Talk:Trinity/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

General Format

Since this artical is seen in comparison with other articals in the Template Conceptions of God (shown at righthand side) {{Conceptions of God}} in other beliefs, I suggest that it must be formated in the manner similar to articals, the most obious is the location of the this template which is placed below the general InfoBox about Christianity, while in all other articals it is at the top, I note in case of Islam the template Conceptions of God is at top while the template Islam is positioned under the second level heading (that is after two =s, dont know the right scripting nomenclature). I am eager to do this formating change in article Christianity, please suggest appropriate action. Mkashifafzal (talk) 11:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Poor Text

I removed some text comparing the Trinity to ideas in Hinduism. Whilst this is a very legitimate topic, the text was poor and biased.

The text in question:

"But the word "Trinity" is came from the ancient Hindu culture from India. In Hinduism, the three main gods Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are called "Trimurthis".In sanskrit and all other languages in India, "Tri" means Three. This is a clear evidence of copying words and ideas from Sanskrit to English and other European languages. So christanity is actually copied ideas from other parts of the world, basically from Jews and Hindus."

MFD

You did good. That the word Trinity resembles a Sanskrit word that conveys a similar idea is to be expected, since Greek, English, and Sanskrit are all of the Indo-European Languages family. The text in question was unsupported, and, should it pop up again, I will delete it on sight as blatant POV. --Blanchardb (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that deleted text had been added a mere 14 minutes prior to your involvement. --Blanchardb (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

External Links “Pro Trinity” and "Contra Trinity"

C. Logan,

Facts

• With edit to the main article of 22:08, 19 March 2007, you immediately removed headings “Pro Trinity” and "Contra Trinity" added to the Section “External Links”, and links under the heading "Contra Trinity", added by SlaveOFchrist on the same day, with the following dismissive motivation:
  

"Please place such links at Nontrinitarianism" (C. Logan 22:08, 19 March 2007)

• With edit to the main article of 12:57, 20 March 2007, you have removed the division of the Section “External Links” in two sub-sections “Pro Trinity” and "Contra Trinity", by Miguel_de_Servet (me) with the following motivation:
  

"Add those links to Nontrinitarianism, as per Talk reasoning" (C. Logan 12:57, 20 March 2007)

Comment

I have looked up in the Discussions for your supposed contributions (“as per Talk reasoning”) on “Nontrinitarianism”: there is nothing of yours relevant to the point, and/or specific, and certainly nothing after 19 March 2007.

The Trinity is, obviously, a very controversial subject, so much so that, within the body of the main article, there is an entire section (present section no.6) on “Nontrinitarianism” further subdivided in two sub-sections, “Criticisms of trinitarian doctrine” (6.1) and “Nontrinitarian groups” (6.2).

So, it is perfectly normal that a controversial subject as the Trinity, for which a section with subsections on antagonistic POVs has already been accommodated for in the main article, should also have the section “External Links” subdivided accordingly in “Pro” and “Con” subsections.

Another, altogether different issue, is the quality of the links, which can certainly be criticized and improved upon, with editing, NOT wholesale deletion.

Conclusion

I am therefore going to reintroduce the subsections and links that you have removed.

Warning

At your next attempt of removing a. m. subsections and links, I am going to resort to some form of “Dispute Resolution” WP:DR
Miguel de Servet 16:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Miguel de Servet,

The Islam Wikipedia page has a comparably-sized criticism section, yet offers no external links at the bottom of the page to support views which are critical of Islam. Those particular links will be found at the Criticism of Islam page. The same applies to the Christianity page.

If you feel that articles whose opposing viewpoints already have their own pages still need links to those viewpoints on the main article, please feel free to act links which are critical to Islam to the Islam page.

It is unnecessary to provide links for both views on a certain page when each respective view has its own page as it is. While I understand your good intentions, I have to disagree with you that the controversial nature of the Trinity (although it is accepted by the vast majority of Christians) warrants the inclusion of contra-links. Isn't the same true of Islam? Surely, I've seen an endless amount of Anti-Islam sites, and relatively few Anti-Trinity(Nontrinitarian) sites.

I stand by the fact that the use of contra-links on this page when there is a satisfactory Wiki article dealing with the opposing view is redundant, and could be viewed as underhanded proselytizing (as many unregistered editors like to insert tidbits into Wikipedia which support their religious views), which would not be tolerated on a page like Islam. Adding a link to Answering Islam (.org) would be followed by a swift deletion.

It equally makes little sense to add pro and contra links to Nontrinitarianism.

While it is generally a good idea to provide a short summary of the opposing view when a page already exists for it, it isn't necessary to follow suit with the external links.

Why is the subsection which summarizes the opposing view, and the 48kb article with all these same links insufficient, in your opinion? --C.Logan 17:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

C.Logan,

Why is it so important to remove the external links? They add to the information that a researcher can receive upon reading this article and do not take up additional space. Regardless of what the Islam article says, we are all working together to make the Trinitarian article as informative and concise as possible. Removing some external links accomplishes neither of these goals. The only goal that this would accomplish, it seems to me, would be to make it more difficult for researches to find good and balanced information regarding views on the Trinity. Despite popular opinion, this article should not be "and this is why the Trinity is correct" as some seem intent on having it, but rather an academic article about all aspects of the doctrine. And "all aspects" still includes contrary views (at least in the academic circles I have been involved with). Jacob 13:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I would totally agree with you if there wasn't already a Nontrinitarianism page. If both views were only contained within this one article, as they were originally (the Nontrinitarianism page didn't exist for around 2 years after this page was created, and the links in question have been a holdover from that time), then I would fully understand. However, now that the separate article has been created, This page should devote its time towards detailing history and general support for the doctrine, while the Nontrinitarianism article will detail dissent from the doctrine (and the reasons why) throughout history. I'm merely using the other articles which I had mentioned as an example: once enough information has been compiled so that an 'anti'-article can stand on its own, then the original article should not devote considerable time to criticism. If I'm reading the Islam article, and I see a small section with "See: Criticisms of Islam", I'm not going to be confused when I don't find anti-Islam links. Additionally, no one would allow such links to be added to the main page, for the same reason I am arguing against the inclusion of the links. If I were to add links such as "In defense of the Doctrine of the Trinity" and "20 Common Nontrinitarian errors" to the Nontrinitarianism page, my edit would undoubtedly be reverted, and most would assume I'm merely pushing my views on a page I disagree with. This is simply one of those edits which should have been completed when the Nontrinitarianism article reached a viable stage.--C.Logan 18:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I would furthermore add that a truly "balanced" article would not give undue weight to a really miniscule opinion among Christians. Yes, Muslims criticizes the Trinity as well (although not in particularly informed terms) but that's not really relevant to an article focused on Christianity, just as Christian criticisms about, say, the prophethood of Mohammed aren't really relevant to an article focused on Islam.

Within groups calling themselves "Christian", modern Nontrinitarians are so insignificant numerically that it's almost not worth mentioning them here at all. There were a number of historical groups that were highly important, especially with regard to development of the dogma, but they do not exist today. It's not truly "controversial". The vast majority of Christians consider the matter settled as of 381. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

TCC, as of 1995, according to the Global Statistics for All Religions by the World Christian Encyclopedia, non-Trinitarian Christian groups accounted for 35,304,900 adherents. These groups, especially the Pentecostal groups, have generally seen annual percentage increases in the double digits, so the numbers would be much higher today. This does not even include the many Messianic groups that are also non-Trinitarian. It is simply incorrect to call these numbers insignificant. To put it in perspective, this would have accounted for 14% of the total United States population in 1995. Hardly insignificant.

Also, there's still debate about the doctrine of the Trinity amongst Trinitarians. Many Trinitarians describe Modalistic Monarchianism better than I can when they describe their belief in the Trinity. It's just silly to pretend that the doctrine is non-controversial. Jacob 04:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

A little over 35,000,000 as opposed to 1.5 billion or so? No, in relative terms that's not significant at all. You could subtract the entire population of nontrinitarians from the Trinitarian numbers and not even notice the loss statistically.

There may well be confusion among Trinitarian Christians who have had inadequate religious educations, but a misunderstanding is not the same as debate. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Besides, I favored the reduced treatment of nontrinitarianism here for two reasons I haven't yet brought in to this particular conversation. First, to be truly balanced, Trinitarian objections to nontrinitarianism should take up as much space in that article as you want for nontrinitarianism here. That I have not seen an eager effort on the part of your co-religionists to make this adjustment in the name of "balance" tells me that you're really more interested in pushing your POV, whatever you may say. Second, to fully present both sides of an opinion in that way in an article tends to make it look more like a transcript of a debate than a reference. That makes for a poor quality article. I would no more support a lengthy treatment of Trinitarian objections to your doctrine in the nontrinitarianism article than I support the reverse. And that extends to the inclusion of a list of external links. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Your 1.5 billion is today's numbers. My number was based on 1995, which is over 11 years ago. Non-Trinitarians today make up between 3-5% of all Christians. Protestants make up only 18%. For reference, Asians make up less than 4% of the United States population but one would NEVER CONSIDER calling them insignificant. Calling these numbers insignificant is ignorant. Jacob 14:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority of Christians consider the matter settled as of 381.

— [TCC 20:59, 23 March 2007]

TCC,
if there was any need for evidence that those who argue against the opportunity of keeping the section "External Links" subdivided in “Pro Trinity” and "Contra Trinity", are NOT expressing an objective NPOV attitude, but a heavily doctrinal defence of the Dogma of the Trinity, you have (perhaps unwittingly ?) provided it.
--Miguel de Servet 15:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I believe he was rephrasing (and adding a historical perspective) to the statement above that "Non-Trinitarians today make up between 3-5% of all Christians." AnonMoos 17:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

AnonMoos,

are you seriously trying to argue that, as of 381 CE (interesting choice, BTW, as distinguished form 325 CE), the future of Christianity, including not only the dogma of the Trinity, but also of Sacraments, of Church discipline, of Predestination etc. was clearly and irreversibly chartered? What an appallingly uncritical, naive idea!
Miguel de Servet 18:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The trinity is controversial both within Christianity and within monotheism in general. The very fact that so many Christians stake this doctrine out as an absolute even when they're willing to question Church tradition and the Bible itself, that fact makes legitimate opposition to it all the more noteworthy. We have no business excluding other sides from the discussion. A nontrinitarian reader (Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddist, unitarian, Sikh, New Age, modalist, etc.) can reasonably wonder about the source of this singular doctrine and its incidence among Christians. If the claims of the nontrinitarians are rubbish, trust the informed reader to recognize such. Jonathan Tweet 20:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

What good points! I was merely pointing out the error of calling non-Trinitarians insignificant. I dare say that had it not been for the brutal persecution and execution of non-Trinitarians throughout church history, they would be much more significant today. The fact that there are still between 35 million to 70 million today is quite the testimony.

However, the doctrine was born in the contentious cradle of Nicea and continues to be contentious today. To say it was settled in 381 is a "head in the sand" philosophy. The truth that is hard for theological elitists to grasp is that the majority of Christians don't care... functionally they just believe in Jesus. All this Trinitarian theology is completely lost on them and utterly irrelevant to their life. When asked to describe who they will see in Heaven, the answer generally given is Jesus. Many studies have been done in the past decades over the declining doctrine of the Trinity. The prevalence on non-Trinitarian church leaders in the overall Christian world and in contemporary Christian music attests to this fact. Jacob 21:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority of Christians DON'T HAVE A CLUE what happened in 381.

— [Jacob]

Amazing. I'm not sure how this discussion shifted to it's current state... but this is far from the point at which we started. Not that it's a bad thing, but I don't see how any real ground is being gained in this discussion when it moves from the inclusion of redundant links (something I've not seen on any other article with a "Criticisms of..." page). Once again, I agree that criticism of the Trinity deserves considerable coverage... which it receives on the Nontrinitarianism page. It doesn't need redundant coverage in this article: the summary is sufficient, and anyone who is further interested in learning about Nontrinitarianism can click the 'See Also...' and can have access to a precious load of information which is in it's rightful place (including those lovely links). Once again, it's simple: Answering Islam doesn't belong on the Islam page when there's a Criticism of Islam page. The same idea applies here.--C.Logan 22:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

We got off topic when you and TCC decided to postulate about the insignificance of non-Trinitarian Christians. My post at 13:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC) was completely on topic. You then added your POV that non-Trinitarianism was a miniscule opinion, and then TCC decided to expanded on this with his incorrect POV regarding the insignificance of modern day non-Trinitarianism.

Getting back on topic, the question I have to ask is how do the external links hurt or take away from the article? The simple answer is they don't. But I am only lending my opinion to a discussion started between you and Miguel de Servet. Jacob 05:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

They take away from the article in the way that any irrelevant link would take away from the article. They would not be irrelevant if nontrinitarianism did not exist, but it does.

Your righteous indignation over my accurate assessment ("Postulate"? I don't think that word means what you think it means) of the relative numbers here allowed you do dodge the point very neatly, but you're going to have to answer it sometime if you want to be taken seriously. I.e. if these links are required here to "balance" the article, do you support the addition of an equal number of pro-Trinitarian links in the other article? You answer cannot be anything but "yes" if balance is really what you're after.

As I said, I'm just stating what you need to be arguing for to be consistent. Actually, I don't support adding "balancing" links to either. The articles themselves balance each other more than adequately -- or would theoretically, if each covered its respective subject with equal thoroughness. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

pos·tu·late -

1. to ask, demand, or claim.

2. to claim or assume the existence or truth of, esp. as a basis for reasoning or arguing.

3. to assume without proof, or as self-evident; take for granted.

4. something taken as self-evident or assumed without proof as a basis for reasoning.

I know exactly what postulate means, but you obviously do not. I'll try to use simpler words next time. Also, please show me where I stated the links were required to balance the article. It's not neccessary to put words in my mouth. My point is that these links are relevant and there is no need to remove them. I haven't discussed their necessity to balance anything. And yes, add as many pro-Trinity links in the anti-Trinity article as you'd like.

Trinity and anti-Trinity are two sides to the same coin, and to give my honest opinion, I think it's silly that there are even two articles in the first place. We are not talking about Islam, which is a world religion and deserves much discussion. We are merely talking about a single doctrine, cumbersome as it may be. You would never see separate articles on baptism and anti-baptism, but then again... baptism is not as controversial as the Trinity. Jacob 06:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you provided the proof yourself. The complaints of such a small fraction of a population does not make for sufficient controversy to call this controversial.

I wonder how you can say that these subjects are so close that they must be treated in a single article. They're diametrically opposed. Nor is it cumbersome. It's difficult to understand, but then we're talking about a God we say explicitly is incomprehensible. It would be odd if there were nothing about him that was in the least bit unintuitive.

It seems to me that we don't see this kind of thing about baptism for two reasons. First is that groups who claim to be Christian but don't baptize at all are even rarer than nontrinitarians. Second is that those who can be described in this way are content to say that they don't baptize, state briefly why, and leave it at that. They don't try to turn articles on the subject into debating grounds. That the article itself was becoming little more than a debate transcript is why it was split in the first place. But you're not content with that -- you still want to push your POV here in any way you can.

"Balance", "same subject"... whatever. The point is that the same arguments for inclusion here work both ways. If the "non" links belong here, than the "pro" links belong there. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

OK then. Continue to strive to remove anything that goes against your POV and disparaging groups who do not agree with you. Jolly good job. It is people like you who have made this article sound more like a doctrinal tract than an academic article. Jacob 12:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The Nontrinitarianism article exists for the same reason as the Criticisms of Islam, Criticisms of Christianity, Criticism of Muhammad, Criticism of the Quran, Criticism of the Bible, and Criticism of Religion exist. When a particular section of an article can be vastly expanded to the point where it is taking up an extensive amount of space in the article, it is probably a good idea to move that section to its own article, and leave only a short summary at the parent page. Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:Summary style:

"Summary style" is an excellent technique to give more structure to very long lists of references: for example the "World War II" summary style article portrayed above could have a reference list of sources that treat the history of World War II as a whole, while the sub-articles are provided with references that treat the specifics of each of these subtopics, e.g. books on World War II in the Pacific region are used as reference in the Pacific War article, etc...

