its absence. What do others think? (The section is not about the word "trinity", but about the concept; the source is the Russian Orthodox Patriarch)PiCo (talk) 05:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

There can be a section on that. Your claim that I don't want a section on it is flawed. And your edit is simply irrelevant for reasons already stated. If you continue trying to strongarm your edit into the page without convincing other editors of its validity, we'll quickly be in edit warring territory.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Not to mention, your reason in your edit summary "I like it in" is a deeply unconvincing statement on why I shouldn't revert your edit (which contained errors/undue views to begin with).Wallingfordtoday (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

In a recent edit, I accurately summarized the absence of the doctrine of the Trinity in the NT and how it emerged in subsequent Christian history. This was done without having to create a new section absent of any discussion of history and circumvents listing explanations of the emergence of the Trinity that virtually no scholar thinks is true like you had tried to add (such as an encounter with Hellenism or from listening to Jesus talk). [EDIT: Even worse: PiCo, I've acquired the book you've used to source your claims (The Trinity East/West Dialogue) and you misrepresent it. Whereas you use pg. 108 to claim the NT has no Trinity, the very prior chapter to the one you cite by Alfeyev argues the complete opposite. Therefore, I will be fixing your edits in the coming days.]Wallingfordtoday (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Pico -- you claim that your edit is not about the word "Trinity", but the flat statement in [11] that "The term 'trinity' is not found anywhere in the New Testament", without any accompanying relevant context, makes it seem that you're implying that the terminological issue is somewhat decisive on its own. (See subsection #Absurd denial of biblical monotheism is found in the article main text?! above for reasons why the terminological issue is not decisive on its own.) Also, I don't think that subtle Christological/Trinitarian issues will be settled by juxtaposing quasi-mystical statements from different parts of the NT and applying elementary first-order predicate logic. (In fact, elementary first-order predicate logic is unable to handle many ordinary situations in human language, much less quasi-mystic utterances.) AnonMoos (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

In fact, it gets worse than that, AnonMoos. PiCo's source, Alfeyrev, says in the same page that PiCo cites (108) that "The notion of the Trinity derives from the New Testament, which contains the formula 'in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.'" PiCo also uses this author to argue that the divinity of the Holy Spirit is never claimed, but the very chapter before that in the same book argues "it would be a mistake to conclude that in the theology of Revelation the Holy Spirit is unimportant, or less than divine." (pg. 104) It seems clear that PiCo's edits on this page are premature and flawed.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The section on the history of the Trinity is thoroughly incomplete. I just learned that the period from the Council of Nicaea onwards needs to be framed in terms of the First seven ecumenical councils, and have appropriately made the page reflect this. However, at the moment, the page only has sections on the first two of these councils (Nicaea and First Constantinople) and nothing on the next 5. I know nothing about them and so I cannot add them in. If someone is willing to do the necessary research and add the information to it themselves, that will be greatly appreciated, otherwise the process will have to be as slow as how long it will take my research that has nothing to do with this topic to stumble upon the issue.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

They were mostly preoccupied by Christological issues, rather than Trinitarianism as such... AnonMoos (talk) 04:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The concept of the "eternal subordination of the Son" is talked about in some evangelical circles. While Wikipedia has an "eternal subordination" entry, that is a redirect into this "Trinity" article, but this article never mentions the term. Could this be rectified, please, by someone who understands something of the debate? Thanks. Feline Hymnic (talk) 10:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

It is already in the article, read the "Trinity and will" section. Put on the search box the word "subordination" and you will find a lot of information.Rafaelosornio (talk) 13:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. There are, indeed, various expert-level references to the word "subordination" (and variants) as used in earlier ages. But I didn't see anything for the general reader who may have come across the current debate in some present-day evangelical circles. Nor does the term "etermal subordination [of the Son]" appear, which is the presently used term to identify the current debate. But I see an article called Subordinationism which seems closer, and more focussed upon, this particular sub-topic. So I have adjusted the redirect to there. Feline Hymnic (talk) 11:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Somebody came to me with the question: why did Christianity come up with the concept of the Holy Trinity? I looked up this article and it proved to be utterly useless for non-scholars - and for scholars it's probably useless too, since for them it's too simplistic. So who is it for?

