Talk:Trinity/Archive 3

Kabbalah Book Link...?

There is a link under Similarities in the 16th Century Jewish Kabbalah that goes by the title Classical kabbalah book "Shamati" of Yehuda Ashlag about 23,5 hours of kav. That link title is not understandable to me... Can someone please fix it to it is... or, on the other hand, what is this link doing here? Can it be deleted? --jnothman 12:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I found a new home for that link, see [1]. Cheers, ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 5 July 2005 00:42 (UTC)

"Triple manifestation"?

To say that the Trinity is a "triple manifestation" of the Godhead is a kind-of Sabellian formulation, and not orthodox. It implies that the distinction between the three Persons depends on an observer, someone to whom God is being manifested (shown, displayed); but all Catholics and Orthodox and almost all Protestants say that the Trinity is eternal, not a matter of viewpoint or manifestation, in the nature of God himself. Frjwoolley 14:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

That is not the purpose and if I mislead, I apologize. "Manifestations" may not be the right word at all. I just wanted to put in the word Godhead somewhere but I see the definition is not well formulated and may lead to heretical interpretations.Mandel 15:08, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Well, what was it you wanted to express with the phrase "the Godhead" that the single word "God" doesn't express? Frjwoolley 20:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Which brings up an interesting question: Who was the first to use the term "Godhead" in a discussion of the Christian Trinity? I assume the notion comes from the Hindu Trinity but perhaps there are other sources.

Because Godhead is a term so often used synonymously with Trinity that it ought to be mentioned in the lead. In fact the American Heritage Dictionary defines Godhead as a. The Christian God, especially the Trinity. b. The essential and divine nature of God. Mandel 23:35, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

No. The article is not entitled "Godhead". It is entitled, "Trinity"; and the trinity is not defined by the American Heritage Dictionary; it is defined by the Christian Scriptures as interpreted through the faith of the Christian church. "Godhead" is misleading, and confusing language - a three-headed God is not trinitarianism; but that is exactly the false notion that the term invokes in the modern mind. Mkmcconn (Talk) 01:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Well put. For more reasons why the terms are far from synonymous, see Godhead (Christianity) and Godhead (Mormonism). If the word "Godhead" is to be used, it should be carefully distinguished from the term "Trinity." Wesley 04:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Earliest reference to "Godhead" that I can find is Augustine's On the Holy Trinity: [2] Seems to me this article should stick to the Trinity with a link to Godhead and the topic of Godhead should be covered there.

"Godhead" is just the usual English translation of words like Latin "deitas" and Greek "theotetos" -- the quality of being God. (It's like "maidenhead", the quality of being a virgin.) In English people sometimes say "the Godhead" or "the Deity" to mean "God"; which is why I asked Mandel what he wanted to get across with "Godhead" that "God" wouldn't do. Frjwoolley 14:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

There is a particular Latin word (numen) which is usually translated Godhead. Is this the word Augustine used? I suspect it is not. I don't have access to the Latin text at the moment. Otherwise, it sounds like a confusion between Elizabethan English and modern English. It may also be a confusion between the Christian Trinity and the Hindu Trinity.

Jesus Christ

In the context of an article describing Christian belief, "Jesus Christ" is elementary; it is the uniform, standard way to refer to Jesus. In my strong opinion, it is a very serious blow to the credibility of Wikipedia as a neutral source of information also regarding Christian belief, to prejudicially remove "Jesus Christ" from every article, including those describing Christian belief. Please comment. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I entirely agree. This guy went all over Wikipedia, changing "Jesus Christ" to "Jesus", regardless of context. Christians believe Jesus is the Christ; and an article explaining Christian doctrine should be free to use the phrase "Jesus Christ" without its getting POV'd out. Frjwoolley 19:18, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

My impression was that it was janitorial work, undertaken by several editors doing cleanup work; perhaps even a couple of bots? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:11, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

yeah, probably because the link is Jesus

Could the Trinity also be?

Could the trinity had been One god (The father) and the son/holy spirit as part of him? The son and holy spirit are not singular gods but unified within the father?

Depending upon how it is conceived, your idea may go against a basic idea in biblical monotheism, that God is a simple being (that God has no pieces or parts), which is also held by believers in the Trinity. That departure from Trinitarianism is suggested by phrases like "part of".

However, many use language like that without intending to deny the Trinity, and not meaning "part" literally - it's just that these formulas get kind of absurdly difficult to repeat with precision. It is common for Trinitarians to see the Father as personifying the principle of God's singleness and unity. This is a principle called "Monarchy". But orthodox monarchy insists that the Father and the Spirit are unified within the Son, and likewise in the Spirit, just as much as in the Father - when considered as one person. Whoever has the Spirit, has the Father and the Son fully, not partially.

Does that help? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

interesting

Substance/Essence

I wonder if it's worth changing most uses of "substance" in this article to "essence". First, what is undoubtedly meant by "substance" here is covered in the essence article and it would be nice to keep the terminology more or less consistent. (There's an article Substance (philosophy) but it's a stub, and I don't see that it ought to cover any different ground.) Second, "substance" is somewhat ambiguous since it can also be used to translate "hypostasis" and this may have been a source of confusion historically. The exception I might suggest to this is where it's being used to translate the Latin substantio from some given quote, although that may lead to some confusion.