There is no need to repeat all specific references for the subtopics in the main "Summary style" article: the "Summary style" article summarizes the content of each of the subtopics, without need to give detailed references for each of them in the main article: these detailed references can be found in the subarticles. The "Summary style" article only contains the main references that apply to that article as a whole.

External links relevant to the subtopic should go in the subtopic article and not the main article.

While I'm sure that you can argue about the relevance of these links in relation to this article, the links are far more relevant to the Nontrinitarianism article than they are to this article, which expresses the basic idea of the Trinity, not the counter-arguments to it (which have their due representation on their own article). Csernica is correct in that the article shouldn't read as a debate transcript. The summary on this page has given the Nontrinitarianism view all that it is due. If you want nontrinitarian links and references, please take a trip to the Nontrinitarianism page.

By the way, Jacob... at what point after your post did I argue for the 'insignificance' of nontrinitarian arguments? That has been Csernica's point of argument, citing Undue weight. I'm simply arguing that the sub-page should contain all the links and references relevant to its nature, while the main article should only provide a summary and a link to that sub-page. I don't think the nontrinitarian arguments are insignificant; that's not what I'm arguing about in the first place. Please note that I'm just following the Wikipedia guideline cited above.--C.Logan 15:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point and do not completely disagree. I am not the least bit offended by any of your comments since I recognize your intent. I see no great need to remove the links, but there is neither a great need not to remove them. If the goal is ease of research, I see arguments for both sides, but your Wikipedia post makes a good argument for moving them. (See what civil discussion gets you?)

To TCC, I would just say that the United States population makes up about 4% of the total world population (about the same as non-Trinitarians within Christianity). According to your logic, the United States is insignificant, which is foolish. The profound effect that non-Trinitarians have had on Christianity (both historically and currently) is without question. Jacob 16:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be a foolish criterion indeed. We must also evaluate groups by their overall influence in the context under discussion. The primary contribution of nontrinitarians to Christianity was historical, in provoking a more exact, formal definition of the doctrine. Their modern influence on Christianity as a whole is, frankly, barely noticeable. On what basis do you claim modern profundity? TCC (talk) (cont

ribs) 00:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

An athiest may claim that 95%+ of people claim that 95%+ people believe in evolution then define evolution as being all life every existing developing soley as product of chance and selection with no intelligent help. Similar logic seems to be used here, without any real facts just phonely claimed facts. Truth is many who belong to supposed trinitarian churches do not agree with the formula for trinity given here. There is a broad range of views. Sir Isaac Newton clearly disagreed with trinity though quietly, yet you would by statisics claim he is of the 95% who support trinity. My mother was a Lutheran who strongly disagreed with trinity of co-equal and coeternal father-son-spirit, yet she might agree with word trinity as meaning 3 importants. If you insist on define as %, then how about all the non-christian scholars who feel Trinity is a later addition to the church.

Please quote a survey of people who agree or disagree with concept of father-son-spirit as coequal and co-eternal (all with no beginning), if you want your % to be taken seriously. Otherwise one could claim that vast majority in catholic countries were against abortion because their church officially is.

Peace at last... just kidding. I'm sure that as long as we keep the links mutually exclusive to their pages, all is fair. Thanks for the discussion, and for civility.--C.Logan 01:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I added an external link:

• Trinity article in Jewish Encyclopedia

This link does not belong on the nontrinitarianism page because its topic is the trinity, not nontrinitarianism. Jonathan Tweet 03:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Questionable text

I reverted a sizable chunk of text added by an anonymous user. Large portions of it appear to have been lifted verbatim from Catholic Answers and The Catholic Encyclopedia. Neither is really suitable here as verbatim text, and the former is a copyright violation. There may have been a useful sentence or two in there, but it would have been more trouble than it's worth to disentangle it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Modalism and Oneness

This article confounds the terms 'Modalism' and 'Oneness'. Most Oneness believers do not believe in a modal kind of oneness. They believe that Jesus Christ is the One Personal God, and that He is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit simultaneously. A modal belief on the other hand is a belief in successive manifestations of God. The effect of not making this distinction is to hook the Oneness doctrine to the anchor of this ancient heresy so as to drown it and make people ignore the Biblical confirmations of the Oneness doctrine.

Jasonschnarr 22:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If by "successive" you mean an arrangement where God acted as the Father before the Incarnation, the Son during, and the Holy Spirit after, then you misstate what is meant by modalism in general. The link here redirects to Sabellianism, which did indeed teach this kind of succession. However, the modalist species of Monarchianism did not. Is it not the case that Oneness Pentecostalists teach something like monarchianism? TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is my understanding of Oneness theologies that they are remarkably similar to earlier monarchianism. However, equating modern theologies with ancient theologies ought to be avoided as an anachronism - in my opinion. Pastordavid 00:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the Oneness belief is modalistic in some ways. I just thought the idea of simultaneous modes in a uni-personal God was not a part of ancient modalism. Was it? Anyhow, the theology has been developed much further and there should be a distinction between ancient and modern modalism, even if there are similarities. Jasonschnarr 20:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

For some ancient modalists it was; for others it was not. There was no one uniform modalist doctrine. Sabellianism, which taught the succession of modes, was merely the most prominent.

If you can find sources that identify ways in which the modern Oneness movement differs from ancient monarchianism, then it certainly merits a brief mention here. A fuller treatment belongs in either nontrinitarianism or Oneness Pentecostalism. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Modalism does not necessitate "a succession of modes". Swedenbourgianism, one form of modalism, holds to such a succession. Classic Oneness terminology is "Father in creation, Son in redemption, and Spirit in regeneration", but these terms refer to the modes in which God works in relation to humanity. It does not mean that the "Spirit" did not exist until after the "Son" ascended. Jacob 15:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else think it odd that one of the few ways to explain Trinity that makes any sense is the one that got branded a heresy? I suspect that modalism catches so much flak because it actually makes us think we can get a handle on the Trinity thing when Trinity is supposed to be an impenetrable mystery. 15:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it caught so much flak because the Church decided it was wrong. TCC (talk) (contribs) 15:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It caught flak because it rejects the classic Trinitarian terminology of "Three Separate Persons". Oneness also rejects the concept of the Godhead as an impenetrable mystery, which goes against Romans 1:20. We can understand the Godhead by looking at the visible creation of God. Thus, by looking at God's creation, we can understand that the Holy Spirit is no more a separate person from the Father than a man's spirit is a separate person from the man. Jacob 16:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-Trinitarians often over-exaggerate the elements of Trinitarian theology. It would seem the most common confusion in modern times arises from the English term "persons", and can become a stumbling block for some. Understanding that the word is intended to mean "mask", "expression", or "aspect", and reading your above comments it seems apparent that the "Oneness theology" is a rather superfluous splitting of hairs that treads the same ground as Trinitarian theology without offering much original perspective. The assignment of 'tasks' in the classic Oneness example you've given is very half-baked. The three aspects of the Trinity are not refined to specific functions, and indeed, scriptural examples show that many of the 'tasks' performed by one are shared fully by all three.

As it is, as long as these three expressions of God can exist simultaneously in your view, then I don't see the great difference between the above and Trinitarian belief. It seems to be another product of misunderstanding- similar to that of the Armenian church and the Eastern Orthodox communion, as well as the Oriental Orthodox communion... A misunderstanding of terms that drives a wedge and separates people who believe the same things- they just have trouble communicating them correctly. As Jerome remarked, "Heresy arises from words wrongly used".--C.Logan 17:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Oneness proponents adhere strongly to the idea of Father, Son, and Spirit as three 'masks' of the one true God. That is the heart of modalism. Orthodox Trinitarianism, as I understand it, is opposed to this view. Many drawings of the Trinity show three seperate beings on three separate thrones in Heaven. This is where the two never shall meet. In the Trinitarian Shield pictured in the article... it is the "Is Not's" that Oneness believers reject. Father, Son, and Spirit are just terms to assist man's understanding. The Father is the Holy Spirit. The Son is the Father manifest in flesh. If you look closely, the only true distinction ever found in scripture is between the flesh and Spirit (flesh = Son and Spirit = Father). That's why the Bible never says Jesus is God the Son, but rather Jesus is the son of God. Psalms prophetically says "The LORD said unto my Lord". The first LORD is all caps (eternal God) and the second Lord is not all caps (humanity of the son).

I only say these things to show that the differences go beyond mere exaggeration or "splitting of hairs". The two views are fundamentally different. --Jacob 00:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I very much agree that there is no way to reconcile these views, and that the differences are fundamental. However, the drawings you talk about are just as incorrect from a Trinitarian perspective -- and the "shield" drawing is incorrect from an Orthodox perspective. There are not three thrones in heaven any more than there are three Gods, and you cannot really say the Son "is not" the Father any more than you can say the Son is not God. The East sees this Western model as coming very close to making a fourth hypostasis out of the Divine Essence itself. There are those who trace this to the addition of the filioque, but I don't want to go there right now. (Nor can a Trinitarian say that the Son is the Father either. They are distinct from each other, but not separate from each other.)

It's probably correct that Modalism developed from a desire to make the impenetrable mystery less so -- but that's psychology, not theology. In and of itself it is not why the Fathers believed Modalism to be wrong, but rather because it they strongly believed that Christ had revealed personal distinctions within the Godhead. See [1]. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

So the drawings used to depict the Trinity in an article on the Trinity actually misrepresent the Trinity? What can any discussion be based upon if we do not hold ourselves even to our own arguments? Jacob 02:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

A drawing is an argument? I don't see that. Such a depiction is intended to be a symbolic expression of the idea, not a rigorous theological definition. It's naturally faulty as any such depiction will be faulty, but as long as that's understood it's not particularly harmful. That it's symbolic is clearer when there is no attempt to depict the Trinity directly, such as in icons of the Hospitality of Abraham. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It is difficult to discuss the trinity because trinitarians don't hold themselves firmly to anything. Even you in an above paragraph stated that one cannot say "the Son is not the Father" and then said "the Son is not the Father". Huh? This is not paradoxical nor is it mysterious. Jacob 12:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Although you appear to make some generalization from your personal experience, I would suggest that you keep in mind that the various denominations hold various views regarding the theology of the Trinity- Catholicism and Orthodoxy even differs slightly. Therefore, it's difficult to expect "Trinitarians" to hold to their arguments, when each denomination holds to its own understanding. Conversely, don't apply the example you've given above as a 'standard' for all Trinitarians. I believe that Csernica/TCC is attempting to explain that the analogies used for the Trinity (and indeed any analogy) is wholly imperfect. Concerning the above 'contradiction', it would appear that holding to any one of the above 'phrases' too strongly can be misleading. For example, one should not tend too strongly towards the "is not" lest one's belief evolves into tri-theism, and one should not tend too strongly towards the "is" lest the distinction between the prosopa disappear. The reality of the idea, as you well know, is one of Tri-Unity. There are 'analogies' to this idea which can be observed in nature, but one should remember that analogies are imperfect in any example- theology or not. --C.Logan 13:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It is true that I am speaking in generalities. This is intentional and not meant to be offensive. You must understand that from a non-trinitarian point of view, when I speak to 10 trinitarians I will get 10 different versions of the trinity. In my experience there is no real consensus even among trinitarians on what the doctrine actually is. I suppose this has been true since the original formulation of the doctrine in the fourth century. I would venture based upon reading various posts that you and TCC differ on what the trinity is. Jacob 21:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No offense was taken, of course. In actuality, I can understand what you mean, and as I'm sure you've apparently tried to convey with the quote on your user page, the majority of the faithful (in every denomination) are not theologians, and have no great capability of explaining the Trinity, or even really understanding much of it themselves (as well as most other elements of the faith, for that matter). Therefore, I'm not surprised that you may, from your own experience, arrive at several answers, even from individuals with the same denomination! Of course, everyone has their way of explaining things, and not everyone can be mindful of the barriers of what their faith 'is' and 'is not'. As I've said, the terminology can make a difference in many cases (note the thin line between Chalcedonian belief and Miaphysitism, for example- the language barrier was by far the greatest wedge between these two groups).

Oh, and as the below post denotes, me and TCC share, in essence, the same theology. However, I prefer to refrain from using the difficult terminology which may bring troublesome lingual baggage (such as 'person' or even 'persona'), as I've found such terms can prove to be an impediment in my own understanding- therefore. We're expressing the same ideas, but with different words. --C.Logan 05:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Hospitality of Abraham, it is clear in scripture that this was two angels and a theophany of God. Not the trinity. It is bad revisionism to attempt to put the trinity here, even in a symbolic sense. It is further illustrated later in the story when two angels go on to remove Lot from Sodom. This story has nothing to do with the trinity, does not show the trinity in any sense, and actually refutes the trinity in that it shows God as a single personal being. Jacob 12:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Although I can only speak about my own experience, I wouldn't think that any more than a minority of individuals would believe this to be the Trinity. In fact, I brought this up with my priest a short while ago, as we were speaking about icons in general (my church has explicit icons of the Trinity in the bookstore, much to the surprise of my priest). Now, I'm unsure as to what your actual issue with 'symbolic representation' may be, but the idea that God presents examples of 'three's in nature and in the Bible is seen as an echoing of his nature. I don't see the problem with symbolic examples, like Spyridon's clay potsherd or Patrick's clover (although these could be fabricated stories, they are examples all the same). Regarding your stance on the Sodom & Gomorrah story, I would be inclined to agree with you; and indeed, I believe God is a single being, although with three prosopa. --C.Logan 13:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure you are a trinitarian?  :) j/k. If you would constrain yourself to using Biblical terminology (which is all we need in my opinion), we probably wouldn't be much different. Jacob 21:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Logan clarified my point eloquently, and in this discussion we are in full agreement. I had guessed we were in the same church even before I looked at his user page. Perhaps you're being misled by variations in terminology being used to express the same idea -- or by my own clumsy phrasing, as I see I expressed myself far too elliptically.

It would be nice if we could stick to the Biblical terms, and in fact the Nicene Fathers were perfectly happy to do so until Arius came along. The impetus behind their dogmatic formulation was more to exclude incorrect readings than to come up with something new -- a charge they would have (and did) denied vigorously. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment- I was afraid my wording of things might come up a bit short. Indeed, I'd noticed our commonality in faith some time ago during an earlier dispute (the specifics of which I can't even remember).

The more I read the writings of heterodox churches, it seems as if it is the terminology alone which drives us apart, rather than the theology itself- whether in the fifth century, the eleventh, or the twenty-first. And regarding your above point regarding the new, extra-biblical terminology, I agree- disagreements over gray areas are usually the birthplace of new formulations and applications of new terminology, in any field of thought.

Regarding the topic in general, I read a rather well-written elaboration on the Trinity today, though from a Catholic author. While, considering that last fact, the explanation is not entirely compatible with Orthodox theology (as it relies on the filioque to work), I don't believe I've read a better explanation of the intra-relationship between the prosopa (although I'm admittedly not well-read on the subject). --C.Logan 05:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Christian Science

Hi all. Someone mistakenly put Christian Science in the catagory of nontrinitarian. I removed their name from the list and added a little blurb in the begining of another aspect of the Trinity. Seems to be some misunderstanding about what Christian Science believes. Great to have the opportunity to get a full picture of the different ways to view the trinity. E-mail if you have any questions Would it be better to add Mary Baker Eddy's ideas on the trinity under historical perspectives? Simplywater 19:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No need to communicate by email. We work out article content right here.