You need a simple, clear lead: WHAT is the Trinity, WHY Church fathers came up with this very bizarre concept, HOW they managed to make it into Church dogma, WHO adheres to it and who doesn't among Christian denominations. The rest is theology students and laymen showing off and adding endless amounts of unreadable, poorly sorted and poorly structured material. Cheers and good luck, Arminden (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

First off, the word "Trinity" is not found in the text of the New Testament (for reasons discussed in the #Absurd denial of biblical monotheism is found in the article main text?! subsection above), but many would claim that the basics (obviously not all the theological elaborations) are in fact found in the Bible. The great majority of Christian denominations traditionally considered "mainstream" or small-o "orthodox" have some form of the doctrine of the Trinity, but Unitarians obviously do not, nor do many Restorationist groups... AnonMoos (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Arminden:, I have the same impression about the article. I think "utterly useless" is a big overstatement and I reckon how hard it is to treat this very complex subject, but you have a solid point. The article fails to define and explain the very basics about the concept of Trinity and its content is poorly sorted and poorly structured.

The Trinity is undeniably a very complex doctrine and a hard concept to grasp, yet, the introduction defines the trinitarian creed in two lines. It would not be a significant problem if the following section dealt with the "WHAT", but it does not. No section actually expands on the insufficient definition given by the introduction. Why is that so? The meaning of "Trinity" itself is never defined. Does the word mean God, His "internal structure" AND the Christian doctrine? Definitions of "person" and "substance" with more than three words each are badly needed. These are very complex and important concepts that cannot be overlooked. A brief definition of the persons of the Trinity would be very helpful, too (the "Jesus" and "Holy Spirit in the New Testament" do not define them, only indicates biblical support for their existence in the Trinity). A less concise description would make it possible to avoid the misleading statement of the introduction that trinitarianism is necessarily

homoousian (homoiousianism

is not even mentioned in the article!). It's fundamental to describe how the persons relate to each other in an understandable way and also how they are distinct, what it means to be "co-equal and co-eternal, one in essence, nature, power, action, and will" and maybe what makes these three persons one single God, not a pantheon. It's very complex, but an article needs to deal with what is its subject.

The first section after the introduction jumps straight into the justification of the doctrine. The arguments supporting a religious doctrine have vital encyclopedical importance, but a biblical background presenting only one of the numerous verses used by nontrinitarians to support their claims that the Son is not equal to the Father is flawed. The baptismal formula is later mentioned, but not the many instances of baptism in the name of Jesus only in Acts. When it comes to the the godhood of the Holy Spirit, the article is quite good.

The "History" section provides information about the early councils, but does not tell "WHY Church fathers came up" with the idea. It is only stated that they developed the Trinity, but again, not what made them do it. Their reasonings are barely stated. "HOW" is more clearly expressed: councils, polemics and warfare.

The "WHO" is, however, very clearly informed, though in an unfortunately named section. The "Criticism" section does not really present criticism or arguments against the doctrine, (except for a quote from the Quran, mostly a curiosity), but names opposing beliefs and churches. However, it does not, even briefly, describe the Christian nontrinitarian doctrines. One might think information about opposing views is of lesser important, but since the doctrinal differences are so small (and they so often lead to excommunications), stating what is not trinitarian (and how, e.g. modalistic monism differs from orthodox trinitarian view) is vital for the understanding of what it actually is. This section could also summarize the debate between each individual nontrinitarian sect and the trinitarians and maybe even feature some secular analyses, but I already gave too many suggestions and that's not an immediate concern.

A vital, top-importance article like this HAS to define and explain its subject in more than two lines. Shamefully I lack any credentials to contribute in a more constructive way, so I'm limited to pointing flaws and motes. I hope some will agree with me and be able to fix it soon. Thanks for your attention and sorry for writing so much. Gabriel C (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Gabriel C:, hi, and thank you. What I mean is that Wikipedia, w/o "dumbing down", should be able to give a concise and comprehensive definition and explanation of whatever topic, in a very short lead or the first few lines of the lead. Now I looked up Trinity at Britannica and there it looks far better. Using that material, I will try to sum up what I believe should be the lead of our article.