But perhaps I'm just being philosophically unsophisticated here. Any opinions? TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The Latin word "substantia" has a rather specific meaning in theological discussions of the Trinity from Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian on, so it's best not to try to tamper with the vocabulary now... AnonMoos 15:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I would be very surprised to discover that Clement of Alexandria wrote in Latin. Actually, I'm reasonably certain that he didn't, and that substantia was thus not the word he used. Trinitiarian theology was mostly developed in Greek, and it's in Greek that the dogmatic formulation was decided upon by the Ecumenical Councils. The word they used was ousia, of which substantia is a translation. The question ought therefore to be how we should translate ousia, not substantia -- except perhaps, as I admited, where we are translating substantia from writers like Tertullian. One encounters "essence" at least as often as "substance" as a translation of ousia, perhaps now moreso now than formerly, when translating the Greek Fathers. How do you translate hypostasis into Latin in a way that preserves its meaning and so that it doesn't get confused with ousia? (I know that persona is often used, but that really doesn't mean the same thing.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry if I used loosely unclear language. What I meant was more or less that ever since the early 200's A.D., there has been a traditional Latin theological vocabulary (used in both works written in Latin and those translated from Greek into Latin) which has strongly influenced the terminology used in many European languages, so that it's a little late to start tampering with these terms now, after almost 1800 years. You seem to think that since Greek Ousia is an abstract noun derived from the Greek active participle of "to be" ων and neo-Latin Essentia is an abstract noun which looks like it could be derived from the active participle of the Latin verb meaning "to be" (if such a form existed in the Latin language); and since Greek Hypostasis is a noun which contains two compounded stems with basic meaning UNDER and STAND, while Latin Substantia is a noun which also contains two compounded stems with basic meanings UNDER and STAND -- therefore you conclude that Greek Ousia should be translated by Latin Essentia and Greek Hypostasis by Latin Substantia. Unfortunately, such morphological/etymological factors are not decisive in determining the actively-used meanings of words -- and Essentia is a late neologism in Latin, which didn't even exist at the time of the early Church Fathers. -- AnonMoos 14:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to insist on it in the face of strong objections. But this isn't only "my" conclusion; I present the more common usage in English-language Eastern Orthodox circles. No reference is made at all to "essentia". "Essence" seems to be preferred precisely to counter the etymological confusion you describe. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

User 70.24.165.104

This article is not really the place to introduce your "Da Vinci Code" style conspiratorial claims about the Council of Nicea -- but if you insist, then please discuss the matter here first. AnonMoos

Mythology

This is not mythology and so I am removing that category. The accounts of the life of Jesus or various hagiographies might be called myths in that they're narratives, but the Trinity is not a narrative. There's no "story" here. The topic is a theological concept. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Please read Religion and mythology. It's listed at the Encyclopedia Mythica Online under other mythologies. JDR 17:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Have you read the ongoing discussions Category talk:Christian mythology and Category_talk:Christian_mythology/Proposed_compromises? Furthermore, your snide attitude gratuitously exhibited in your remark "under other mythologies" is a perfect example of why the category rubs so many the wrong way. AnonMoos 19:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

snide attitude? That is an opinion, wrongly made. I am not being supercilious or gratuitously exhibiting any contemptive behavior. The academic award-winning site places it there ... simple FACT. It is using "Mythology" in the academic connotation. JDR

You most certainly are displaying "attitude" -- you know very well what it is Christians especially dislike, and you go out of your way to intentionally do exactly that thing for that very reason, trying your utmost to rub it in their faces to the best of your abilities. Meanwhile, you haven't acknowledged the fact that there's a lengthy ongoing discussion about the Category "Christian mythology", so that your attempts to prejudge the issue before the debates about this category setle down into some kind of consensus are hardly constructive. I'm not going to get into a childish revert war with you at this moment -- but you should be aware that the edits which you make with your current truculently immature agenda have zero chance of making into the long-term stable version of this article AnonMoos 20:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not Christianity.

I have no problem with the term, once understood. Most reasonable Christian would too, I suppose.

The discussion is trying to define what is "is". The use of mythology is an academic one, not a biblical one. Otherwise, Wikipedia would have to remove all references to mythology (see recent post in Talk:Abrahamic mythology). JDR

minor edits and bogus formats

Your so called "minor edits" are not in fact minor at all in the Wikipedia meaning of that word -- and the link you added is in a bogus format, and is to a tiny little stub article that doesn't particularly add anything worthwhile. AnonMoos 19:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

It's a definition from an academic award-winning site. Sorry your POV obscures that. JDR 19:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

You certainly have a way of disingenuously dodgng all the issues which you find it awkwardly inconvenient to discuss! The SITE may or may not be "award-winning", but the SPECIFIC ARTICLE which you're repetitively linking to is a tiny mini-stub which is not worthy of being elevated to the status of a "General Link" -- even if you had formatted the link correctly (which you didn't). AnonMoos 20:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

It is award-winning. It is much like the other general link, but more concise. The specific article is a good academic reference. It should be in the general links.

The other point is discussed in the religion and mythology article! JDR 20:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it was the mythology and the religion and mythology articles I relied on to determine that the Trinity doesn't fall under that definition. According to both articles, a mythology is a set of narratives. Therefore, if Wikipedia is to be at least internally consistent, this article should not be so categorized. It's a dogma, not a myth. The Gospel accounts of Jesus' life, hagiographies and other narratives that are to be taken as literally true, as well as pious fables that aren't, these are myths in the technical sense and ought to be so labelled.