I moved your text to a separate section. Christian Science is an extremely recent, relatively small movement not related to historical Christianity in any meaningful way, and their Trinitarian theology is unrecognizable. There's not really anything useful on Eddy's thought that can be added to the historical section IMO, since that's mainly about how the expression of the doctrine developed. Whatever Christian Science teaches on the subject, it's not related to any historical view except perhaps that found in Gnosticism. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your opinion, however, her definitions of the Christ and God are found in m-w.com. Meaning, her insights are recognized as valuable, unique, and historical understanding of Christian concepts. Perhaps you can tell me which part of this section you would like her definition included. 70.56.22.171 07:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Simplywater 07:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Lots of definitions that don't belong in this article are found in the dictionary, and I fail to see how this characterizes her "insights" in any way. All it does is note an entirely different sense of the word -- which is exactly what I'm talking about. Eddy simply didn't use these words to mean the same thing that Christians do. including the subject of this article. That would be the first two senses listed, which is how they're understood by practically everyone who calls themselves "Christian". Other than, as I said, the Gnostics.

I did what I said and moved it do a different section of the article.[2] Someone else came along later and deleted it entirely.[3] You'll have to ask him why he did that. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I made a place for Christian Science's trinity, an Unorthodox Trinitarianism section. CS is clearly unorthodox, but I can't think of a neutral reason to exclude it altogether from the page. Jonathan Tweet 22:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That looks good, as long as we don't allow Nontrinitarian viewpoints to slip in (as such a section would seem to attract editors who place minority opinions and personal theories into Wikipedia). Perhaps it it should be titled "Unorthodox Trinitarian Views" instead.--C.Logan 22:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you guys for working with me! That was easy.Simplywater 03:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It's good to see you're happy with the end result. Most people are too stubborn to appreciate compromise (and considering that the other debate I'm involved in has continued for almost 40 days, I say that with great lamentation). --C.Logan 04:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely my pleasure. Don't let the 40 days throw you :) these discussions have been going on for 1900 years. what's another 40 days or so. Simplywater 17:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi all, Somehow I need to reference Science and Health because that is the source of the quotes used. I´ve tried to put it in, but not sure how.

Hello, ok, I have the feeling there is some objection to having the book Science and Health with Key to the Scripture on this page. I've never seen personal edits on reference books in encyclopidias. My biggest objection is the insistence that Christian Science is non-trinitarian. Christian Science includes the trinity in it's teachings. You may not like it, but my understanding is that this is an encyclopdia. Wikipedia is an attempt to let those who are interested in knowing the different ways terms can be explored. "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the WORD, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." 1 John, 5:7

So, how do we edit references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.80 (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2007

CS isn't Trinitarian in the usual sense of the word, and using the name "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" is no indication of Trinitarianism. You see on this page extensive discussion with Monarchianists, who use that name themselves, but do not mean the same thing by it as Trinitiarians do. The situation is the same with CS. You use the words, but they don't mean the same thing as they do when, say, a Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Lutheran Christian says them.

There's no objection at all to referencing CS scripture when describing CS doctrine. You can just use whatever standard format is used for referring to specific passages, if you have something equivalent to the "Book Chapter:Verse" format for Biblical references. Just insert it between a pair of tags <ref> </ref> at the end of the text requiring the citation and after any punctuation. It will automatically add a footnote.

You should use caution in citing the Johannine Comma. It's probably spurious. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm in Guatemala and for some reason this signal doesn't record my user name. I have no objection that the CS understanding of Trinity is different than orthodox understanding. And in fact, Trinity isn't even in the King James Bible. But we are trinitarian in that we believe in the unity of God, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. We believe that those concepts are purely spiritual and never material. Simplywater

Thanks for the interesting note on the Johannine Comma. Wow what interesting research!! I guess for me it's another example of how the Bible encourages us to stretch, never lets us be done. I mean, God is the Infinite.

NPOV (Neutral point of view)

It is claimed that only a small fraction of people don't accept the Trinity, and thus their point of view seems to be waredited out. By this logic only a small fraction of people in catholic lands support abortion or birth control because the church officially opposes these.

Respected people such as Isaac Newton have quietly and strongly disagreed with the "official" view, and there are many shades of opinion, some may agree with concept of "Father, son and spirit" as important thus trinity but disagree that father son and spirit are co-equal and all without beginning. An opinion without solid evidence that only one side is common is flawed, it is obvious from these discussions and all over the internet that there are lots of people on both sides and we could also includes non-christian historical scholars.

I believe NPOV is quite clear and editing an article to delete opposing views and correct weasel words is wrong but is happenning.

I suggest rather than split articles based on opinions (which violates NPOV), we split them based on sub-topic if needed. Eg we can have a detailed discussion on John 1:1 and any other scripture or group of scriptures including the original greek text and transliteration and comparisions to other scriptures with same greek words in similar usage and many different sources linked to show that the westcott and horts or whatever source of that text is not in dispute. In the main article we should hyperlink a reference to the discussion on each individual topic and only abreviate in a neutral way opinions given.

It looks like this debate has being going on for year or more, so I suggest we mediate this out, and afterwards if warediting happens put article under protection.

Once again, please sign your comments. You have an account- there is no reason why you cannot simply click the signature button above the edit box when you are done typing.

Please refrain from making any contentious statements without the support of verifiable sources. I, too, could throw about hundreds of theories about people's beliefs, but unless I am in agreement with consensus, and unless a verifiable, reliable sources is given to support my contentious theories, then they have no real place on Wikipedia.

Again, I've already noted several times: read WP:CON, WP:OR, and the text within the parentheses in the third sentence of WP:NPOV. The article needs sources as it is, and the addition of minority views (especially without sources) is in contrast to WP:UNDUE. Your statements have a far more appropriate place on the Nontrinitarian page, where minority views are discussed in detail.

I'm unsure what "debate" you're referring to. While there have been several tenuously linked disputes on this page, it would appear that all have been resolved or dropped. Consensus on what belongs in the article, it would seem, has remained largely the same- as it has been largely in accordance with Wikipedia Policy.

Additionally, there is already a page on John 1:1. This would be a more appropriate place for your personal theories. Please include sources to support any assertions/additions. Mentioning Isaac Newton and your mother's personal beliefs while throwing out arbitrary figures and making contentious, unsupported assertions about the beliefs of the majority of Christians worldwide only makes you look unreasonable and unbiased. Remember: WP:CON, WP:OR, WP:UNDUE. --C.Logan 20:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You too are making contentious statements if I am. Prove that the vast majority of people accept the trinity formula you seem to be pushing as main point of view on this page while you delete others. I link and cite a few scriptures using the exact same formula as the many scriptures claiming your POV and you delete them without reason. Majority view goes beyond official church position on an issue just like it does with birth control.

my usage of sources matched exactly the usage of sources from the other point of view, yet you deleted mine but not the other. They cited scriptures, I cited using exact same formula the same mention of source translation, etc, they made a claim of something as being sure without source, so I added that the idea was claimed rather than sure. It is hypocritical to claim undue when the material I am adding to is not better. --David edmonton 20:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

As you are the one attempting to make additions to the page, the burden of proof lies on you. As you are the one who is challenging the consensus, you must attempt to prove your statements. If a scientist were to propose a law in physics, he would not demand that the orthodoxy 'provide proof'.

Please understand consensus and how it works. As I've already stated, some statements within the article need sources to support assertions. However, consensus determines what is generally accepted by the majority of editors. As the vast majority of unsourced statements represent the majority view, then the issue of original research is minimized. Statements which are considered 'given' are not considered in violation of WP:OR. If any individual were to come along and delete information from the page while arguing the case of original research, then the consensus would be broken (note that this is removal of consensus-approved material, not addition of new material), at which point concerned individuals would provide support for the challenged, orthodox assertions.

Additionally, there is a Nontrinitarianism article, where your edits would be more appropriate, and a John 1:1 article as well. Realize that we are not entitled to treat minority opinions (especially those which are considered OR) on the parent page- there are related sub-pages which treat the subject with more detail.--C.Logan 21:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"Please include sources to support any assertions/additions." You deleted without giving reasons for why. Eg you seem to be trying to force an opinion that Gospel of John supports Trinity as being treated as seeming fact by deleting correction to the weasel words and examples from John that oppose that view, all without stating why.

Here are the diffs for the first and the second reversion of your edits. I clearly state that the statements are unsourced and tenuous- and in violation of WP:OR. How much more must that be elaborated for an individual to understand?

1. Unsourced - presented without sources.
2. Tenuous - insubstantial, not solidly; in this sense, claiming that you're presenting your own personal interpretation of these verses (as you present no verifiable source in support). This is in violation of WP:UNDUE. Your opinion may be interesting, but it is insignificant- both in comparison to the majority theory and also considering it is presented without any support beyond your own.
3. In violation of WP:OR - Without sources, and without consensus, your assertions are original research. I could offer my personal interpretation of many Bible verses, but unless a verifiable source supports the claim, then it is original research, and as you do not have a consensus over its inclusion, it will be removed until you provide sufficient support.

As it has been expressed, Nontrinitarianism has its own article. Detail of minority opinions and links should be presented there. Only summarizations of such assertions should be presented here, in the Nontrinitarianism section- and here, just as in the Nontrinitarianism article, they should be supported by verifiable sources. --C.Logan 21:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You seem to claim "consensus" as an excuse to allow POV in favour but exact same formula of POV against to be deleted. I followed the exact same formula, when scritures and their sources were quoted, I quoted using a copy and paste of existing material. I dispute you have consensus any more than one could claim consensus on what catholics believe on birth control with only official church position.David edmonton 21:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I moved this section to the bottom of the page, which is where new threads ought to go, and also removed the Mediation banner. Not only has the issue been resolved, but the request for mediation was never actually made. I'll add a substantive comment later, but I want to save the ASAP to avoid edit conflicts. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I went to the section about mediation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal, and followed the directions on section I. You are not suppose to remove that until the dispute has been processed by a member of the cabal group. Are you a member of the group? How can the issue be resolved and yet no request made? I do not consider issue resolved, I have never seen a comment by those who disagreed that they were now in agreement, or some authority in wikipedia dictating the solution. Can you provide a link to such?David edmonton 21:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Erm. No, you very plainly didn't do that at all. The link to the mediation discussion was a redlink. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If you wish me to look at a link then state the link HERE. I look, I do not see what I am missing. Are you a member of Cabal, yes or no? If you are not a member, how is it ok to delete my request for mediation when that is clearly against the rules?David edmonton 21:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This kind of thing is why I suggested you read more of the documentation and help files around here and familiarize yourself with how things are done before entering into a contentious debate. Otherwise you would have known what I was talking about. I had not intended to give you a link; there's nothing to link to. A "redlink" is a link to a page that does not exist. The page in question didn't exist because you didn't follow the instructions given. You probably didn't understand them because you are not yet familiar with how editing works here.

In any event, you have no grounds for requesting a mediation. Any issues you still see on this page are rather old; check the timestamps. There have simply been no serious content disputes here in some time. The first step is to try to hash things out on the talk page first, and you've only just now started. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If you are not a member of cabal according to wikipedia policy means you have broken the rules in deleting a request for informal mediation. It should be up to a member of the assigned group to deny mediation. I read the discussion, I see what seems to be a clear violation of NPOV, this article clearly has a point of view in my opinion.

A person interested in Trinity would type trinity in search. He would be hard pressed to find the single link you refer to buried in a non-obvious place as to disputing ideas. In for example treatment of gospel of John it is asserted that gospel especially supports trinity (with no citation except scripture) when there are scriptures that clearly seem to oppose but are deleted even if following the accepted pattern. Is that NPOV?David edmonton 23:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"Consensus science" http://www.dhonline.com/articles/2005/01/02/news/opinion/edit01.txt, "Suppressed evidence or half-truths" (eg only some scriptures from John) The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark., David edmonton 23:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

First, we don't simply cite scripture as we like here as if it clearly supported on side or the other. We cite scripture that has actually been used by one side of the debate in order to support their thesis, ideally giving references as we go. To do otherwise is original research.

Second, we can characterize the debate in the article, but we do not actually engage in debate in the article. If this article seems pro-Trinity, it can nevertheless hardly be an NPOV violation when there's an entire article devoted to the "other side". Do we engage in the debate in both articles? That would be the only fair way to do it if we were to. But, thankfully, we don't. However, the point of this article is to cover the subject of the Trinity. We cover other points of view in their own devoted articles.

Third, the absurd contentions about the Greek meaning something different is unsourced. We don't get to simply make assertions like that without supporting them by citing reliable sources. In any event the fact is that the doctrine was formulated by people who spoke NT Greek as their day-to-day language, and they understood it perfectly well. (Just to hazard a guess here, user:David edmonton is Jehovah's Witness with his harping on John 1. Their mistranslation of the crucial opening verses is notorious.)

Fourth: David, all you have done since editing on Wikipedia is to edit-war over this article. [4]. I strongly suggest you take the time to review Wikipedia policy and get used to the way things are done around here before you start this kind of activity, which is strongly frowned upon. It's not an auspicious start, and I'd much rather see you a productive editor than get banned or ostracized. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

And fifth: David, before you make one more edit, please learn wiki syntax, particularly how to create internal links. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"absurd contentions about the Greek meaning" personal attack, look at John 1:1 in wikipedia which has sources to show contention is not absurd. How is it ok to make contention that an entire book of bible supports an idea without quoting a source to back it up, but instead internal evidence but then deleting any internal scriptural evidence using same style that shows that assertion is questionable? If you want sources then do an edit to ask for sources, rather than just delete, and I would provide them, lots of scholorly articles and greek scripture examples are availableDavid edmonton 21:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

A personal attack is where one attacks the messenger, but I am all about the message. Specifically this edit. Especially given John 1:1, you can't just go and say one must "look elsewhere" for a "more accurate" translation. It's just as absurd to say that the English translation has affected the debate. There has been no serious Trinitarian debate in English. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I was still working on the article when 5 minutes after my first post my work was deleted. I do posts one stage at a time so I don't lose an hours work on an internet or browser glitch (one wrong keystroke in IE browser and all work is lost). Normal procedure I have seen is to post a request for citation, not to delete one side when the other side makes assertions that are even more unsupported (eg "gospel of john" especially supports trinity, only citing some scriptures as source and deleting any other evidence posted using same format).

There is a wikipedia article on John 1:1 and long before I posted, it is obvious that the translation can be debated, that concept is NOT absurd.David edmonton 23:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, don't update articles piecemeal like that. Not only does it lead to "first draft" text in the article, but it clutters up the history with repetitious edits by the same person. If IE is a problem, then don't use IE. I had no idea it rose to the level of inadequacy you describe here. Try Firefox. But there's no reason you have to do all your editing in a browser. Paste the text into Notepad and make your edits there, then paste everything in at once. The only thing you have to be careful of there is that you might accidentally erase intervening edits, but you can see it there have been any from the article history first.

Don't do it in talk pages either. It's very annoying to run into repeated edit conflicts while trying to reply.

You have not yet understood what I'm saying about your edit. You cannot state as fact that the common translation is inaccurate when the question isn't settled. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is against the wikipedia way to have an article with a Point of View and justify it by moving alternate views into a different article that is hard to find a link to. For example the treatment of gospel of John as claimed to support trinity, with only citations of supporting scriptures and alternate scriptures that fit the same format but do not seem to support trinity being removed. If we can find a way to be more balanced, great, I am not going to waste time posting and having stuff deleted 10 minutes later. I am willing to go to formal mediation over this if we can't resolve our differences.

I would be happy to find a common ground where there is an easy to find means to see all views on each piece of evidence so that any newbie user who types "Trinity" in wikipedia search and only reads some of the article will see a NPOV.David edmonton 00:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You can believe all you want about the "wikipedia way", but your incorrect and we have already reached a consensus on how these articles should be organized. What it boils down to is that you want to have your cake and eat it too -- or are you advocating as vociferously at Talk:Nontrinitarianism for "NPOV" there as well? In all fairness, you'd have to do that there too. Why aren't you looking for balance on both sides?

The answer is probably that you're really more interested in pushing your own POV than looking for balance. As I said, you need to get more used to the way things are done around here. For example, look at how quick you are to dash off to "formal mediation". (If you mean the Mediation Cabal, that's informal mediation, as you'd know if you read the pages carefully.) That's even skipping steps -- why don't you put in a request for comment instead if you feel that strongly about it? But you're swimming against the current here.