"Trinity is the concept about the nature of God shared by most Christian denominations, in spite of the fact that the term does not appear in the New Testament. The notion that God is one, a basic tenant of the Hebrew Bible, is preserved in Christianity, but statements from the Gospels and Epistles do make a distinction between the Father (or simply "God"), the Son (or "the Lord Jesus Christ"), and the Holy Spirit, which forced the Church Fathers to discuss and develop over several centuries a doctrine that manages to explain the compatibility of seeing God as one, while at the same time as manifesting him-/itself in three different modes."

Basta. The rest can come under Dogma explained, History, Denominational approach, Criticism (Christian; from Judaism and Islam), etc. Not a word more in the lead, to allow the non-specialist, non-academic user to leave the page satisfied w/o reading a single word more. Lots of Christians and non-Christians alike don't know these basic facts, and probably don't care to know more, but this they do want to understand. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 11:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree. There could be a section written for atheists, that tries to explain what Christians believe using modern historical and scientific language. As an atheist who wants to understand these concepts this article feels like falling into an Alice and Wonderland sea of words all poorly defined with the overall intention of filling me with non specific awe by using the cheapest rhetorical trick - confusion. This article might be a starting point:

https://atheism.wikia.org/wiki/Trinity Howard.noble323 (talk) 09:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that Wikia site's entry is not really an attempt to emically understand what Christians believe as they believe it but etically impose outside commentary on the subject. (Nevermind that Wikia sites, being user-generated, are useless as sources).

Also, attempting to apply scientific language to metaphysics betrays a gross ignorance of the topic. Although many hypotheses about God are readily dismissed via science (e.g. the

Prosperity Gospel

), the nature of whatever may be the source of scientific laws cannot be tested by science as science is contained within it and not the other way around. I'll totally intended that "whatever may be the source of scientific laws" isn't necessarily God, it could be the Tao or something else we don't know about -- but the point is it is a matter for philosophy, not science. That you clearly haven't considered that would indicate that the problem is that you have not earnestly applied the effort to understand the matter.

The intro of the plainly says In this context, a "nature" is what one is, whereas a "person" is who one is. In other words, Christians believe that there is one God who is known to the believer in three different ways: as the

Das Gott an sich as it were), the Personal Son (early Christianity often used the title "face of God" for Jesus), and the Immanent Holy Spirit (which is described as present throughout creation). There are comparable discussions of the relationship between God's transcendence, personality, and immanence in Kabbalah and Sufism (both monotheistic), as well as in the schools of Hinduism where pantheism approaches monotheism in its relegation of lesser deities as mere titles of the absolute God. Ian.thomson (talk

) 11:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Bias

DavidMDCXI (talk) 10:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)This page has some extreme bias Wikipedia has an internal policy which states that articles must be written from a neutral point of view, which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant points of view that have been verifiably published by reliable sources on a topic. And the claim I removed asserts the doctrine of the Trinity is "developed" this asserts it's not a biblical doctrine thus making it not neutral id like for the bias to be removed.DavidMDCXI (talk) 10:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

This statement from the introductory paragraph needs emendation:

• Trinitarianism contrasts with positions such as Binitarianism (one deity in two persons) and Monarchianism (no plurality of persons within God), of which Modalistic Monarchianism (one deity revealed in three modes) and Unitarianism (one deity in one person) are subsets.

Modalistic Monarchianism should be left out since it itself is a SUBSET OF Unitarianism or Monarchianism. It is then that you would point out that Modalistic Monarchianism and Dynamic Monarchianism (Adoptionism) are subsets of Unitarianism/Monarchianism. This clarity should be made as this takes into consideration the scholarly understanding of Monarchianism. Drboisclair (talk) 11:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I have read that the notion of the Trinity had its origins with an Irish monk, but I don't have the details to hand. The information was in one of the recent Coles bookstore cheap editions of works on, among other things, the Celts, Druids, and Ireland. While those may not be scholarly works, I recall that they at least cited some, and this must have been read by a LOT of people given the volumes sold. It seems strange to find no mention of it even here in the Talk page... If I can find the book again (whichever it was) I will update with more detail. Saegeas (talk) 03:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I've not found the reference to the specific Irish Monk (and his dates) yet, but Peter Berresford Ellis ^[1] writes: "Most of the major Celtic deities were venerated in the form of triune gods and goddesses -- that is, they had three aspects called by three names, and many representations of them are given three faces or three heads. The triads through which the Druids taught, and the sacredness of the number three, are highly important and a very common feature of the Indo-European tradition. Examples of such triple representations of deities include the janiform head from Leichlingen, Germany, dating from the fourth century BC, the stone triple head from Wroxeter, Shropshire, and the head from Reims in France. There is even a triple image of Cernunnos, with his antlers, on a bronze statuette from Etang-sur-Aroux. The pre-Roman Celtic coins of the Remi (of Reims) depict a triple-headed deity." Saegeas (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps that explains why they were receptive to the doctrine of the Trinity when Saint Patrick brought it to them with the rest of Christianity. Elizium23 (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes .... it would explain the smooth reception. But it's important to remember that St. Patrick was a Roman, importing foreign ideas (even if with common remote Indo-European origins). This is in opposition to the point I am trying to raise. What I read is that an Irish Celt, one of the early monks who travelled to the mainland to study and confer, initiated the Trinity and (if I recall...) was even tried as a heretic over it. I have been trying to find the reference for a solid hour. I will not give up until I find it, but I've had enough for the moment. Saegeas (talk) 18:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