The mere inclusion of the term "Trinity" in an encyclopedia of mythology, award-winning or not, really proves nothing: it's a term one very well may run across in various Christian myths, and including it there might be nothing more than a matter of utility. This is especially to be considered since the article in question is plainly not encyclopedic; it's very much a dictdef. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The inclusion of the term "Trinity" in an reliable encyclopedia of mythology, award-winning, really does proves something. Cite your sources. JDR 21:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Again, I'm a fan of the myth site, but two sentences and offended wiki folks aren't really worth it, in my view. KHM03 21:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you suggesting the wikipedia remove "offensive" material? I hope not. JDR 21:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

This would be a much easier conversation to have if you'd kindly address the points raised instead of merely repeating yourself. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Did you miss the "Cite your sources" wlnk? JDR

I did cite them. You ignored them. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

You must not have read closely on the wikiarticles ... "Therefore, some mythologists would define any element of a religious narrative as belonging to the realm of religious mythos, including also any formal religious doctrinal tradition, including the Trinity, Allah, the Son of God." 21:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

It's dirty pool to cite text you yourself added, don't you think? TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Mythica

I removed the link to Encyclopedia Mythica. I am a big fan of that site, and have only great admiration and respect for it. Additionally, I am someone who is not bothered by the term "myth" in reference to Judeo-Christian stories (such as the Garden of Eden, Tower of Babel, etc.). Nevertheless, the Trinity itself is not myth, it is not a story, it is a doctrine. True or not (and I happen to believe it is completely true), it doesn't meet the definitional standard of "myth". Stories can be mythical...doctrine is a theological explanation of the myth. I hope that all the users of this page can agree to just hold off a bit and try and compromise. KHM03 20:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

It is an element of the religion and mythology. JDR

Yes, but it isn't "myth". And, the great website to which you refer is primarily "gods & goddesses" myths, the kind of thing that some users find offensive when likened to Christian theology. I'm just suggesting that the link might be more divisive than informative or useful.

I'd also suggest that we trim the number of external links, both pro and con. Many are redundant, and not particularly useful. KHM03 21:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

It's part (ie., element) of the "mythology" of christianity. The link is provide to be a citable source. JDR 21:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

You keep saying that. It's not true. Elements of a mythology are myths, and the Trinity is not a myth in any sense of the word. Please demonstrate that it is, by the available definitions, if you really want to carry your point are aren't just trying to be annoying. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

But it's all of two sentences, and unreferenced at that. Shouldn't external links be a bit more substantive? KHM03 21:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Not necessarily. It is a reputable source. JDR 21:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but there are many sources online which mention the Trinity...why is this one source so important here? For 2 sentences? KHM03 21:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

It is a source which states the Trinity is a mythological element. Ignore reputable sources and remove so-called "offending" material? I don't think that is NPOV. JDR

Actually, it says nothing of the kind. Just because a concept appears in a myth or is implied by a myth (and which therefore might be usefully defined in an encyclopedia of mythology) doesn't make it a "mythological element" (whatever that means). We frequently encounter wars in Greek myths; should we therefore categorize the article War under "Greek mythology"? Of course not; that would be absurd. This is on the same order. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Nice to see that you are putting up a straw man.

The Trinity is a "mythological element". It's from a reputable citred resource. JDR

What straw man? What's the straw man? It was a Reductio ad absurdum maybe, but that's your problem, not mine. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that we find a source with a substantive discussion of the Trinity. The two sentence article itself doesn't mention "myth" at all...I'd copy it here, but it is under copyright. Here's the link. Just because its mentioned on a fine website doesn't mean that we can't cite a better source. Can't we as a community do better? KHM03 21:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

You missed the categoy that it is in. "Other mythology". JDR 21:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Dictionary definition of "mythology" Dictionary definition of "myth".

Reddi, please accept that what we're asking for here is a source that says that mythology in this context is anything but story. The categorization of a dictdef on a website, no matter how reputable, is a very thin thread to hang your point on, and you've offered nothing to support it besides insults. I'm sure you can do better. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, the two sentences thing is what concerns me primarily. That's a pretty shaky reference. Encyclopedia Mythica is great, but it isn't absolute. We can do better, and any article worth its salt is worth our best. KHM03 22:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

And the definitions you offer claim "myth" to be "story" or an "occurrence"; the Trinity is neither. There are no explicit "Trinity" stories in the Bible. It is a doctrine, not a myth. KHM03 22:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The definitions were mine; I screwed up the indent. My apologies. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

You're forgiven. They weren't bad definitions, mind you. A myth is a story. A doctrine is a theological explanation of the story. Noah's Ark is myth...the Trinity is not. From a technical, academic standpoint. KHM03 22:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Here's the Encyclopedia Mythica's own definition of myth and mythology. By "myth" it clearly means "story", and by "mythology" it clearly means a body of myth. Considering the source, this is hopefuly definitive. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

And it's an excellent source, which I commend to one and all. It has been linked on my user page for some time. KHM03 22:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Vanity link?

A recently addition to the External links section appears to have been made by the author of the essay to which it points. Is it sufficiently worthwhile to retain it, or do we think it inappropriate? I lean toward the latter myself, just on general principles. At the very least it should be moved from "General" to "Trinitarian" since it's an advocacy piece and clearly belongs there, and I'm going to do that now. But I'd rather not delete it over-hastily. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Duplication

As the page now stands, the quotation from Bishop Marcellus of Ancyra is repeated twice in different parts of the article... AnonMoos 16:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I preserved the one under "Dissent", and removed the other. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 07:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Trinity and Pantheism

Man has inherent tendency to complicate things. Instead of keeping things simple, they complicate. May be a bit off topic, but as an example, Man has done so much to make his life and life style easy. However, experiments have shown that instead of making life easier, they have made it even more difficult and tense. Just the type of difficulty and tensions are changed. Coming to the point, Trinity seems to be a bit complication of one simple concept of Monotheism. As a neutral point of view, I must say that the statement is not intelligible. How do you comment on such a religion whose basic - rather very basic - set of beliefs become so difficult to understand without going into details (of Pantheism may be). -- Unsigned comment by IP 139.181.208.34