This article is about the Trinity, not about things that aren't the Trinity. There are other articles for that; it's a different subject. Fact is, this isn't anywhere near as contentious a subject among most Christians as you'd like to make out. It looks big to you, because you don't believe in it and find a presentation of it personally irritating. But the controversy really isn't all that big these days, and to allocate more space to nontrinitarianism here than we do is clearly a case of undue weight. I suggest you read WP:NPOV with more care. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is against the wikipedia way to have an article with a Point of View and justify it by moving alternate views into a different article that is hard to find a link to.

What 'way' are you talking about? What 'different article' are you talking about? You're really going to need to clarify these things before you make an argument that ignores the past year's worth of discussions on what does and does not belong on this page. Again, read WP:CON.

For example the treatment of gospel of John as claimed to support trinity, with only citations of supporting scriptures and alternate scriptures that fit the same format but do not seem to support trinity being removed.

This page does not handle criticisms of Trinitarian doctrine. It used to, but the section has since expanded into a separate article (per WP). That article is called "Nontrinitarianism". You can feel free to find your sources and post the information relayed from them there, where criticisms of Trinitarian doctrine are covered in full (as, after all, the primary of Nontrinitarian arguments is to dismantle orthodox Trinitarian claims). As per WP, this article does not devote any considerable attention to a minority viewpoint which is covered extensively in a separate article, which happens to have a link directly from this page in the relevant section (which presents the main points given on the Nontrinitarian article in summary).

If we can find a way to be more balanced, great, I am not going to waste time posting and having stuff deleted 10 minutes later. I am willing to go to formal mediation over this if we can't resolve our differences.

The article is hardly unbalanced- it discusses the elements of Trinitarian doctrine, the history of it, and verses which have been used to support the doctrine. The fact that the article is short on the sources for these scriptural quotations does not 'entitle' you to a counter-argument which is equally unsourced. However, the issue is not the inclusion of verses with or without sources- it's the inclusion of material which does not belong in this article, but rather its sub-article. The article is frequently altered by individuals with the intent to proselytize their own beliefs (I've removed the 'kingdomready' site about 15 times now). I will affirm what the past months of discussion have continuously affirmed- that this article talks about the historical, theological, and doctrinal basis for the Trinity. Views and interpretations which aim to discredit Trinitarian beliefs do not belong here anymore, but in the sub-article (Nontrinitarianism), although a summary of important points can be presented in the "Nontrinitarian" summary section on this page.

I would be happy to find a common ground where there is an easy to find means to see all views on each piece of evidence so that any newbie user who types "Trinity" in wikipedia search and only reads some of the article will see a NPOV.

Again, this same argument was given for the dispute over the inclusion of Nontrinitarian external links; a dispute which ended with the prevalence of Wikipedia policy, and the removal of the links. This article does have a NPOV- it just seems that you feel that your rebuttals to established doctrine should receive front-and-center attention. Per WP:UNDUE and WP:CON, your assertions belong on the Nontrinitarianism page, or the John 1:1 page, and most preferably with verifiable sources. --C.Logan 01:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we have to be careful with some of our logic. For example, there are many articles on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and on all of them you will find critiques and statements that others believe differently. Using some of your logic here all of that information should be deleted because the topic is Mormonism. Logan, I have found that we generally agree on most ways of editing and I respect you as an editor. My comments should not be interpreted to be in full support of the other side, but only that you make sure that there is a balance found in the article with easy, prevalent links to those articles that support a contrary view. Does this seem appropriate? I did not reread the entire article again before making this edit so I am only addressing the talk page at this time. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's pretty reasonable. I see no reason why an article on Mormonism should take any particular trouble to explain how others believe differently. What could possibly be the point of doing that other than to push the opposing POV? So yes, absolutely rip that stuff out of LDS-related articles. If I want to preach to Mormons, I'll preach to Mormons. An encyclopedia is no place for that kind of thing. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the current issue is not so much an issue of 'quashing criticism', but rather putting it in the correct place, and in the correct form.

We shouldn't allow pages to fall into POV, but we also don't want to turn the article into a debate page, where every statement has a response/rebuttal. That kind of format can open the door up for a lot of OR. As such, we would do best to avoid such a contentious format.

All the arguments against Trinitarian doctrine can be found on Wikipedia, though on the appropriate sub-article. That being said, we should make sure to provide a good sub-page summary in accordance with Wikipedia's style guidelines. The section, as it is, has a brief and sufficient exposition of major Nontrinitarian viewpoints, which are available in detail through the link above.

If there exists an article of "Criticism of X", editors should take care to focus criticisms of "X" to that article, and not to the "X" article itself. Save for a few instances (such as a case when the context of a statement is completely necessary for a counter-argument to make sense; to the point where a large amount of text would have to be duplicated to a criticism article), all criticism on the "X" page should be confined to the summary section for "Criticism of X", in accordance with style guidelines. (And therefore, I do believe that any such information found on Mormon articles should be refined to summary sections, or at most mentioned vaguely with a 'see also' link- of course, this really depends on the specific situation.)

The user's edits, though in good faith, it seems, are unsourced and tenuous, and appear to come from an uninformed viewpoint (that is, it appears to be ignorant of a few of the widely known catechisms). Unless a reliable source is shown to support this assertion, then it can only be assumed to be an individuals own questionable interpretation, or more likely a contentious assertion learned under the tutelage of any of the more aggressive Nontrinitarian organizations or sites.

The article should have a neutral point of view, and if it ever falls strongly away from neutrality, care will be taken to restore it. Of course, this does not mean that long-established majority doctrines should be challenged point-by-point by the personal theories of editors. This article succeeds in being what consensus has determined it to be.

I think it's worth noting that I believe that the "See John 1:1" inserts are sufficient in regard to this issue- after all, it directs the reader to the article which contains an in-depth treatment of the subject.

Stormrider, I thank you for your compliments and for your respect. I also commend you for taking a neutral position rather than the position of a familiar editor- after all, we can all be wrong about things sometimes. If you feel that I may have misunderstood anything you've said with the above response, feel free to correct my error. --C.Logan 04:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

We continue to be in agreement. The topic the Holy Trinity; it is not the Conflicts with or against the Trinity. Too often NPOV is used to turn articles into mush when we are talking about topics that deal with religion. All that is needed is balance and clear references to subarticles or associated articles.

I continue to support that majority positions should be given majority position. This can be sensitive to those with minority views, but in time and with respect they will eventually come to understand that this is not a forum of truth, but a forum of information and facts. His Peace, --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me jump in to say that this article is pretty bad because it's so pro-Trinity. An article shouldn't be pro-Trinity just because it's topic is Trinity. The existence of the Nontrinitarianism article is used as an excuse to keep a pro-Trinity POV on this article. For example, the history of the Trinity doctrine doesn't provide any context. It simply cherry picks the best pro-trinity quotes it can. It doesn't anywhere summarize the developing Christology of the early Christian church. It doesn't summarize the Christology of the writers quoted. At one point, I helped move nontrinitarian material from this page to Nontrinitarianism because it was out of place here, which I offer as evidence that I don't see just one side to this issue. But the history section for sure is a slant, and when I have time I might come back here with a POV tag for it. Jonathan Tweet 14:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

carl sagan, the baloney detector test (lots of links searching google) from chapter 12 of his book the demon haunted world, "supressed evidence or half truths", all relavent scriptures/quotes should be included in a discussion of gospel of John relating to the Trinity rather than just pro-trinity ones. If I miss a citation for one part of my addition, then only that piece should be deleted and the propperly cited stuff should be left. (A citation of exact location and translation of a scripture in a most common translation is a valid citation. RS, revised standard is the most common revision of KJ bible).

If we don't want a bunch of scriptures in this article, we can move all of them into a different one. The article with a list of scriptures can be a short stub for each, quote from a cited english translation. We can then break it out into an article with a detailed discussion of each scripture similar to John 1:1 with the original greek and transliteration included. If another scripture such as John 10:35 uses the same combinations of greek words that are under dispute, a short link can lead to comparison.David edmonton 14:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that the history section should be rewritten in prose and put into context, I disagree strongly that this article should turn into a debating society transcript. Again: Are any of you who are arguing for "balance" at such length here equally willing to "balance" nontrinitarian-related articles as well? If not, why not? Any reason you might give here for "balance" would apply there as well. In other words, you would have to be equally in favor of arguing for the Trinity in those articles as you are for arguing for nontrinitarianism here. So why don't I see anyone doing that?

Of course, this is a bad idea on its face since it would result in duplicated content. If it's a bad idea for either, then for genuine balance its a bad idea for both. Since nontrinitarianism is a complete subject in its own right it deserves its own article and should not be merged in here -- it would made this article an over-long, jumbled mess anyway. To present complete arguments for the opposite POV in one article but not the other is to create a slant toward nontrinitarianism.

Sorry, you don't get to do that. TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"Sorry you don't get to do that", I don't see any consensus from ANY who disagreed with your arrangement of splitting POV into 2 articles. If it is too messy to have all the scriptures on Gospel of John that relate to the Trinity (rather than just the pro-trinity ones which is NOT NPOV), then we can split that into a different article. Since we seem to be at an impasse, if you are not willing to allow all relavent scriptures on Trinity from Gospel of John to be included, I suggest formal mediation requesting someone who has no pre-bias regards idea of Trinity. You don't have the authority to say what can or can't be done. You obviously do have a bias as being directly invited by the individual who originally deleted all the propperly cited scriptures I added to try and give a NPOVDavid edmonton 23:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't double-indent; it's distracting.

Also, please drop your pretenses. As I replied to you on my talk page, balance or a true NPOV is the last thing you're after here. And you did not "properly cite" any Scripture; if you think you did then you don't understand what that means. Willfully, since it's been explained to you several times and links provided to the relevant policy pages. I have no patience with willful ignorance or disingenuous mendacity. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand "don't double indent", you have two sets of :: indentations in your reply above to me, so you must mean something else.

I respectfully disagree, and suggest you avoid person attacks. There is not a strong majority view among scholars on the Gospel of John regarding the Trinity. And your system of attributing "majority" and "tiny minority" views seems as flawed as attributing the views on birth control in a catholic country based on church teaching. This discussion page has many citations from authorities on what the gospels do and don't say about the trinity, and they don't have a strong majority view of trinity from the gospels.

How did I not properly cite the scriptures when I used the exact same format as the ones already cited? I believe the treatment of article John 1:1 is balanced and the treatment of the Gospel of John section in this article should follow suit. If you can explain how my citations are inferior to the existing, please do. There is no consensus here, there are at least 2 others posting now who feel there is bias in this article, around same number as those who don't. Do you agree that formal mediation is a good idea? If not why?David edmonton 02:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I mean don't add two indents on a single reply. I'm doing it here to set this off against StormRider's reply below, but in general it takes up too much horizontal space too quickly to add two indent levels every time.

The answer to your question is that the other scripture isn't cited correctly. This has already been stated though, and StormRider and Logan explain fully below. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

David, I am against quoting any scripture; the interpretation of scripture is subjective. I recommend that you quote someone who states that a specific scripture means.... In doing so you remove any potential cause of OR or POV. It becomes a statement of fact. Does that make sense to you?

There certainly room to portray that the concept of the Trinity has hardly a universal doctrine during the first 300 years, it is beyond reproach that it became the overriding test for orthodoxy. Today, the majority of churches use this single belief to determine who is Christian and who is not. Being a nonTrinitarian it is a source of pique and frustration. Scripturally, I have a difficult time arriving at the belief of the Trinity, but if I study the early church fathers, it seems quite clear where and how it came to be.

The topic is Trinity and should stay the Trinity; if we want to debate, at length this topic it becomes another article. This is not to say that I see no room for critique or conflict throughout history, but those are subsections and not the foundation of the article. Does this make sense? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"David, I am against quoting any scripture"... currently have quoted scriptures in gospel of john subsection. I believe the logic was that the writer of the gospel was an authority, and the citations were from most common translations of that authority. Do we take out all scriptures from the section and move to a different article, and delete the opinion or find a citation for the opinion that the gospel of john especially supports the trinity? Do we include quotes from gospel of john as a writer of early authority but not include opinion on what they mean? Or do you suggest something else entirely for the gospel of John subsection?David edmonton 03:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, from what I make of your comment, the answer to your question is this- we should find secondary sources which can attest to the interpretation of the featured verses as being in support of the Trinity.

As the article deals partly with how the Trinitarian position arose out of Holy Scripture and tradition, such quotes are entirely relevant to the purpose of the article. In contrast, the article isn't a 'debate hall' on the various interpretations of Biblical verses- there are forums for that sort of thing. It's reasonable to present the "why"s when discussing how the Trinity came to be known to the majority of Christians as the truth. It is merely contentious to present "why not"s right afterward.--C.Logan 04:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I should note that we should definitely have sources which support the exegeses of these particular verses being in support of the Trinity. Holy Scripture is a primary source, and as such lends itself to highly to personal interpretation (OR). One need only look up 'Christian denominations' to fully grasp just how easy it is for one individual to catch a wave of followers with his or her own personal interpretation of things. As such, the scriptural presentations on the page should be given citations- while I earnestly believe in the Trinitarian quality of many of them, there is no certainty without sources that anyone else but myself and the contributing editor felt that such scriptures were in support of the Trinity. Sources for these assertions shouldn't be hard to find- I do believe that the Bible commentary in many editions of the Bible counts as a reasonably reliable secondary source. Of course, make no mistakes- I'm not saying that Nontrinitarian arguments belong here (outside of the summary section). There is a place for such material on Wikipedia- links to such articles are more than sufficient. This article which intends to detail the 'who', 'what', 'when', 'why', 'where', and 'how' of the Trinity- not common arguments against it. --C.Logan 03:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. Individual opinion on what Scripture supports the Trinity (or not) is not appropriate here. We need to find secondary sources using them that way. It's becoming increasingly frustrating that I cannot find many of my books. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the right place to mention it but it is confusing to present The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as both non-trinitarian and Non-Orthodox trinitarian. RealbigD (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

RFC-Ignatius of Antioch

There is no historical evidence that Ignatius was a Trinitarian. His writings follow closely to the writings of Paul in format and content. As a third generation church leader, he was prior to the Apostolic Fathers and prior to formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity. Only in the interpolated longer rescensions of his letters do you begin to see where later revisionists began to add Trinitarian language to his writings. In the accurate middle rescensions, there is no such language. These quotes should be removed as support for the Trinity. Jacob 17:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No, he was an Apostolic Father. He was in close contact with an apostle; that's what "Apostolic Father" means. Any collection of the writings of Apostolic Fathers is incomplete without him. To assume that he was not a Trinitarian is to beg the question: the Trinitarian claim is that the Trinity had always been the Church's understanding, but that it had not been formally stated until the dogma was formulated. It's easy to prove that wasn't true if you assume it wasn't true to begin with. But that's always the case.

Richardson, Cyril (ed). (1996) Early Christian Fathers p. 81: "We possess no pure manuscript of the original corpus, for in the fourth century the letters were interpolated and six additional ones added... The aim of these forgeries was to gain for a diluted form of Arianism the authority of a primitive martyr." (Emphasis mine.) The letters were interpolated all right, but to inject a nontrinitarian POV.

The quotations given are from the accurate middle rescension anyway, not the longer interpolated ones, nor the abridged Syriac, so your objections to them are groundless by your own lights. If anything, my edition is even more strongly trinitarian. It renders the first one thus: "The source of your unity and election is genuine suffering which you undergo by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ, our God." TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Cyril Richardson must have never read the letters. Here are a few examples of Trinitarian interpolation directly from the letters themselves. (LR) is the Long Rescension and (MR) is the authentic middle rescension:

To the Trallians:

(LR 1:1) “who has come to Smyrna by the will of God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ, His Son, with the co-operation of the Spirit”

(MR 1:1) “who by the will of God and of Jesus Christ visited me in Smyrna;”

(LR 6:2) “They introduce God as a Being unknown; they suppose Christ to be unbegotten; and as to the Spirit, they do not admit that He exists. Some of them say that the Son is a mere man, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but the same person”

(MR 6:2) No comparable terminology.