It seems I am thinking of Pelagius (c.AD 354-420). As regards plausibility, I find almost everything from this era implausible, and am highly skeptical of the historicity of what I'm reading. Nevertheless, it is in wide circulation. See ^[2] As for "Saint" Patrick, he is an abomination, having burned hundreds of Druidical books and systematically destroyed their sacred sites. What a disgrace that he is the most celebrated "Irish" figure. Saegeas (talk) 12:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm really not too sure how many "Druidical books" ever were written, since the Druids seem to have been strong on oral traditions. In any case, the biggest blow against Druidism seems to have been the Roman conquest of Anglesey, which had no connection to Christianity or Patrick... AnonMoos (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

We know Druids had books because some survived. In any case, Christianity (and most emphatically St. Patrick) was devastating to Druidical heritage and sacred sites. I again encourage you to consult Ellis (my only source...) to challenge your views to the contrary. But for my part, in reading the article proper, I realise I'm out of my depth and unwilling to make a full study of Church history etc. I wish you all well, and will always read the article and talk page with interest, but will refrain from further edits. Saegeas (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

As far as I know, we have post-500 A.D. texts that may contain lingering Druidic or quasi-Druidic influences. We don't have any Druid "book" reflecting Druids when they were at the peak of their multinational influence, as recounted by the early Roman invaders. (That was cut short by the Roman invasion of Anglesey and other Roman operations.) AnonMoos (talk) 22:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

This seems quite implausible to me -- there was little attested Irish Christianity before the 5th century A.D., and Ireland was geographically remote from the Eastern Roman Empire, where most of the discussions and Church Councils that defined Christian doctrine took place. The one early theological development which is solidly documented as having come from the British Isles is Pelagianism, which has little to do with the Trinity. Triads or trios or triples of gods or goddesses occurred in a number of cultures, mostly having only a very vague similarity at best to the Christian Trinity. Anyway, without reliable sources, it can't be included on the article. AnonMoos (talk) 06:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

See my second reference, p.185. And Pelagius, who you mention, was an Irish Christian, lived before the limit you state, and did travel to Rome etc. On p.185 we read "Pelagius ... was developing the doctrine of the Trinity". I'm done here, this was way more work than I care to put in. I am thoroughly anti-Christian. Saegeas (talk) 12:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

It's far from certain that Pelagius was Irish, and in any case, his Christianity was formed in 4th-century Roman Britain, when Britain south of the wall was part of the Roman Empire (which Ireland never was). It's very possible that Pelagius had some ideas about the Trinity, but the main disputes in which he was involved had little connection to the Trinity, and it's hard to figure out how Pelagius, who was considered a despised heretic by many, would have any particular influence on the doctrine of the Trinity in "mainstream" Christianity... AnonMoos (talk) (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay! I admit I came back out of genuine interest, though I left in a huff based on some (maybe polemical) claims in Ellis' books. Maybe he's wrong and the Druids didn't have many books destroyed (for example). I expect Patrick did destroy sacred groves and whatnot, but I admit I'm not nearly as well-informed as you are. I am interested to know what were the first origins of the Christian Trinity, but perhaps this is unknowable due to the ravages of time and past censorship. I'll be back occasionally in the hopes that more information comes to light. You might like to have a peek at Ellis' books yourself though if you get a chance (I gave the page numbers which will help). He's a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society (among others), though he works outside academics and is perhaps better known for his fiction. Saegeas (talk) 04:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