I'm not too clear what relevance your general pontifications may have to the practical task of writing an encyclopedia article. Regardless of what you feel to be the inherently and intrinsically muddled nature of the idea, nevertheless, many Christians believe in it, while others don't, and it's our task to report the various views pro and con -- not to pass Olympian judgements on its state of muddledness or correctness. AnonMoos 14:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Was that a comment or a taunt? I was just asking about the fact that how a religion can be understandable to an outsider easily if its most important and first belief is not intelligible? I know your user profile is full of trinity concept and I am not being so rude! Secondly, I have done nothing with that trinity article! I have only put up a question in this talk page. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.181.208.34 (talk • contribs)

Relax, guy, I wasn't accusing you of a crime -- just pointing out that your ruminations didn't have any discernible relevance to improving the actual Wikipedia Encyclopedia article page Trinity (as far as I could see). If you're Muslim, then I have some Arabic-language versions of the traditional "Shield of the Trinity" diagram linked at my external website http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/shield-trinity.htm . Otherwise, I'm not sure I can help you too much in grappling with your doubts (and not sure whether helping you grapple with your doubts is really one of the main functions of a Wikipedia article talk page). AnonMoos 16:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, "basic belief" is maybe better put, "foundational doctrine". If you are right that people have an inherent tendency to complicate things, and the doctrine of the Trinity is an example of that, then it's interesting that its believers from very early on have continually fought off attempts to substitute something simpler: it seems that they have been combatting an "inherent tendency" to (over-)simplify. Actually, I don't think that it fits the facts that this doctrine is a complication of the simple idea of Monotheism. The doctrine developed as Christians held to monotheism while also facing the implications of who Jesus evidently showed himself to be, and his teaching that the Holy Spirit was another like himself. That doesn't have anything to do with pantheism, however. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, as far as I think, they usually justify this doctrine in terms of vague pantheism. I don't say that they actually believe in Pantheism rather they explain this doctrine in this way. And as you said that there are some christians that don't believe in trinity. I think, it reflects that this doctrine is not a requirement to be a christian if I am not wrong. But still I am not sure and definite about that! How do you comment? PassionInfinity 12:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Well traditional "mainstream" Christians do definitely say that acquiescing in the Trinity is a requirement of being a real orthodox Christian! (Consult the Athanasian creed.) And "pantheism" really has very little to do with it. It would help this discussion if you could tell us whether IP 139.181.208.34 and user PassionInfinity are the same individual... AnonMoos 16:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, yes! Just thought of making an account instead of IP address. How will this help in the discussion? At least you agreed that it has something to do with Pantheism. That helps! PassionInfinity 17:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm thoroughly confused...what does the Trinity have to do with pantheism? KHM03 17:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Traditional trinitarian Christianity draws a sharp distinction between God and Creation (meaning everything God made). God, Father Son and Holy Spirit, is not created, but everything else is. Pantheism on the other hand greatly blurs if not eliminates the distinction between God and the Universe, or all Creation (if I can use that term when talking about pantheism). The only point of contact I can see is that in the Incarnation God assumed human flesh, thereby sanctifying human flesh, and through his various acts sanctified or redeemed Creation. But I think this might be a more particularly Orthodox way of looking at it, and in any case is still a far cry from pantheism. If you see a greater similarity that we don't, would you care to elaborate on it? For instance, I've never heard of vague pantheism, at least not by that name, and you've aroused my curiousity.

Also, PassionInfinity, thanks for creating an account with a username. It feels much more natural to call you that than to call you 139.181.208.34, and at least in that way helps the discussion. :-) Wesley 19:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you might be on the right track, Wesley, in thinking that PassionInfinity is speaking of the Incarnation. Incarnation is a very common idea in pantheistic religions, because of the idea that all differentiation arises as an emanation from the single source; and yet, in Christianity, with the doctrine of creation, pantheism is effectively erased as a possibility, where the two natures/one person idea of Christ bolsters the distinction between Creator and creation, and at the same time asserts the goodness and redeems the hope of creation, by restoring it to suitability in all of God's purpose, as you've said. The Word is not an inferior version of God. And the creation, even though joined to the Word in one person, does not cease to be distinct from creator. The doctrine of the Trinity is anti-pantheistic. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Quite correct! Pantheism in one sentence can be defined as Everything is God and God is everything. By vague pantheism, I meant nothing special and did not invent this term. What I meant was the almost the same concept of Incarnation. Some religions take this concept to Reincarnation which in short means rebirths till someone attains ultimate purification which has different terms in different religions. See Moksha for an example from Hinduism which means liberation from the cycle of deaths and rebirths. Buddhism is another example with that concept. Coming to the point, I said earlier that man tends to complicate things rather than simplification. Quite humbly, I hope I can express my opinion that may be Trinity lies somewhere in between the process. Apart from that, let me ask one other question to clarify and expand. "Is God everywhere in person or He is everywhere by His knowledge and wisdom?". If it is second way then it has nothing to do with Pantheism. May be this question helps in lots of ways. If I am wrong -- may be I am -- then please correct me! Thanks PassionInfinity 05:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Doubters of monotheism have been prone to drift into pantheism. Your opinion that the Trinity lies somewhere "in between the process" of this drift into doubt is your opinion; and it is not the doctrine of the Trinity. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

One of the ideas in Christianity is that man is incapable of understanding God and I wonder whether this is related with your questions (just a thought). +MATIA ☎ 07:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