(LR 10:1) “And God the Word was truly born of the Virgin, having clothed Himself with a body of like passions with our own.”

(MR 10:1) No comparable terminology.

To the Philadelphians:

(LR 9:2) and He shall be the expectation of the Gentiles, have been fulfilled in the Gospel, [our Lord saying,] “Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”

(MR 9:2) No comparable terminology.

To Polycarp:

(LR 3:2) Look for Christ, the Son of God; who was before time, yet appeared in time; who was invisible by nature, yet visible in the flesh; who was impalpable, and could not be touched, as being without a body, but for our sakes became such, might be touched and handled in the body;

(MR 3:2) Await Him that is above every season, the Eternal, the Invisible, who became visible for our sake, the Impalpable, the Impassible, who suffered for our sake, who endured in all ways for our sake.

These are just a few of the examples and there are dozens more. This is not Arian in any sense. Unfortunately, many "theologians" today seem just as eager to twist the original text as the "theologians" of the fourth century (as is the case with your Cyril Richardson). David Bernard in a History of the Trinity shows that Ignatius was most likely a Modalist as was Polycarp and later Marcellus. The quotes of Ignatius' in the article do not support the Trinity at all and should be removed. Jacob 19:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, your quote, "The source of your unity and election is genuine suffering which you undergo by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ, our God" is not Trinitarian anyway because it leaves out the Holy Spirit, without which God is incomplete according the Trinitarianism. It does support modalism however, with the distinction only being between flesh and Spirit. Jacob 19:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't trouble the discussion with your original research and private opinions. Provide references to support your claims. This is not done by burying the page in quotations from primary sources. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

By your logic we would need to delete the entire section discussing the Gospel of John, Csernica. The section starts with a private opinion that Gospel of John especially supports trinity, followed by "original research" of quotes from the writer, and you and the friend that invited you here seem to immediately supress any quotes from the same writer in the same format that oppose the "private opinion" thesis.David edmonton 01:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

TCC (talk) (contribs), you don't like the quotes because they show how baseless your reference is. We are allowed to verify sources for accuracy aren't we? Or does that only apply to sources given by people other than TCC (talk) (contribs)?

The issue at hand is the assumption that Ignatius was a Trinitarian. Regardless of our opinions, it is impossible for you to prove that he was a Trinitarian simply for the fact that the doctrine did not yet exist in its present form. David Bernard, Oneness of God, chpt. 10:

Church historians agree that the doctrine of the trinity did not exist as we know it today in the immediate post-apostolic age. The Christian leaders following the apostles did not allude to a trinity, but rather they affirmed their belief in the monotheism of the Old Testament and accepted without question the deity and the humanity of Jesus Christ. Since these leaders emphasized the doctrines associated with Oneness, it can be assumed that the post-apostolic church accepted the oneness of God. (Emphasis added)

The most prominent post-apostolic fathers were Hermas, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, and Ignatius. Their ministries spanned the time from about 90 to 140 A.D.

Apologies for splitting your post and coming back to this late, but I missed the rest of this exchange somehow.

This, above, is exactly the kind of citation that ought to be here! To show that the passages in question can be used to support Monarchianism I've been saying you need secondary sources, and here you are. Since that's all I've been asking for, and since you have at least one available, we have nothing left to argue about. Logan explains the rest very cogently, and there's no need for me to add to it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Once again, the quotes by Ignatius need to be removed as there is no historical evidence that he was a Trinitarian. If proof cannot be provided that Ignatius was a Trinitarian then I will remove the quotes. Jacob 04:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really following this discussion, but I'd like to respond to your last little paragraph. The article does not seem to claim that the individuals were "Trinitarians", although the introductory text which precedes the quotes is misleading.

As the letters of Ignatius are not intended to be theological presentations, it is fallacy to criticize the views held within on theological grounds. The writings of Ignatius are not presented to label him as a "Trinitarian", but to emphasize that the earliest Church Fathers expressed some of the essential elements which lead to the final surfacing of explicit Trinitarian doctrine. The element which is in question is the belief in Christ as God. While one can argue as to whether or not the early Fathers were nearer to Trinitarian doctrine or Modalism, the issue here is Ignatius' affirmation of the deity of Christ. Therefore, it is presented merely as a piece of the puzzle; a critical affirmation of the doctrine's most important foundation.

Looking at the article, I'm hard pressed to see how anyone could misconstrue the presentation of Ignatius' quotes as a discourse on Trinitarian theology, any more than the presentation of a scholar's assertion that "the sky is blue" is presented as a direct assertion that "the ocean is blue"- they are related concepts, and the knowledge of one of them helps the reader to understand the reasons of the other. Likewise, Ignatius' affirmation of Christ as God is a primitive theological statement which as every bit as important in arguing for the Trinity as it is to argue for Modalism.

With that being said, the header text under "Formulation of the Doctrine" needs to be scrapped and replaced with something of real value. The early Church Fathers no more expressed "Trinitarianism" than they did "Modalism" or any other fancy term: they adhered to the Orthodoxy, a foundation built upon by the Holy Spirit. Whether or not one believes Ignatius was a Modalist or a Trinitarian is no matter, and no one can actually know the depths of his theological beliefs from his letters. What can be known, however, is that Ignatius affirmed Christ as God, explicitly.--C.Logan 06:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If the article said as much, I would have no issues. But as is, it misleads readers to think Ignatius played an active role in developing the doctrine of the Trinity, which is absolutely false. I would think this was mere oversight, yet the author of the section used Ignatius quotes from several different rescensions, picking and choosing those which fit his POV. I recommend using Lightfoot's translation of the middle rescension so as to stay consistent. Of course, some contributors may not like it because it does not contain the later (false) Trinitarian additions. Jacob 16:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to improve the section a little bit, and added a new introduction (which isn't perfect, but is preferable to the previous one, I'm sure).

Concerning Ignatius' quotes given in the article, The 1st and 3rd are taken directly from a Catholic site which shows Trinitarian elements in the writings of the Church Fathers. From what I can see, the first quote is a paraphrasing of the shorter recension (as it's a long sentence, the fragment was taken out but doesn't make sense without paraphrasing), and the third quotation is also noticeably the same as the shorter recension. The second quote is from the Lightfoot translation in the shorter recension. The fourth quote given is from the Roberts-Donaldson translation, also in the shorter recension. --C.Logan 20:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I've looked over the section and I see where you made some minor changes. It is still misleading. If all Ignatius is used for is to support the divinity of Jesus, the article should say as much. As is, it makes people think he helped to develop the doctrine of the Trinity. Also, if we are using quotes from a known unauthentic source (shorter recension) and then even paraphrasing that, it should be obvious in the article that it is being done. To do otherwise is dishonest. If the quote is too long, it should be removed or added completely so as to keep context. Jacob 21:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The "shorter/short recension" = "middle recension". The names can be confusing, and can confuse someone into thinking it is a third version of the text; however, the short(er) and middle recensions are largely identical (with the short recension often being, well, even shorter at points). Note here:

"Finally, what some have called the "short recension" proves to be no recension at all but merely an abridgment of a Syriac version of the middle recension. The term short recension, then, would serve most accurately to describe the so-called middle recension and is often so used." (William R. Schoedel comments on the recensions of Ignatius [The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 3, p. 384-385])

Therefore, all the quotes supplied for Ignatius are from the short recension/middle recension. I've compared the quotes from the Catholic site, and these are essentially the same as the shorter recension version of the text. Below, I'll compare the paraphrased quote to a full quotation from the same recension (short).

Concerning to the ambiguity of the intro text, I'm open to suggestions. The fact that the Church Fathers had faith in certain elements of Christian theology are important in establishing that the Nicene Council did not 'create' concepts such as the Deity of Christ, or of the three prosopon of God (which is common ground terminology between Trinitarians and Modalists, it seems).

In regard to the paraphrased text, it was merely kept in loyalty to the source cited (which explicitly argues a Trinitarian viewpoint in Ignatius' statement). I have no real problem in using the actual text, so let's analyze the two to see if it is necessary.

"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which is at Ephesus, in Asia, deservedly most happy, being blessed in the greatness and fulness of God the Father, and predestinated before the beginning of time, that it should be always for an enduring and unchangeable glory, being united and elected through the true passion by the will of the Father, and Jesus Christ, our God: Abundant happiness through Jesus Christ, and His undefiled grace." (Short recension)

In contrast to the paraphrased version:

"[T]o the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God."

The essentials are the same, but perhaps the whole text would be more useful (if not as streamlined in appearance).

If you have any ideas on how to improve the body text of the section, please share them in detail. I'm mildly satisfied with my efforts, but I feel like the wording could be arranged in a more concise manner. --C.Logan 21:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

List of Miracles

I have made a beginning page called List of miracles, and one of my main issues was the name of the Christian 'God'. I have Allah and Yahweh, for Islam and Judaism respectively, however I am hesitant to use Jehova, as this is viewed as being inaccurate. SCmurky 04:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a slight issue. Of course, the orthodox Christian belief in God is Trinitarian, and considering this theology, the attribution of miracles can be attributed to the divine nature, or, as each 'person/prosopon' of the Trinity is fully God, there are several terms which can be used. Namely, the Holy Trinity, the Father, the Son, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, or just plain 'God'.

I would be hesitant to use Jehovah- it is incorrect from what I know, and is generally used only by a small minority of believers. God's name, most accurately, is YHWH. That is to say, we don't actually know the vowel sounds, so either Jehovah or Yahweh could be incorrect, although the YH is most certainly pronounced 'Yah'.

Concerning your article, I would be willing to help here and there. However, you open up a bit of confusion when you attribute so specifically. For instance, John of Damascus, who had his hand severed after being framed for a treasonous letter, had his hand miraculously restored after praying in front of an icon of the Virgin and Christ as a child. Who performed the miracle? The saint surely did not, so what of Mary? Well, Mary can only intercede and entreat God, but who do we name as the thaumaturgist? Christ, or just plain God? It can be a little unclear, especially when you realize that all miracles performed by saints are actually performed by God- the saints themselves merely use his power. Maybe you should separate it into a time-based sequence. For the Christian section, there could be Jesus's life, the work of the Apostles, and the miracles of the early saints, the middle ages, and the modern era.

Also, one should note that it is generally held that Muhammad himself performed no miracles (save, as he claims, the Qur'an). However, I have heard that, in the centuries following his death, when many were unimpressed by the message of a prophet who could not perform miracles, later hadith began to arise which incorporated miraculous occurrences into Muhammad's life, some of which seem to rehash those of Jesus. Of course, this is simply what I've read. --C.Logan 06:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Test of orthodoxy

The opening paragraph contains the sentence: "The majority of Christians are Trinitarian, and regard belief in the Trinity as a test of orthodoxy." Someone removed the last phrase, "and regard belief in the Trinity as a test of orthodoxy," with the dismissive comment, "removed nonsense". The original sentence is an accurate NPOV statement of fact--the majority of Christians do believe that belief in the Trinity is a test of orthodoxy. Whether or not an individual agrees with that or not is of course another queston, but such personal opinions have no place in a Wikipedia article. I undid the change, and if anyone feels it was wrong to do so, please discuss it here rather than begin an edit war. Thank you. MishaPan 17:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Blog link.

This site was removed per WP:EL, but I recall user Csernica allowing this blog to remain (he previously removed blog links) because it was by a recognized authority. It is by a professional in the field (professor in the philosophy of religion), so I do suppose it holds some weight on the subject. Either way, it makes for an interesting resource. Is there any input on whether or not this link should remain?--C.Logan 05:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

There is an earlier reference to some sort of unified spirit of God earlier than listed in the Bible. In Genesis 4 it says, "Then God said, Let us make man in our image ... in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." Isn't it interesting that the pronoun "us" was used? This possibly shows the union of the spirit. The Trinity also shows a way of somewhat explaining our yearning for community. Maybe our creator was the very definition of the word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.39.133.133 (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Person Personae stuff

Considering myself a mainstream christian, I find this repetition of God being "3 persons" absurd – I thought "3 personae", and considered "personae" being distinct from "person" – so I looked up "persona" in my Latin dictionary and found (tataaa, imagine a trumpet):

persōna, ae, f. mask; personage, character, part;

that is: something like a role in f.ex. a theatre play. Said: Rursus ☻ 11:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Rursus, the term persons is the proper way to refer to the three elements of the Trinity. It may seem grammatically grating, especially since we English-speakers typically hear person/people, but the term does not follow the same etymological path, and doesn't follow the Latin form of pluralization. Unfortunately, the baggage of the word person causes much confusion, and I prefer prosopon/prosopa (which is ultimately the origin of persona, from Greek), but articles should not provide concession to our concerns over the proper usage. Therefore, I've reverted the changes made here.--C.Logan 21:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is in ENGLISH, not LATIN. It SHOULD be fixed. A "person", in ENGLISH, is a "living human being", not God, not the Holy Spirit. The etymological path should never take precedence over knowingly confusing the reader with definitions that are not in English dictionaries! The whole article needs fixing to use persona, hypostases, or personae, as described in the wiki article on hypostasis. The reference in this article that tries to justify the use of "persons" is a 1913 Catholic encyclopedia definition which is not modern nor objective. By trying to force a new definition on the current English word, it shows a religious bias and does not help newcomers to the subject understand it, which is the whole purpose of wiki. Instead, using "persons" in the opening paragraphs without explaining why promotes only confusion for those trying to clear up the confusion. 24.214.120.227 (talk) 14:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Why are you trying to force a new definition on the concept of the trinity? The problem is being hung up on words, Instead we need to stick with what the words covey. Your text is so wrong. This was dealt with a long long time ago and for the last 1700 years or so, the trinity has been referred to as "persons" we are not here to propose our own novel interpretations. Simply put, lets stick with valid sources instead of creating novel synthesis of words. Hardyplants (talk)

Also checkout the meaning of person, iti s much more nuanced than you are letting on with your argument.Hardyplants (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Hardyplants. When I was editing the first part of the intro a few minutes ago I wasn't sure where "person[a]" even came from and left it alone. But it was jarring. It is persons and not people, and not persona. They aren't fake. They are considered to be actual. Persona is like an actor playing different parts. Cary Grant had a number of persona, for instance. Strictly speaking, that's modalism instead of TrinitarianismTim (talk) 15:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You are both using part of the definition of trinity (i.e. its modification of the word "person") to define trinity. You're creating a circular reference within the article. Bolding (i disagree with that), italicizing, and linking the word "person" does not help clarify the article. At least hypostasis has been added which i guess resolves my concerns. But i still say you can't say "person" without the immediate image of a human coming to mind for 99% of all English readers. For this reason, it should be deprecated in all intellectual discussions of the trinity in favor of another word, as the FIRST TWO people in this section stated, so you two are out-voted in keeping the word "person", but i don't have a continuing desire to argue with theological-minded people fighting over their turf to the detriment of people who would like to learn about the subject using common English. 24.214.120.227 (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You need sources for your argument, you supplied none. You also changed a direct quote from a source. "intellectual discussions" are engaged by people that are able to make the distinction between body and person and gods/God. The word you picked confuses the issue much more- making it seem that God is acting out a part, and would give the impression that God is just taking on different personality manifestations that are expressed in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit; of course this is erroneous and none trinitarian, the article and the sources given make this distinction. You can't vote on what sources say, so the vote thing is a non issue, besides its not majority rules. Lets keep in mind that we are here to report what valid sources say about a topic, and not here to promote our own way of looking at things. Hardyplants (talk) 19:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

There is not only the problem of common English, but also common usage in a limited scope. "Person" is a central term used, even though the word itself is used differently in this setting from its more generic setting. However, this is built into scholarly sources, which nearly universally have the explanation embedded within anything we would cite with this word. Is it the best word if we were to invent one whole cloth? Perhaps not. But even if a better word were to be invented whole cloth, there is the problem that it would take time -- perhaps even centuries -- for it to become common enough in the usage of this specific subject to warrant a change in Wikipedia. Yes, it needs explanation. But -- YES -- scholarly sources cited will have that explanation.Tim (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup to be done

The edit automaton complains that the article is 82 kilobytes long, there's a {{quotefarm}} complaint. So therefore, I suggest the article might be cleaned by moving the quote farm section Formulation of the Doctrine to a separate article, and writing a short review to replace the section. Said: Rursus ☻ 13:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That done, but see below! Said: Rursus ☻ 15:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

More cleanup to be done

Inserted {{quotefarm}} on my own in section Scriptural texts cited as implying support, only the section texts and a few links to relevant citations are needed. The list of citations could be analysed better elsewhere, then preferrably against a background of theological debates, in order to make this apologetic material sensible for an encyclopedia. Said: Rursus ☻ 15:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Addition of historical significance in the intro

I had added a short paragraph at the end of the intro regarding part of the historical significance of this concept. I just re-edited and the paragraph now looks like the following.