an idol with three names, three faces or three heads is highly different from the Jesiwh-Christian Most Holy Trinity, founded in the Holy Scripture. The first idol is partially linked to the Induist (or Indo-European) Trimurti. But the second, the Christian Trinity, is the union of two male adult fleshes, who are both human and divine, in a unique and common Holy Spirit, the only one who coul have made possible them being a unique God. Two bodies in aunique substance and Spirit is other than a unique body with three distint faces. The distinction is in the whole flesh, not in a single part; its unity is a unique Spirit who is also the third divine person. (I apologize for my not idiomatic English).Theologian81sp (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

What you refer to as "flesh", most English-language theological works call "substance". The word "flesh" could have distracting and irrelevant connotations. AnonMoos (talk) 00:58, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

It would be nice to have chapter/verse citations if it it founded in Holy Scripture. (Next day: sorry, I see this is covered in some detail in the article itself, including citing chapter/verse.) But I was not suggesting that a 3-headed demigod was the basis for the Trinity, only that Pelagius was bridging those Indo-European traditions to Christianity, helping make them mutually-intelligible. At the cost of being accused of heresy. That was my reading of Ellis at least. Hey, web search knows nothing about "Induist"!... Saegeas (talk) 04:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

The previuous version of the WP article suggested Chriastians didn't belive to the Trinitarian before the 4th century Ecumenic Councils. But the

symbol was present in the Christian catacombs of Rome since the 1st and the 2nd century. The excommunication of Sabellius in the 3rd century, which was cited in the previous version, suggests the existance of a yet unofficial, but even well clear and formulated doctrine of the Most Holy Trinity. Sabellius "taught that God was single and indivisible, with Father, Son, and Holy Spirit being three modes or manifestations of one divine Person."

Hence, it is relevant to make a crossreference between the iconographic/artistic proofs and the scarsity of theological writing on the Most holy Trinity, suring the first three centuries. This was due to the Roman Emperors, worshipers of Satan, tyramns who tried to delete all the historical proofs attesting the existence of Jesus, the work of St Peter and St Paul untill to cover their martyridom.

The link between the ichthys Christian iconography and the Trinitarian view of God is summerized in the following part of text:

In this symbol, Jesus was conceived as the Son of God and the Messiah who was sent by God the Father to save the human kind. The Holy Spirit God was thought as the unique term who made possible the existence from ever and forever of a unique God in two distinct human-divine male adult bodies. The unique substance of God the Father and of God the Son was intended as being dyophysite.

It needs of additional inline citations. In the worst case, it could be hopefully kept here.

Have a good Easter in the holy name of Jesus Christ God, our Lord and King of Kings.Theologian81sp (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The usual spelling in English is "ichthys"... AnonMoos (talk) 01:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I've corrected the typo/mispelling. However, it would be relevant to say that, since the 1st-2nd century, the early Christians converted in Rome by St Paul and St Peter the Apostles were used to call Jesus Christ God as the Son of God. The expression Son of God belongs to the ichthys symbol and it was used since the 1st century in the Catacombs of Saint Sebastian and saint Priscilla in Rome. Both of those sentences are sourced in the WP article

ichtys#origin

.

Anyone can agree that in the ichthys symbology nothing is explicitly said about the Holy Spirit God, but at least the following parte of the edit can be saved in a tex like:

Early Christian inscriptions found in Ephesus^[1], in the Catacombs of Saint Sebastian and saint Priscilla in Rome, reports the ichthys symbol which means "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and the Savior." The insicitpions dates back to the 1st-12nd century. The ichthys symbol was probably associated with the belief in the Most Holy Trinity, which was well known and spreaded among the 1st/2nd century Christians.

This is more

) 13:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

It seems strange that the seeming disunity of a Father and Son could be resolved by appeal to yet a third part. Isn't it more reasonable to see the Son as an emanation of God the Father, a partial revelation comprehensible to human beings? Like revealed scripture but in this case with a human form, instead of "merely" abstract Word. I'm trying to remain neutral, and I am interested but not invested per se. Jesus too has aspects or parts: he is Chirst which equals Saviour, but also Son of God (and Son of Man), and more besides... Saegeas (talk) 05:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)