A God that is understandable is not called God! We are and we should be incapable of understanding Him. PassionInfinity 08:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Christianity maintains that God can be known...not in all of his divine glory and omni- attributes, but in the person of Jesus Christ. We can know God as he has revealed himself in and through Jesus. We may not understand the totality of the Deity, but we can know him as far as we are able with our finite human minds and hearts. This is one of the true glories of Christianity to which the doctrine of the Trinity points! KHM03 16:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

To expand on that point, Christianity would generally agree that God is unknowable except to the extent that He reveals Himself, and of course within our human limitations. God has revealed himself in many ways, but primarily and most fully through Jesus Christ. Regarding the comparison between the "incarnation" of Jesus Christ and "reincarnation" as found in Hinduism, Buddhism, etc., the differences are I think greater than the similarities. Whereas Buddhism and Hinduism believe that everyone is in a life-death-rebirth cycle, Christianity believes that no one is in such a cycle, including Jesus. Whereas in these religions the cycle either iteratively improves people, or is something that needs to be escaped, in Christianity Jesus became incarnate not because of any sin or imperfection in himself, but in order to redeem humanity and creation. It was a one time very good thing, not something to be regretted or escaped from. This idea is underscored in the teaching of a full physical resurrection, not just a spiritual one. This is why I think the concepts remain quite distinct in their philosophies. Wesley 18:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

And, whereas Buddhism & Hinduism see the material world as an illusion to be esacaped, Christianity sees it as very real and worth redeeming. KHM03 19:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Very Fine! But I think you didn't get my point. What can be an even simpler concept? The very beginning! As far as I know, and I hope I am not wrong, human beings are born with the concept of monotheism built into them. It does not require any evidence. What atheists have done is that, willingly or unwillingly, pushed this concept into their unconscious minds. However, a bit off topic, what I wanted to convey was the complications human beings have added later on to a very simple concept of monotheism. Its not exactly incarnation or reincarnation. In the same way, trinity seems to be somewhere in between this complication process. PassionInfinity 20:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I hate to disagree (no, that's a lie: I love to disagree!) but I don't see monotheism as inborn at all. It was a rarity in the ancient world, and didn't become common until Christianity began to spread. I know you encounter it in Hinduism, but in that context it strikes me as a rather philosophical abstraction compared to the way the people acutally practice their religion.

You do realize that those who believe in the Trinity do not see it as a human invention, and so is hardly (in their view) the sort of complication you're envisioning here? It is believed to be something God revealed about himself; the vocabulary surrounding it is an attempt to put a transcendental reality into human language. Supposing for the sake of argument that this is true, it's hardly surprising that it's difficult to understand. There ought to be something incomprehensible about God as Christianity describes him. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

As proposed by Sigmund Freud, everybody has an unconscious mind. This unconscious mind possesses some inborn knowledge. Psychologists have already proved this by a research on unconscious mind. We, as human beings, have a lot in common. As a simplest example that is given is that every male know the female image and every female knows male image. This common unconscious knowledge also contains a concept of God. If one is unable to observe it, then, most probably, one has pushed this concept so deeply inside ones unconscious that it has almost become impossible for one to realize it again. I can give you more information if you need but that was not the topic under discussion. PassionInfinity 07:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

No one takes Freud very seriously anymore, and his unconscious mind isn't widely accepted by modern researchers, contra your statement above. But suppose it was, for the sake of argument. Your claim is that monotheism is a universally held unconscious idea. Maybe, maybe not, but you'll never prove it from history. In fact, you offer nothing at all in support of it. Why do you believe this? TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not, but how will you believe this if you just can't realize that. Regarding Freud, it's not the point whether he was right or not. The point actually is that researches on unconscious mind revealed this. Existence of God can be proved logically and non-existence of God can also be proved logically! Logic is always flawed. You can find examples of Paradoxes. This unconscious mind is the strogest argument that one can give o be theist rather than atheist. PassionInfinity 10:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I allowed your claim about the unconscious for the sake of argument; you didn't need to argue it further. You appear to be dodging the question. I asked why you think monotheism is a common unconscious idea. You didn't give an answer, citing only vague "researches" but providing no actual information. I believe I can prove from history that it is not, since monotheistic religions are very much the exception and not at all common in ancient times. One would expect a less developed culture to express belief in God with fewer "complications", closer to the unconscious ideal, yet they are almost universally polytheistic or pantheistic.

You also don't appear to understand logic. Considering that all of mathematics, and therefore the highly successful sciences built atop it, is an exercise in pure logic, it's obviously false that logic is always flawed. A paradox results either from flawed logic (which can then be corrected so that it is no longer flawed) or faulty axioms. As it happens, neither the existence nor the non-existence of God has been proved logically. Although certain thinkers on both sides believe to have accomplished one or the other, it's always possible to find flaws in their reasoning, usually in the form of begging the question. Flawed logic proves exactly nothing. We believe in God not because reason demands it, but because he as revealed himself to us. We have no other way of reaching him. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The argument finishes then. Since you are a monotheist apart from believing in trinity, then I have no objection. The topic shifted from Trinity as polytheism or pantheism to Atheism. Trinity is a monotheistic belief. PassionInfinity 05:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

PassionInfinity, you think that the Trinity resulted from peoples' inherent tendency to complicate things. You've been told why people disagree with this opinion. Now, what do you want done in the article? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't want anything in the article. I just wanted to ask christians' opinions about this concept.

Unitarian Universalists excised from Dissent from the doctrine category: An explanation

Unitarian Universalists do not belong in the 'Dissent from the doctrine' category, and here I explain why: it is true that, historically, the 'Unitarian' part of the Unitarian Universalist amalgam was essentially defined by its rejection of the Trinity. However, the article does not purport to be talking about previous incarnations of Unitarian Universalism, but about the modern variety. To quote:

"Many modern groups also teach a nontrinitarian understanding of God. These include..."