Historically, the doctrine of Trinitarianism is of particular importance, as the conflict with Arianism (as well as other competing theological concepts) during the fourth century became the first major doctrinal confrontation in Church history, especially within the Roman Empire. This debate would continue to be a major issue in Christianity for centuries to follow.

C.Logan had previously eliminated the reference to the Roman Empire and the statement regarding the longevity of the debate with the following comment.

The church was not "Roman", and to say that the debate raged on is an overstatement. In any case, I'm unsure if this needs to be here. Maybe synthesize with the above paragraph's penultimate sentence?

I would like to explain why a reverted the changes (well, with some slight alterations).

• First you need to separate the concept of the "Church" as a whole from the Church in the Roman Empire. The Councils were started as a way for Constantine to more formally establish the Church and what precisely it was within the empire. This organization that he helped create would eventually become effectively a department of the empire. Therefore it is really entirely proper to say that the debate was within the "Roman Church" and it is, in fact, arguably offensive to say that Constantine, who was not fully even a Christian, spoke for the entire Christian Church or even had a right to convene the first council (the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches probably would not see it that way, of course). It is appropriate to clarify that although these debates generally existed throughout the Christian community the core debate mentioned in the paragraph was initially a Roman debate.
• Second, the Arian/Trinitarian debate through the Middle Ages was very important (even though many Churches have tried to downplay it). For a long time in Western Europe there were effectively two "Churches" existing side-by-side, the "Roman" Church in communion with Constantinople and the Arian Churches favored by the Germanic rulers. It was not until Charlemagne's time in the 8th century that the Arian influence was finally stamped out (at least for the most part). I do not think the longevity of this debate is something to trivialize. Mind you, like most religious debates one can argue that they were at times a pretext for underlying political differences but that does not change the fact that the debates persisted.
• I did not say "raged".

--Mcorazao 18:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The text you added is just unnecessary. What part of the Christian world which actually handled doctrinal issues was outside of the Roman Empire (considering that the five patriarchates were all Roman territory)? All doctrinal issues were serious issues in the catholic (little 'c') Church, and this includes Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.

I'd re-organized your original text because you've being excessively vague concerning what you're trying to say, and it seems like you're simply adding a paragraph which attempts to justify the historical significance of a concept that does not need justification. Additionally, there are hundreds of other instances in which the issue of the Trinity has had a historical impact. Consider, for example, the persecution of many unitarians, such as Michael Servetus.

I take it now that your intention is to detail the Arian conflict within the Western Empire/Church, so make sure you're using more specific terms in the article. As that is the case, I would suggest this instead:

Historically, the doctrine of Trinitarianism is of particular importance, as the conflict with Arianism (as well as other competing theological concepts) during the fourth century became the first major doctrinal confrontation in Church history, and had a particularly lasting affect within the Western Roman Empire, where the Germanic Arians and Nicene Christians formed a segregated social order.

It may also be good to note in the summary the causes for Arianism's decline in the West; for example, the invasion of Nicene Barbarians from the East, or through the direct conversion of the Germanic peoples, such as in the case of the Visigoths.

As it is, the current format of the articles extended introduction is too vague to provide much information. I would suggest elaborating along the lines of my example, but mind the terms you use (to avoid confusion, be careful with the multi-applicable term "Roman"). Also, whatever your own POV, mind a neutral presentation. Not saying that you wont, but you do seem to have a certain stance on Constantine, so I thought I'd note it.--C.Logan 19:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't specifically disagree that mentioning other conflicts surrounding Trinitarianism are significant. And I agree that a discussion of the reasons for the final victory of the Trinitarian/Nicene doctrine. I also agree that the intro is somewhat vague on the significance of the Arian controversy. Frankly I do not quite know how to succinctly summarize the issue in the intro without going into too much detail to be appropriate. So I opted for just bringing it up and make the reader curious to read on.

I would argue, however, that the original Arian controversy (bearing in mind that those labeled "Arians" were not all truly followers of Arius) was more significant historically than the controversy with Unitarianism. It is especially significant since the so-called Arian controversy was born out the original debates among the Christian community (i.e. this did not "originate" in the 4th century it was just during the 4th century that it all came to a head). The Unitarian and similar controversies came up much later and, in and of themselves, never represented a major split in the Christian community as the Arian controversy did.

Regarding the patriarchates vs. the whole Christian community I think you're looking at history in a biased way (albeit the way most churches today tend to view it). When Constantine convened the councils there was no established pentarchy and the Christian community was not, even then, confined to the empire. There certainly was no general consensus that Constantine, the bishop of Rome, or any of the other bishops had any special rights to speak for Christianity. Constantine was attempting to build a consensus on the definition of Christianity but I don't think it can be objectively argued that he succeeded (as evidenced by the Council of Rimini). But even if you argue there was a consensus, the bishops did not carry the authority to speak for every Christian community, especially not all those outside the empire.

In any event my attempt was not to attempt to justify the historical significance of the concept. The point is that although most people today tend to think that modern Trinitarianism has been almost exclusively the viewpoint within Christianity since its earliest days, in fact the very concept was at the heart of many major political and military battles in Europe/Africa/Asia for several centuries. I think that is significant enough to at least mention in the introduction.

--Mcorazao 04:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I agree on the inclusion of such information in the introduction, which was the point of my re-worded suggestion for the text. As an anonymous user has implemented the changes, I think we can agree that the current version is at least satisfactory for now (improvements are welcome from anyone, of course). I can empathize about not knowing how exactly to summarize things in the introduction. I think it should be enough to give a general framework sans any elaboration.

Concerning the history course, this is one of my major fields of study, so I can assure you that I don't need any explanations. I've heard claims from each side of the historical debate (from both Nicene Christians and from Unitarians or revisionists who make fiery claims about this tumultuous period in theological history), and any view point I've show has been arrived at through a rather thorough course of study. Maybe you and I've just come to different conclusions from the same arguments. I wonder if any mention should be made of Gnostic views within the introduction as well? Again, I'm unsure where to draw the line when writing for the opening.--C.Logan 05:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps mentioning the Gnostic views is worthwhile as well. It is hard to know where to draw the line. In any event it is clear that there is some "agreeing to disagree" here. Thanks for all the feedback.

I will say that although I certainly support efforts to reword for clarity I still don't like the current wording. It is problematic on two counts: 1) The "Western Roman Empire" did not really exist during the most of the period the current revision is discussing, and 2) The new wording is a bit unclear for the novice reader. Most people wouldn't know what is being referred to by a "segregated social order". In other words, I think by adding detail things were made less clear. If I had my 'druthers I'd suggest perhaps

Historically, the doctrine of Trinitarianism is of particular importance, as the conflict with Arianism (as well as other competing theological concepts) during the fourth century became the first major doctrinal confrontation in the history of the Christianity. This debate would continue to be a significant religious and political issue for centuries, especially in Western Europe.

But I'll halt any further commentary since at least the issue is mentioned which is more than was there before.

--Mcorazao 17:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Your version looks pretty good to me (I'd noted that the major issue was in Western Rome, as the Eastern Empire had no real long-lasting problem with Arianism beyond the initial years of conflict). Feel free to replace the current paragraph. However, it may be good and within boundaries to provide a little clarification on the actual political effects. "Segregated social order" may be confusing to some, but that's essentially what occurred for some time. Perhaps a re-wording of that sentence could be added. What do you think?--C.Logan 19:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, it may help discussion now and in the future if you +1 indent each time you reply: it makes things easier to read.--C.Logan 19:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

One comment:

"as the Eastern Empire had no real long-lasting problem with Arianism beyond the initial years of conflict"

I am not sure this is a fair statement. I believe most scholars today tend to think that the issue continued to be significant throughout the empire through at least the fall of Rome (although by that point the emperors and major bishops were all firmly in the "Nicene" camp). Granted the whole issue certainly lasted longer in the West.

--Mcorazao 05:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That's what I intend to mean. The Western conflict with Arianism lasted well into the Middle Ages, until the invasion of Nicene 'barbarians' and the conversion of the residents. In the East, the conflict with Arianism was largely muted within the following centuries. Surely, it didn't disappear in a blast of smoke, but it certainly was no great issue outside of local practice and conflict.--C.Logan 18:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

External links 2

I think we should look at the Bigfoot page and see how they handle criticism of their concept. Do they have criticisms of the Bigfoot theory on a separate page or on the same page? I am going to look now. 69.51.152.180 —Preceding comment was added at 03:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm very suspicious that this is a simple trolling content, for a few reasons; most notably, the choice of comparison, Bigfoot, seems intended in part to offend at least someone (and it's certain that someone may take offense to the comparison). Additionally, I've already explained WP:Summary Style and WP:EL's position on this issue above, and it's really indisputable that "Contra" links don't belong here, but on Nontrinitarianism, which is a content fork of this very article (and hence, has it's origins as a "criticism" section, therefore pertaining both to criticisms of the concept and to the general topic of nontrinitarian beliefs and denominations). I'm afraid the matter is way past settled, if you're serious.--C.Logan 12:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. In any case, Occam's Razor may be another good comparison. I think that article also has some divisiveness. 69.51.152.180 01:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Trinity Picture

I'm not sure if this is just my thinking, but i believe that the picture GodSonHolySpirit.jpg displayed is going against what this article is talking about or something to that effect, because the trinity is 3 people, the Holy Spirit ((who can be thought of as a dove in John 1:32 "I saw the ((Holy)) Spirit come down from heaven as a dove" and Jesus being a man, but i don't think God should be represented as a bearded man, even a man, even though in Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." we don't know what he looks like, and shouldn't be imagining what he looks like, because it would be Idolatry. now this is just my opinion, if anybody has anything to say about this, please say it, i'd like to understand. Alec92 03:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

My friend, you answered the question yourself! "So God created man in his own image, in the IMAGE of God He created him.."....Think...Apparently, MAN is the IMAGE of his creator, is he not?...hint,,, Man is a THREE part being, (Body, Soul, Spirit...).David B

see the new section on the Trinity in Art. But to say it is "going against what this article is talking about " seems way excessive. 15:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbod (talk • contribs)

Origins

I don't get the feeling that the article really gets to grips with the origins of the belief in God as Trinity. It describes the process, but not the reasons. What prompted me was a personal interest in the relationship of the episode of the 3 visitors to Abraham, one of the God and the other two described as angels. Given the intense interest of the early church in Genesis, could they have decided that this was in fact the Trinity? (Maybe not, since the visitors are explicitly described in Greek as angels, although in Hebrew they're "men"- but clearly not just any sort of men). Anyway, why did the early church decide God had to be 3? Two would have been enough - God the Father and God the Son - so why three? PiCo 11:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're the loose-minded type, you'll likely blame the three-ness on various numerological and previous trinitarian-esque deities. Making these sorts of comparisons is like grasping at straws, but people still cling to these ideas with disturbing loyalty. In reality, the "decision" for a triune God stems from the Bible itself- as it terms God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. Each is given nearly all the attributes and abilities of God, and yet it makes it relatively clear that each is not entirely the same to the other. Unitarians will, of course, consider these interpretations as erroneous, but the fact remains that this is how the early Greek Bishops understood God through Christ (and possibly even how the apostles themselves understood it, although gradual revelation is a concept supported by the major Churches).--C.Logan 17:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

When the earliest bible-authors wrote about God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, that was a decision - they were inventing the trinity. The question is, why did they feel impelled to do it? There were other options, but they chose this. PiCo 00:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The "earliest bible-authors" (I'm not certain who you mean by that) did no such thing. Instead, what we have is a collection of writings made by a number of people working more or less independently, and occasionally centuries apart to the extent the idea is found in the OT, who severally ascribed to both Christ and the Holy Spirit attributes proper to God. (That the Father is identified with God is patently obvious and needs no defense.) The precise dogma of the Trinity -- Trinitarian expressions had been as early as we can trace -- was not formulated until centuries later as a way of reconciling them. The one that was settled on is not found in Scripture, and in fact could not have been formulated without the tools of Greek philosophy. In the eyes of some this renders the entire procedure invalid, but alternative reconciliations are more faulty than that.

Naturally, if there are anthropological (in the scientific, not theological sense) reasons for the formulation of this dogma as it stands, or social forces that influenced the outcome, the article should talk about them. But I know of no sources, at least none that locate it with the NT authors. It's fashionable in some circles to blame it on Constantine, but how, or why, he was supposed to have come up with something so nuanced is never explained in any way that holds water. That's not what you're talking about anyway. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I find myself in a discussion with heterodox thinkers... in any case, I maintain that the Trinity was not invented, but revealed, and not simply throughout the presentation of the New Testament, but throughout the Old as well. You've asking a question for which the answer does not seem to suit your fancy, so I wonder if you're simply arriving at your own conclusion before even asking the questions themselves.