It then continues, formerly including Unitarian Universalists as an example.

Unitarian Universalism is creedless, as the Wikipedia article correctly indicates, and as this quote from their own webpage demonstrates:

"The Association declares and affirms its special responsibility, and that of its member societies and organizations, to promote the full participation of persons in all of its and their activities and in the full range of human endeavor without regard to race, color, sex, disability, affectional or sexual orientation, age, or national origin and without requiring adherence to any particular interpretation of religion or to any particular religious belief or creed."

The paragraph above is extracted from:

http://www.uua.org/aboutuua/principles.html

Note that the words in bold were not emphasized in the original text.

The American Unitarian Conference is properly included in the list, as they retain the classical unitarianism rejection of the Trinity. Chasuk 21 October 2005

So, are you saying it would be wrong to say "The Unitarian Universalists teach a nontrinitarian understanding of God" because the UU do not teach any understanding of God at all? That's what your statements sound like to me, but I want to be sure I'm not misunderstanding. Wesley 19:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I think he means the unitarian universalists do not commit either way, so they are neutral. They are open to any interpretation of God in this area, and so cannot be truly called either "trinitarian" or "non-trinitarian." More like agnostic trinitarianism. I'm no expert in modern unitarian theology, but his quote only proves an open membership, that they will let people into the group without requiring a certain belief. This is an incorrect conclusion to draw from the quote, because there is a difference between letting people into your group, and having the denominational philosophy be one without adherence to a particular belief. For example, a church might accept homosexuals into its services while still affirming dogmatically that homosexuality is a sin, justified perhaps by taking the lesser of two evils (homosexuality, which they call a sin, and no religion at all, as every person in every church is a sinner, and some good, some belief is better than none, etc).

Opening Definition

Does anyone mind if I change the opening definition to:

The traditional Christian doctrine of the Trinity teaches that God is a single being existing simultaneously as three distinct persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit.

I find the current wording awkward and wish to rearrange the deck chairs.

--CTSWyneken 12:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately "being" is mighty close to an English translation of hypostasis. While I personally do not object to your definition, I believe it would be safer to use more traditional language, which is "one God in three Persons." Imagine trying to translate your definition back into Greek.

I am also not sure you want to say "Son (Jesus)". While technically correct, most people tend to think of Jesus as a human being, born in time. Thus your definition will tend to confirm misunderstandings that Christians confuse divinity and humanity, by having a human being as part of the Trinity. Due to the unity of Christ, and the communication of attributes, there's a certain sense in which this is true. However if you're going to try to define the second person, I would feel happier with something like "the eternal Logos, incarnate in Jesus"

I have to say that I have an overall problem with this page. There's nothing positively wrong with it. However from reading it, I don't think most people would understand *why* Christians think the Trinity matters. I've tried to answer that at http://geneva.rutgers.edu/src/christianity/trinity.html. You're welcome to steal any language from it that you like.

Hedrick 03:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Please feel free to tweak it. I retained as much of the original definition as I could, but am not committed to these precise words. Anything that reflects "one God is three persons" will do. --CTSWyneken 12:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Trinity as "Community"

In the introduction, I had changed the intro to read: "a community of three distinct persons." I was reverted. What do y'all think? As far as I can tell, this goes to the heart of what Trinitarianism is all about, and I believe that I am supported by John Zizioulas, the above-referenced Rutgers site, and many others. (He is a Greek bishop, theologian, and author of "Being as Communion.") In fact, in my mind, the Most Blessed Trinity is "the eternal, archetypal community." However, instead of just engaging in a revert war, I decided to get feedback. Also, I agree with the above, the whole article needs to be recast, especially with regard to what the implications are for theological anthropology, ecclesiology, etc., if God is inherently communitarian and humanity is created, and then recreated in the Church, in the "image and likeness of God." For example, Paul speaks of Christians, as members of the mystical Body of Christ, as "members one of another." Given the above considerations, since this is the case, it is true because, first, the Three Divine Persons are "members one of another." Feedback? --Midnite Critic 18:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I support your change to the intro, essentially for the reasons you gave. Not so sure yet about recasting the whole article, I'll need to take time to look it over in its current state. Wesley 19:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

You were not at all incorrect, so I've tried again myself. I hope the other changes I made to the intro are acceptable as well. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for both doing this and for the clarification of the "Logos/Jesus" issue. I did take the liberty of changing "incarnate in" to "incarnate as" so to avoid a possible nestorianizing implication. -- Midnite Critic after 20:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

That's fine. I had the expression I used in mind as a synonym of the other, but I do see how it could be read in a Nestorian sense. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't really like using the word "community" in the brief definition at the TOP of the page, because it can easily convey tritheistic implications to those who don't know much about Christian doctrine, and are unfamiliar with traditional theological terminology. AnonMoos 23:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I can understand that, Anon, although, for me, the concept of "eternal, archetypal community" is a further hedge against tritheism: there is one, and one only, God, because there is one Father, the Source of all that it is, who eternally communicates the Divine Essence to the Logos and the Spirit. This Divine Essence is, in fact, inherently communitarian, and is never manifested other than hypostatically, i.e, PERSONALLY (which, in and of itself, of course, implies community, since "person" refers to "a locus of relationship." Perhaps you'd like to add a clarifying sentence to the introduction? --Midnite Critic 23:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The thing is, no matter how you phrase it this is going to convey tritheistic implications to those who are unfamiliar with it, "community" certainly not less than the "distinct" which formerly appeared here. There's no way to explain it concisely in such a way as to be immediately understood. It may as well be accurate.