These individuals (the authors) were simply revealing what was (and is) the truth about God. Understanding that we are all dealing with beliefs, you should dissolve your steadfastness in theories which revolve around the deliberate construction of the concept, and be willing to embrace the simple fact that the authors (and the Church Fathers) presented it this way because this is how they understood what was revealed to them (your perspective in the matter may interfere with your acceptance of this possibility). Again, revelation is a progressive thing. God revealed himself as the Father, as the Son, and as the Holy Spirit (so they believed, and so I believe). Whether you choose to believe this or not is another matter.--C.Logan 02:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

PiCo one possibility you may consider plausible is that the inventors of that doctrine were directed by some spirit, though not Gods Holy Spirit, to create it for the purpose of corrupting Christianity and leading people away from worshipping the True God. Wonderpet

On the other hand, perhaps it is some mysterious spirit that has misguided you into believing that the Triune God is not the true God? Or perhaps a simple organization is sufficient enough to lead you to believe as such? Obviously, we're dealing with beliefs, here - If PiCo is coming at this from a purely anthropological perspective, your statement is just going to sound silly and would prove to be somewhat useless to the discussion.--C.Logan 02:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, this section may not be pertinent to article improvement. The OP seems to want to enforce theories from his own school of thought, but as it is, we don't push POVs. I suppose there is somewhat of a case for concern here, so I've left it, but as it seems, it just appears to be a case of an individual unsatisfied that the article (and reliable scholarship) doesn't cater to his line of thinking. Correct me if I'm wrong.--C.Logan 02:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

CLogan, the relevance to possible article improvement is my feeling that I don't understand, from the article, just why the doctrine of a trinity developed. You and TCC have answered this to a large extent, and whether anyone wants to work this into the article is up to the established band of editors. I have no POV to push, and I don't intend to edit the article - I was seeking information, and my interest is in OT topics, and then from a historical perspective, not a theological one - I'd thought I might be able to add something to the Genesis article about the influence of this little bit of Genesis on Trinitarian theology. (And Wonderpet, no, I don't really think an evil spirit is behind it all). Thanks you all. PiCo 10:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It's just become commonplace to find people asking questions just for the sake of hearing answers they'd enjoy to hear. I ache when I see things like this, so I apologize if I misread your own inquiry. With my experience on the nightmarish Yahoo! Answers site, it appears that most people are more content to find self-satisfaction by looking for answers that reinforce their preconceived notions, rather than genuinely searching for a better answer. I think we're all guilty of this at some point. I prefer to consider all possibilities, though I obviously believe in only one or two of them. My only qualm was your rejection of a non-materialistic possibility concerning the formulation of Trinitarian doctrine... something for which one could hardly be blamed, specifically if they are empirically-minded.--C.Logan 19:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The Trinity in Art

The section Trinity in Art has a subsection that consists only of a gallery of pictures. Shouldn't that go at the bottom of the article, before the notes and references? For that matter, shouldn't the entire Trinity and Art be transferred to the end? --Blanchardb 21:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

No and No. The article ends with several highly (?over-) detailed theological sections, and the art section should be where it is. There is no reason not to have the galleries next to the text they illustrate. Johnbod 22:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the article ends with Trinity in popular culture. It would seem to me that Trinity in Art and Trinity in Popular Culture would go next to each other. Just a thought... --Blanchardb 23:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If the article were about 1/3 the length it is, I might agree. It does sprawl excessively, and much of it is really "appendix" material, let's face it. Personally I would put the scriptural quotations much lower down, and the "Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Protestant distinctions", "Naming the Persons" and "Ambivalence to Trinitarian doctrine" ones higher up. Keen theologians will find the denser sections, but they are rather over the head of most readers I think. Just another thought....Johnbod 02:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Weasel Words

I'm seeing weasel words in here, especially in the OT section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.129.232.37 (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

An anonymous user recently added a large amount of information. It isn't necessarily bad, but it's only referenced to primary sources, and is written in a somewhat POV tone. I tagged the area of addition; I'm not certain if these are the weasel words you're talking about, but the information certainly needs an assessment and a work-over.---- C.Logan (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

"Original research" in biblical support for the Trinity

I believe that, in an article about the Trinity, the least that could be expected is a list of scriptures commonly used in support of the doctrine. That there are such scriptures does not constitute OR (it's more like duh!), but specific passages may be tagged as OR if no one can say who is using them to support the Trinity, and how. So the OR tag should be directed at specific passages on this page. --Blanchardb (talk) 00:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're arguing here. I believe the OR tag is appropriate because of the large amount of recently-added information which is based on Biblical sources alone. The problem with this is that the exegesis of the text is original research, as the Bible is considered a primary source in this instance and therefore is inappropriate in this context. I believe that secondary sources must be provided for all the instances given in the anon's recent additions. No matter how obvious a verse seems to one, it doesn't seem the same to another. I'd added the tag to the section because it was apparent to me that the additions contained reasonable information (read: I agree with it, and I've heard most of it before), but obviously sounded like the personal musings of an individual, rather than a reference to the musings of a notable expert on the subject (or an authority in general, such as the Catholic Encyclopedia).--C.Logan (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, can you point to a specific point in the article that constitutes OR? Like, no longer than one sentence? Then we can discuss. Otherwise the tag goes. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 15:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Biblical exegeses which are sourced only to the verses themselves constitute original research. The cited scriptures in "support" (or also "against") of the Trinity each need a citation of some sort which shows that someone other than the editor who added them agrees that they support the concept in question. This, however, is a larger problem that extends beyond this article. Concerning the section specifically, the following statements may constitute/contain original research:

• They believe Jesus thus not only defines the Trinity, but appears to indicate that there is one name that encompasses the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

• The Apostle John is identified as the "one whom Jesus loved" thus perhaps being the closest Apostle to Jesus. In John 19:26, Jesus also instructed John to adopt Jesus' mother Mary as John's own in Mary's old age, [5] such that John would have had the entire knowledge of Jesus' family when writing his Gospel.

• The rest of John Chapter 1 makes it clear that "the Word" refers to Jesus the Christ.

• Thus John introduces a seemingly impossible contradiction, that Jesus both "was with God" and "was God" at the same time, and that from the beginning of creation. John also portrays Jesus Christ as the Creator of the Universe, such that "without him nothing was made that has been made." [6] Such a paradox is fundamentally impossible, and it is thus believed that it could only be fulfilled by a divine being to be both with God and to be God at the same time. John also argues for the divine nature of Jesus.

• In this passage, Jesus portrays the Father sending the Holy Spirit -- that is the Father and the Holy Spirit are two distinctly different persons, and portrays both the Father and the Holy Spirit as distinct from Jesus Himself. Thus even apart from whether Jesus was God, Jesus tells us that the Father and the Holy Spirit are two different persons, both of them Divine.

• The very first chapters of the Bible in Genesis portray God discussing His plans of creation with Himself as a committee: ' 26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; ...." ' Genesis 1:26 [7]

Several of the statements present ideas which do, of course, have support, but these supportive sources must be cited. The Bible verses are not, as according to Wikipedia policy, sufficient as a source for some of the speculation presented here. While I'm familiar with many of these concepts, in Wikipedia terms these may simply be a reflection of the editor's own opinions and theories. "The rest of John Chapter 1 makes it clear that "the Word" refers to Jesus the Christ." Does it? I agree that is does, but many others do not. We need to cite strong statements like this, and neutralize the presentation a bit (several instances of POV problems are present in the above as well).--C.Logan (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This material would be useful if it were sourced but it's just apologetics until it's sourced. I'd delete it. If you can't find sources of "Trinity" information, you're just not trying. Leadwind (talk) 04:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. The OR tag is not the appropriate one for many of these entries. Furthermore, several of them indicate that a certain group holds a certain point of view, but the entries are written in such a way that they do not imply anything as to whether the author espouses or rejects that particular point of view. So in that sense the entries are definitely neutral.

• They believe Jesus thus not only defines the Trinity, but appears to indicate that there is one name that encompasses the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In its context, this is an example of exposing a point of view without implying adherence to it. Sourcing should be limited to providing an example.
• The Apostle John is identified as the "one whom Jesus loved" thus perhaps being the closest Apostle to Jesus. In John 19:26, Jesus also instructed John to adopt Jesus' mother Mary as John's own in Mary's old age, [8] such that John would have had the entire knowledge of Jesus' family when writing his Gospel. To me this is not so much OR as it is irrelevant.

• The rest of John Chapter 1 makes it clear that "the Word" refers to Jesus the Christ. Here, I would look for an exegete that disagrees with this statement. As this statement is obvious to me (and I believe even the vast majority of non-Trinitarians agree with me), if none can be found, the statement can remain unsourced without a problem (per the Duh! factor).

• Thus John introduces a seemingly impossible contradiction, that Jesus both "was with God" and "was God" at the same time, and that from the beginning of creation. John also portrays Jesus Christ as the Creator of the Universe, such that "without him nothing was made that has been made." [9] Such a paradox is fundamentally impossible, and it is thus believed that it could only be fulfilled by a divine being to be both with God and to be God at the same time. John also argues for the divine nature of Jesus. This one is easy to source. Just make your pick, there are thousands of sources out there.

• In this passage, Jesus portrays the Father sending the Holy Spirit -- that is the Father and the Holy Spirit are two distinctly different persons, and portrays both the Father and the Holy Spirit as distinct from Jesus Himself. Thus even apart from whether Jesus was God, Jesus tells us that the Father and the Holy Spirit are two different persons, both of them Divine. Personally, I would just delete this one as irrelevant with regard to the Trinity. And I will do so if no one disagrees.

• The very first chapters of the Bible in Genesis portray God discussing His plans of creation with Himself as a committee: ' 26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; ...." ' Genesis 1:26 [10] This one is easy to source.

It should be noted that every one of these passages was already individually tagged, thus making the overall tag irrelevant, and, I believe, the OR tag was not the appropriate one to use anyway. (Lacking sources was the more appropriate one.) So, when I have more time later this week, I will make the corrrections. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 06:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Boy, this page is messy. The citations are terrible. I've got two Trinity entries from standard references. We'll see what we can do. Leadwind (talk) 05:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Patristic use of the Comma Johanneum

Now, anon had recently inserted an objection into the text concerning the statement that the Comma Johanneum was not used patristically, citing St.Cyprian's note in the sixth chapter of his "On the Unity of the Church".

Now, after checking the text in question (and the article on the Comma Johanneum, which contained some rather sloppy OR arguing against the validity of the claim that Cyprian quoted the text directly), it appears to be semi-correct. Cyprian states:

The Lord says, “I and the Father are one;” and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, “And these three are one.” And does any one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine strength and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church, and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills?

As such, he doesn't quote the entire verse directly, but he does paraphrase the text in a manner which does not count out the possibility of the original text conveying the same concept (the OR on Comma Johanneum claimed this possibility as unlikely, apparently in the opinion of one editor).

The Catholic Encyclopedia notes that while the Greek and Armenian fathers do not use the text until the 12th century, "The Latin Fathers make much earlier use of the text as canonical Scripture. St. Cyprian (third century) seems undoubtedly to have had it in mind, when he quotes John, x, 30, and adds: "Et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est -- Et hi tres unum sunt" (De Unitate Ecclesiæ, vi). Clear also is the witness of St. Fulgentius (sixth century, "Responsio contra Arianos" in P. L., LXV, 224), who refers to the above witness of St. Cyprian. In fact, outside of St. Augustine, the Fathers of the African Church are to be grouped with St. Cyprian in favour of the canonicity of the passage. The silence of the great and voluminous St. Augustine and the variation in form of the text in the African Church are admitted facts that militate against the canonicity of the three witnesses. St. Jerome (fourth century) does not seem to know the text. After the sixth century, the disputed passage is more and more in use among the Latin Fathers; and, by the twelfth century, is commonly cited as canonical Scripture."

While the authenticity of the text is certainly disputable, I don't think that the issue is so clear-cut that one can say that "it was not used patristically". Therefore, I think the statement should be excluded, with the issue of Cyprian and those who quoted his statement/usage of the phrasing dealt with in other sections of the article.--C.Logan 21:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Symbols /iconography of Trinity

Just noticed that Italian Wikipedia has an article it:Iconografia_della_Trinità; it would be useful to have a similar article here... AnonMoos (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The art section here covers the same ground, if not at such length. Johnbod (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Adding to the list of objections

Against my better judgment, I wrote a sourced response in the article to a comment that was added today to the bottom of the Criticism and Debate section. The next time, I think I will simply revert the addition. Please feel free to revert the two edits that were made today if you deem that appropriate. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 22:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Should this page be in Category:Triune gods?

User:Wonderpet added this article to Category:Triune gods. User:Blanchardb reverted that edit saying "Only opponents of this doctrine claim that the Trinity means a Triune God" in the edit summary.

I reverted Blanchardb back to Wonderpet's original edit. Aside from the fact that I think I disagree with Blanchardb's edit summary, there is also the problem that Triune God redirects to this article and the article on the Holy Spirit is also in Category:Triune gods. Thus, this is an issue that is not simply resolved by reverting User:Wonderpet and requires further discussion. Can we start this discussion by having Blanchardb and Wonderpet explain what their positions are on this question?

--Richard (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It's probably true that only opponents of this doctrine claim that the trinity means a triune god. But it's equally true that only supporters of this doctrine claim that the trinity does not mean a triune god. Wikipedia shouldn't take sides; that's what WP:NPOV is all about.

This is a classic example of how any decision is necessarily going to bother someone. I'm not sure Wikipedia is really set up to deal with a question of this sort. Sorry if that doesn't help resolve the issue, but I think the essence of the dilemma should be pointed out. -LisaLiel (talk) 20:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't even looked at the Triune Gods category -- but Christians believe God is Triune, so... what's the problem? Is it a problem with the formulation of the respective concepts? People can see those differences in the articles -- but they'll only see those differences if the articles link to each other. My point is this: if they ARE related the articles will make that apparent, and if they are NOT related the articles will make that apparent. The link is beneficial whichever side of the fence you're on. People should pick meaningful battles; this isn't one.Tim (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

triune god applies to all triple gods, even the trinity of popular christianity. Wonderpet (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how this category does not apply. I would like to hear the logic as to why it does not belong. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

One God in three persons is not the same as three Gods. The One God section of the article explains that. Unless I am mistaken, all other entries in the category are three gods. Actually, this is no big deal, it's only about inclusion in a category, and the article makes it clear that the Trinitarian doctrine is not the same as what the other articles in that category are exposing. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 00:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a God in three persons is a "triune" god. "Triune" literally means "three in one". A triad of Gods would be three Gods. Vassyana (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

My problem with the link is not the link its self but that the category is a bogus one and should maybe be deleted. Like Tim said, its not a battle worth spending a lot of time on, the article can beef up the distinction a little more if we keep the subcategory but we should be careful about over categorization, especially on sub cats . Hardyplants (talk) 00:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hardyplants why do you say the sub catagory is bogus? in what way? Wonderpet (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is a topic that is broadly discussed in both academic and mass market literature. Triads and triunes of gods are common and noted as a distinctive theme in religion and mythology. Vassyana (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

My own OR is that it's archetypal (even Philo associated two powers with God, as I've seen from the sources cited on the Shituf page). It cuts across unrelated cultures in such a way that it may be embedded in the psyche (even language has first, second, and third person constructions -- but I am not aware of a "fourth" person linguistic pattern). The problem is that the formulation of "Trinity" and "Triad" are different, but that can be resolved easily: A Triad is Tri-theistic. A Trinity is something else entirely. The category should be renamed to something like "Divine Triad or Trinity." I have no idea how to rename a category. But that would resolve the formulation difference problem on both sides. The concepts do relate, even though they are not the same.Tim (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The Category is not "triads of gods" (meaning a group of three gods), but triune gods (which means three-in-one, like the Trinity). Vassyana (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The category contains triads. Triads DO relate to the Trinity, though they are not the same. Isis-Horus-Set, for example, and Odin-Ville-Ve (the allfather, Will, and Wisdom). These are triads. There is a triple goddess listed there. All I'm suggesting is a renaming of the category to include "Triad" in its title along with "Trinity" (or "Triune"). That way, people can find what they are looking for more easily, and they can debate the relationship or difference between the two. Look -- the point of NPOV is to be a useful tool for people of any POV. We want to sell ammunition to both sides of any POV at the same time. Are they the same? Are they not? Let the readers figure it out. All we are supposed to do is give them the opportunity to do so with neutral information.Tim (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Why should we make one category for two very different things? I feel like making a category "Divine Triad or Trinity" is akin to making a category "Monotheistic and polytheistic religions". You're trying to combine/compare/associate things that shouldn't be; they're apples and oranges. The whole point of categories is to make sets of similar articles; making categories of dissimilar things, I don't see the point of that. The only fitting [common] category for such different deities would be "Gods", like a "fruits" category to contain apples and oranges. To extend the analogy and my point, I don't think a category "citrus and pomaceous fruits" should be made to house both apples and oranges--it just doesn't make sense. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The subject is really too complex for treatment by categories, and most of the contents of the category as it now stands should not be there, as they are articles related in some way to one or other of the major Hindu gods - on this principle one could add any article related to any one of the persons of the Christian Trinity. I would support deletion at CfD; the article at triple gods is enough, in fact much better. Johnbod (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Flip switch

In "Formulation of the doctrine" I switched it on one sentence which had "Docetism and Sabellianism ( Christ the same as God, or an illusion)" because the way it read it sounded like it was saying Docetism - same as God, and Sabellianism - illusion, when it should be the reverse. So, just a little flip for clarity - signed Anon. (don't have account yet)

Thanks.--C.Logan (talk) 05:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"Some" References would be appropriate

The word "Some" is use a few times in this paragraph, and it is lacking in the concomitant referencing, falling into violation of the policy Wikipedia:NOR as it is:

Naming the Persons

Some feminist theologians refer to the persons of the Holy Trinity with gender-neutral language, such as "Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer (or Sanctifier)." This is a recent formulation, which seeks to redefine the Trinity in terms of three roles in salvation or relationships with us, not eternal identities or relationships with each other. Since, however, each of the three divine persons participates in the acts of creation, redemption, and sustaining, traditionalist Christians reject this formulation as suggesting a new variety of Modalism. Some theologians prefer the alternate terminology of "Source, and Word, and Holy Spirit."