If I were to quibble with the intro as it currently stands, on solely stylistic grounds I think the parenthetical note expanding on "Son" has grown to inelegant proportions with the addition of "in time, space, and history". I thought "Jesus of Nazareth", by specifying place, sufficiently identified the Incarnation as an historical event. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Theological precision vs. elegance: always in tension. <g>--Midnite Critic 02:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. However, I think it's gone too far at this point. "Three persons", however you qualify it, sounds tritheistic to some even after the doctrine is fully explained. Adding more qualifiers to an already belabored paragraph as with AnonMoos's recent edit doesn't help. It's not correct anyway. It's not "community" in a mere technical sense, it's COMMUNITY in the fullest possible way, and a model for human relationships. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with the latter. I guess one thing this article needs is a full discussion of the theology of personhood and being, both human and divine. I suspect you and I have a slightly different understanding of that than does Anon. --Midnite Critic 23:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Friends: I'm troubled by the current definition which I think is convoluted and would not be recognized by most of the Christians who have confessed this doctrine through the ages, and, I suspect, who confess it today. I believe that it is at best misleading for them and for causal readers. I'd like to change it to the traditional "one God in THree Persons." I'd then recommend a separate section in which you can discuss "God as a Community." --CTSWyneken 21:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Although I very much agree that the intro is convoluted at the moment, I disagree strongly that this is not a definition that would be recognized by most Christians either presently or historically. Community/communion/koinonia is absolutely essential for understanding the Trinity. It does not go too far to say that God is Koinonia in the same way we say God is Love. John Zizioulas covers the subject with some thoroughness, and it is clearly implicit in (for instance) the Cappadocian Fathers. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The short summary definition at the very top of the page has to satisfy a number of criteria in addition to correctness. The "community" theme can be developed at great length with many fine nuances in the body of the page, but if the use of that word would strongly tend to mislead a non-expert individual who's looking for a little quick information (and may not get beyond the first few paragraphs of the article), then I rather doubt whether it belongs in the short definition at the top of the page. AnonMoos 00:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

And I contend that any brief definition of the Trinity you put in the intro is going to be misleading to such a reader no matter how you phrase it. The entire subject is finely nuanced. "Community" here isn't merely a theme or subtopic, it's the central concept. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The formula "one God in Three persons" was developed and tested over millennia. It is as close to a definition as Christian orthodoxy can get. This is the first I've heard this concept of God as "community" On first blush, I'm inclined to see it as tritheistic. I'm resisting that temptation, because I've not heard it out yet. My point is that if I, who work at a seminary, have trouble with seeing this definition as orthodox, the average Christian person would see it as so. Therefore, I feel strongly that such attempts to understand the incomprehensible should be left to the body of the text. --CTSWyneken 02:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Pastor: With all due respect, this is the reaction one often gets when one is dealing with those trained in the Western tradition. You are a victim of Augustine who, from an Eastern perspective, comes perilously close to quadtheism in that he seems to stop just short of hypostasizing the Divine Essence itself. He certainly manages, as you suggest, to make the doctrine incomprehensible. I am also quite surprised that you have not read Zizioulas. In any event, the point is that the Divine Essence, or ousia, is inherently communitarian; as we read in I John: "God is love," and it is this, along with the notion of person, or hypostasis, as "locus of relationship," which saves it, as in the Capodocians (the thought-world out of which Zizioulas is writing). Therefore, I propose the following wording:

The traditional Christian doctrine of the Trinity teaches that there is but One God who exists, simultaneously and eternally, as three distinct persons: the Father, the Son (the eternal Logos, incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth), and the Holy Spirit. Far from being "three gods," these three Divine Persons are, in St Paul's words, "members one of another" and therefore constitute one eternal communion, or "community" of love.

If "community" is supposedly the "central theme" of this article, then why did it exist for years (until "20:54, 30 October 2005 UTC") without using the word "community" at all??? The problem with using the word "community" in the short definition at the TOP of the page, is that to avoid giving an impression of tritheism, you have to weight it down with qualifications and/or explanations which detract from the goal of giving a clear and concise definition. The word "community" may well have a place in this article, but in my opinion, NOT at the TOP of the page! AnonMoos 09:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here can be held responsible for what or what was not in the article at any earlier date. Clearly there is a significant faction of Christians (possibly only the Orthodox) for whom this aspect of the Trinity is of central importance. But given it has Patristic support (and indeed many of the original arguments for the dogma were framed in these terms) it very much has a prominent place in the article, and there's absolutely nothing amiss with putting it at the top of the page.

Again -- and you've not seen fit to address this -- "three distinct persons" also sounds tritheistic to anyone unfamiliar with the subject. There's just no way to avoid that impression in a brief summary. It's not an intuitive concept. TCC (talk) (contribs) 10:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

No one is responsible for anything which they themselves did not write, but I still find it rather peculiar that this article has existed as a rather comprehensive treatment of the subject for a long time without even mentioning the word "community", then less than a week ago someone casually dropped the word "community" in, and now it's all of a sudden claimed to be the main subject of the article! As for your other comment, the word "community" in modern English tends to conjure up a concrete visual picture of a group of people interacting socially, while "distinct" is a dry conceptual or philosophical term without the same associated vivid mental imagery, and so is less of a stumbling block in real-world practical terms. AnonMoos 18:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

On a purely philosophical level, the question is one of distinguishing two ontological categories, that of "ousia" and "hypostasis," as the Cappodocians did. What say ye? --Midnite Critic 02:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm okay with this (and here I even went and dug up a reference from St. Basil's "On the Holy Spirit") except that if some believe "community" sounds tritheistic, then to me "distinct" seems equally bad, which is why I used "distinguishable". Also, Communion points to a disambiguation page where nothing listed is directly applicable, so you might want to de-wik it. Or create an appropriate article, if you feel sufficiently energetic. (I don't.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Definition of Trinity, East vs. West, Zizioulas

Indeed, I haven't spent a lot of time in the theologians of the Eastern Orthodox tradition. I suspect you haven't spent much time with theologians of the Lutheran tradition, with whom I am schooled. I do not know Zizioulas, but I suspect you do not know C. F. W. Walther, or perhaps Chemnitz, Gehardt and countless others.