Some of those issues are dealt with at Trinitarian Formula. By the way, the word for "spirit" has feminine grammatical gender in Hebrew, neuter grammatical gender in Greek, and masculine grammatical gender in Latin (predating, and quite independent of, Christian theology). -- AnonMoos (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hidden in Plain Sight?

Interesting article, but I had to dig through too many links to get to some of it. For example:

in the Comma Johanneum section is this "One explicit trinitarian passage often quoted from the King James translation of the Bible is the result of an interpolation of a later date." The word "interpolation" turned out to be a somewhat mild term. First, the link pointed to the definition in the "mathematical subfield of numerical analysis". After reading part of that page, I had to click on the disambiguation link to look for the intended meaning. I found the correct one from the 6 choices there. If you must use an obscure term, the link should point to the correct definition.

Then, the article continues with "The passage now known as the Comma Johanneum or 1 John 5:7 from the King James Version; "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." may have begun as a marginal note quoting a homily of Cyprian (d. 258) that was inadvertently taken into the main body of the text by a copyist.[25] The phrase "inadvertently taken into the main body of the text by a copyist" was just one of two possibilities described by the reference. It states

All the historical data point in one of two directions: (1) This reading was a gloss added by Latin patristic writers whose interpretive zeal caused them to insert these words into Holy Writ; or (2) this interpretation was a gloss, written in the margins of some Latin MSS, probably sometime between 250 and 350, that got incorporated into the text by a scribe who was not sure whether it was a comment on scripture or scripture itself (a phenomenon that was not uncommon with scribes).

The possibility that the phrase was inserted because of "interpretive zeal" was omitted from the article, leaving only the "inadvertently taken into the main body of the text by a copyist" explanation.

Another interesting fact that was not readily apparent was...

Erasmus, the compiler of the Textus Receptus, noticed that the passage was not found in any of the Greek manuscripts at his disposal and refused to include it until presented with an example containing it, which he rightly suspected was concocted after the fact.[26]

The significance of that phrase escaped me until I followed another link and found this gem:

Erasmus replied that the Comma did not occur in any of the Greek manuscripts he could find; he eventually compromised with his critics, saying that he would add the Comma to future editions if it appeared in a Greek manuscript.[5] Such a manuscript was subsequently produced with "Codex 61"[6] Erasmus added the Comma to his 1522 edition, "but he indicates in a lengthy footnote his suspicions that the manuscript had been prepared expressly in order to confute him." Indeed the manuscript was written after Erasmus's request by a Franciscan from Oxford.[8] It was this third edition which became a chief source for the King James Version, thereby fixing the Comma firmly in the English-language scriptures for centuries.[5]

So I found that the phrase "he rightly suspected was concocted after the fact" was an antiseptic way of describing what actually happened.

Otherwise, interesting and thought provoking! Bebopadopoulos (talk) 16:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If interpolation here is supposed to mean "a text that was not written by the original author", why doesn't the article just state that in plain language? Myth America (talk) 19:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Why doesn't the article just state that clearly? Because the article is policed by fierce proponents of the doctrine rather than academics. Only this can explain why references are carefully vetted to disclude anything mildly critical of the subject matter regardless of academic integrity. Jacob (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sidebar vs footer

I would like to see the Christianity sidebar template removed from this article. Are there good reasons for keeping it? The footer template scheme is a much cleaner navigation tool, in my opinion. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely! Johnbod (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"The one god" or "the one God" in Christianity

Ilkali holds for "the one god", claiming that in that phrase "god" is a common noun, analogous to the word in "the Romans worshipped many gods", "many Anglo-Saxons worshiped the god Wotan", phrases given in WP:MoS. Ilkali admits that it is "normal" to capitalize the word "God" when referring to the monotheistic God of Christians. I think we should follow normal usage. What say others? Lima (talk) 12:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It is normal in everyday use because speakers like to glorify their gods by flouting orthographic conventions. And that's their prerogative, but does it seem appropriate for a supposedly neutral encyclopedia? The MoS is quite clear: Common nouns don't capitalise. Ilkali (talk) 12:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

And I think it is not a common noun. I would not write: "The one and only ilkali". Lima (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

No, you probably wouldn't. Would you write "Ilkali is just one Person"?

The problem here is that we have a god called God. It's not the kind of situation that arises often outside of the Pokémon universe, so people aren't very good at dealing with it. Try this: Assume that the relevant god has a real name (say, Yahweh). Now ask which sounds more natural: "has been stated as three persons in one deity" or "has been stated as three persons in one Yahweh". If the /gɒd/-word in question is indeed the proper noun referencing God, rather than the common noun denoting all gods, the latter should seem most like the original sentence. Ilkali (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

"The problem here is that we have a god called God". And the result is that it is in fact normal, indeed rather necessary, in a Christian context, such as a discussion of the Christian concept of the Trinity, to speak of "God", of "the one God", "the almighty and merciful God", etc. "The almighty and merciful god" would mean one of a class of beings called gods distinguished from the other(s) by these adjectives. When describing the Christian concept, we must not introduce notions that are incompatible with it, such as the idea of several same-sense gods. That would falsify the concept completely. "Three persons in the one God/Elohim/Shaddai ..." seems perfectly alright to me. Like "Three characteristics of the one Ilkali". Lima (talk) 14:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

""The almighty and merciful god" would mean one of a class of beings called gods distinguished from the other(s) by these adjectives. Can you restrict yourself to talking about examples from the article? I am not saying that every instance of God should be decapitalised, and indeed there are many in the article that I did not decapitalise. ""Three persons in the one God/Elohim/Shaddai ..." seems perfectly alright to me". Ahem. You changed the diagnostic. Which, out of the examples I gave, seems more natural? Ilkali (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

These are the six phrases in the article over which we disagree:

1. The diverse references to God, Jesus, and the Spirit found in the New Testament were later systematized into the idea of a Trinity – one god/God subsisting in three persons and one substance - The Christians did not systematize these references into the idea of one god among many, but into the idea of the one unique God, subsisting etc.
2. none greater or less than another, each God, and yet together being but one god/God - idem; plus curious distinction between "each God" and "one god"
3. the Father, Son and Spirit simultaneously exist, each fully the same god/God. - idem
4. === One god/God ===
5. In Christianity, it is understood that statements about a solitary god/God ... - Christianity has no problem about interpretation of statements about a solitary god - there may perhaps be many of them - but is very particular about the meaning of statements about a solitary God.
6. Otherwise they would not be one god/God

I think it best to leave further discussion to others. Lima (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

"The Christians did not systematize these references into the idea of one god among many, but into the idea of the one unique God". "one god" does not imply "one god among many".

"curious distinction between "each God" and "one god"". You say that as though the two are somehow similar. You realise that each is a pronoun here, yes?

The 'solitary God' example is legitimate. I went back and restored it. The others are all common nouns. Ilkali (talk) 21:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Downcasing "one god" in monotheistic contexts implies that there is a genus "god" of which there could be one or more exemplars, but there happens to be only one. But monotheism is not like that: it claims (as the article actually makes plain if it were read) that there cannot be more than one God in the sense that God is God; the many gods of a polytheistic religion are none of them like the monotheistic God. This article is, of course, a monotheistic context, in which the point is to explain a Christian theological concept. It is appropriate to speak "in world" if you will, with the lead making the situation clear, which is in fact what is done. To say "Christianity believes in one god, but the Greco-Roman pagans believed in many gods" would be to make a false statement, because the difference is principally about not number but about the understanding of what it is to be divine, and so you would need to say "Christianity believes in one God, and some others believed in many gods." Tb (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

"Downcasing "one god" in monotheistic contexts implies that there is a genus "god" of which there could be one or more exemplars, but there happens to be only one". Not true. At most the existence and use of the common noun suggests that there is a range of conceivable entities that could be called gods. This is not contrary to monotheism, which makes the claim that only one of these entities exists.

"the many gods of a polytheistic religion are none of them like the monotheistic God". Except that they are all, uncontroversially, gods. God is a god.

"It is appropriate to speak "in world" if you will, with the lead making the situation clear, which is in fact what is done". Take it up with the MoS. Ilkali (talk) 07:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Where does MoS disagree with Tb? Lima (talk) 09:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Tb is not (at least explicitly) drawing a common/proper noun distinction. He seems instead to be arguing for a orthographical special case, which is not something supported by the MoS.

Look, I've had this exact conversation a dozen times before with a dozen people exactly like you. You don't have any linguistic background and you have no idea how to distinguish between proper and common nouns, but you insist that the words in question are proper nouns because it supports your pre-existing belief that they should be capitalised. It's disruptive and harmful and tiresome. Ilkali (talk) 10:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

May I suppose that in your dozen previous conversations with ignorant people like me you were able to back up with something more than your personal interpretation of WP:MoS your view that the general practice is wrong? Something, that is, that outweighs the Chicago Manual of Style, which, at least as quoted on Questions on Capitalization, says: "The one God. Other references to deity as the one supreme God, including references to the persons of the Christian Trinity, are capitalized." Lima (talk) 12:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand the nature of this disagreement. This isn't about my stylistic preferences, it's about whether the nouns in question are common or proper. Does the Chicago MoS give a ruling on that? No. That's why it's irrelevant.

As for giving something to back up my position, I already gave one diagnostic for distinguishing between common and proper nouns. You didn't respond to it. Would you like more? The presence of articles and adjectives are pretty good evidence for common nounhood. Would you like more? Or are you going to start making your own case? Ilkali (talk) 12:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, what's your comment on the Chicago Manual view that in the phrase "the one God" the word should be capitalized? To me it seems highly relevant to this discussion. Lima (talk) 12:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia operate according to the Chicago MoS or the Wikipedia MoS? Ilkali (talk) 12:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Somehow I think Wikipedia does not operate according to just one editor's interpretation of MoS, especially when that editor has admitted that his view does not correspond to what is considered "normal" practice. Lima (talk) 12:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

"one editor's interpretation"? What's your interpretation of "Common nouns should not be capitalized"?

And are you admitting yet that the CMoS is irrelevant? Ilkali (talk) 13:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It is surely time to pause. Would the next editor to comment please reduce the indent. Lima (talk) 13:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm amazed this discussion is even occurring. MOS:CAPS says "Proper nouns and titles referencing deities are capitalized: God, Allah, Freya..." Proper nouns says "the word God is capitalised as a proper noun when used in a monotheistic context, because it is used as the name of a particular god." Surely that's the end of the discussion. StAnselm (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The point of the text in your second quote is just to establish that there is a proper noun God that references a particular god. It does not mean that every /gɒd/-word is a proper noun when the subject matter relates to monotheism. That's not how syntax works. Ilkali (talk) 14:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a note to say the saving of my last edit was unintentional, as the inchoate edit summary perhaps showed. I had decided not to make the edit, at least not then. But the edit summary reveals that I was playing with the temptation to ask: Are they all out of step except our Johnny? Everyone who has intervened considers Ilkali's arguments baseless, yet he insists on a view held by himself alone. Well, I have now yielded to the temptation. And with that I close my interventions. Lima (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

"Everyone who has intervened considers Ilkali's arguments baseless". There are others things that are true of everyone who has intervened. One is that they have failed to engage me on the matter, beyond repeatedly insisting that their stylistic preferences are the correct ones. I have on multiple occasions asked you to justify, as I have, your analysis of these nouns. On each occasion you have declined or ignored my request. Ilkali (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Ilkali: I have not insisted that there "one God" uses "God" as a proper noun, though the point is debatable. I have insisted that it is simply the correct usage--in monotheistic contexts--and your insistence that it is not does not somehow create consensus. This article had a consistent usage, which met consensus for years, and you have come along recently and decided to alter it. You must seek consensus to defend your change, not bluster in, insisting you have special expertise. Every style manual out there acknowledges that the usage of "God" is unusual in English, including its capitalization, generally saying simply that "God" should always be capitalized when it refers to the monotheistic single God. Your desire that this would not be so is interesting, but consensus already existed before you showed up here, insisting on your own way, and refusing to discuss the uestion beyond repeating the same points. As for the point, I'll now insist upon it. When the context is the monotheistic unique God, the phrase "one God" or "same God" uses "God" as a proper name, exactly as when someone says that "George W. Bush is the same Bush as the son of G. H. W. Bush." or "Thomas Becket is the one Becket among the archbishops of Canterbury." Or, "The Canterbury Tales refers to the only Canterbury in Kent." Tb (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

"User:Ilkali: I have not insisted that there "one God" uses "God" as a proper noun, though the point is debatable". Indeed. That was my interpretation. "I have insisted that it is simply the correct usage--in monotheistic contexts--and your insistence that it is not does not somehow create consensus". I have not merely insisted. I have directed you to the MoS, which clearly states: "Common nouns should not be capitalized". "you showed up here, insisting on your own way, and refusing to discuss the uestion beyond repeating the same points". If I sound repetitious, it is because you and others have repeatedly failed to engage me on the crucial matter of what stylistic convention is prescribed by the MoS. Again: "Common nouns should not be capitalized". If you feel this policy is somehow poor or incorrect, you should attempt to bring changes to the MoS. Until then, the changes I made to the article are valid. Ilkali (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Apologetics?

Trinity#The Origin of the Formula: The Council of Nicaea was reluctant to adopt language not found in scripture, and ultimately did so only after Arius showed how all strictly biblical language could also be interpreted to support his belief that there was a time when the Son did not exist. In adopting non-biblical language, the council's intent was to preserve what the Church had always believed: that the Son is fully God, coeternal with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit.

It sounds apologetical. Any sources or should it go? --Observer99 (talk) 00:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Lima has added a source that says nothing about the reluctance to adopt non-biblical language and its intent to preserve what the church had always believed. --Observer99 (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Buddhist link ?

In Buddhism , Buddha has always asked to follow 3 gems i.e. TRIRATNA : 1.Buddha (or God) 2.Dhamma (or word/scriptures) 3.Sangha (or Holy spirits)

The greeks learnt buddhism while in the Bactrian empire. King Ashoka (230 BC) had sent Buddhist missionaries to Alexandria. The Greeks & Jews there probably learnt about Triratna there and called it TRINATA (in latin). Jesus had spent 12 years of his childhood in Egypt (probably in Alexandria , being the largest colony of Jews there). So it is highly probable that Christianity borrowed Trinata in word & in concept from Buddhists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.98.160.250 (talk) 10:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like original research, but even if it is based on a reliable source is unprovable and a rather marginal theory. I am not sure it merits mention in the article. Ursasapien (talk) 11:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Original invention, perhaps, rather than original research. For instance, look up Sangha. Lima (talk) 12:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

original research?

I have expressed a concern at User talk:67.209.3.82 that that editor's recent edits to this article cite primary rather than secondary sources. I am not going to simply undo these changes because they seem like a genuine attempt to improve the article, but the description which he/she has inserted does need to be linked to a notable third party viewpoint. Hopefully now that I've raised the issue, the editor in question will do so, but otherwise please could other editors take a look. Thanks. — Alan^✉ 13:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Although I fully agree with the POV expressed in that edit, it is still an interpreetation not universally held. If it were not for your expressing your concerns here, I would have already reverted that myself. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV -- Other Threefold Dieties ?

Does this article need a section discussing the Christian Trinity concept as it relates to the historically documented threefold dieties of other religions? For example the ancient Celtic pagans worshiped a threefold goddess with aspects of "Crone", "Mother" and "Maiden"? I think there are also three fold dieties in the Hindu and Chinese mythologies. 66.102.204.8 (talk) 19:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Most likely no... those others are not like the Christian Trinity, but are a god/spirit that can take on different forms. Hardyplants (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

First off, while triads of goddesses or demigoddesses (e.g. the Graces, Norns, etc.) are ancient, the particular maiden-mother-crone triad concept seems to be largely a 20th-century phenomenon. Second, there would have to be a lot more specific detailed similarity with the Christian Trinity, as accepted by mainstream reputable scholars, for pagan goddess or god triads to play a prominent role in this article. AnonMoos (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)