My viewpoint is shaped by Luther's view that human reason is unable to understand the nature of God beyond what He has revealed. He is the Creator and we are creatures. He is holy and on this side of death, we are sinners. Every time a theologian tries to find words to comprehend the Divine Mystery, he or she risks misunderstanding God even more. This is where I'm coing from.

What we know from the Holy Scripture is that there is only one God. We also know that the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God. The Holy Church, east and west, chose to pack this up in the definition one God in three persons. The moment we start messing with that formula, we import philosophical assumptions grounded in human reason. So I'm not much for Augustine or other fathers inclined to describe the faith in ways palatible to Platonic and Aristotalian worldviews. This opens a pandora's box of concepts and debates that end up telling us more about the theologian that posits them than about the nature of God.

So, in the end, what does this have to do with task we have in Wikipedia? We must find a way to describe in a few sentences what all who affirm the doctrine confess or describe the main alternatives. I think this would be accomplished with a definition close to the following:

The traditional Christian doctrine of the Trinity teaches that there is but One God who exists, simultaneously and eternally, as three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

This covers all who confess the creeds of Constantinople and Nicea. It leaves for later the variety of ways it has been explained, affirmed or rejected, etc. It also allows for documenting the ways major Theologians have understood the relationship between the persons, even a discussion of the filioque controversy, subordinationism, etc. --CTSWyneken 15:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand and agree that we can only know about God what God has revealed. If we can agree that God has revealed Himself to us as a God of love, then we may reasonably ask when God began to love, or if there was ever a time when God did not love. If God only first began to love when He created man (or angels etc.), then love is not intrinsic but something He does. If God exists in three persons who exist eternally, then God can love eternally, and we can say with the scriptures that God is love, God loves, God has always and will always love. This is I think what is meant by talking about the Trinity in terms of community. You can call that a philosophical assumption grounded in human reason if you want, but it remains firmly grounded in scripture and in the tradition of the church, how it has understood scripture.

Its omission from earlier versions of the article was an oversight. Opposition to it is frankly puzzling. While the use of that term in this way may be less common in the West, I don't think that the idea expressed by it is at all foreign to Protestantism. And it's no more suggestive of tritheism to the theological novice than saying "three persons" and naming those persons. Wesley 17:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

It's good to say that "community" is meant in a "technical theological sense". It's important also to convey that "person", "hypostases", "entity", "ontology", "equal ultimacy", "subordination", "economy", "identity", "distinguishable", and every other term used, are all words and ideas borrowed from other uses and adapted by analogy, which are burdened with a transference of inappropriate meaning.

Community is suggestive of tritheism; just as "three persons" is too - that is, if the special sense in which these terms are used is not understood. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** \

On another issue, I have to say that I am disappointed that we have returned again to "The traditional Christian doctrine of the Trinity". In which church does the form of prayer read "We thank you, O Holy traditional doctrine!"

The doctrine of the Trinity is not that the Trinity is a doctrine. The doctrine is, that "the Trinity is God". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 09:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't have much time to debat this morning. A note to the above: I wholly agree that the Trinity is God, which is why we say "one God." But this is a not a service of worship, in which we wouldn't define Trinity at all. We would just use it. This is an encyclopedia and a secular one at that. The idea here is to define the teaching so that even non-Christians have a decent chance of understanding what they would hear when ANY Christian uses the term. That requires some distance. So, for example, I'm by nature inclined to define the elements of the Lord's Supper as "The Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, in, with and under bread and wine." If I were to use that in Wikipedia, I would have to set some distance between that definition and my confession so that others could read it without being insulted into thinking I'm imposing a definition on them. So, I would say: Lutherans teach that.... Here the word "traditionally" allows for the fact that others, like those in Eastern Christian traditions, would like further clarification. Fortunately, an article is exactly the place where we can do that. More in a day or two about my reply to the community conversation. --CTSWyneken 11:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Observations, suggestions

Pastor, Elder, et. al.: No debates, please. We are all Trinitarians, so let's dialogue, even if I hate that word. As an (Oriental) Orthodox priest who is a child of the West (meaning I converted: I grew up Evangelical/Fundamentalist/Holiness, sorta like Garrison Keillor, attending mostly a C&MA Church, but also AG, and Nazarene), I find it interesting, and I use that word in a neutral way, that those in this discussion (better word) who retain a Western orientation to theology find the term "community" suggestive of Tritheism, while those of us who are Eastern (Orthodox) in belief perceive just the opposite. I'm not sure why that is, although I have certain vague intimations of a hypothesis. In any event, would "communion" (koinonia) be less suggestive of tritheism? I note, for example, in the RC catechism, that the latter term is applied to the Trinity several times.

On another note, I also find it interesting that the West tends to go "apophatic" when the matter comes up (see above), although apophatic theology is usually associated with the East. I think the distinction here is that in the East, apophaticism applies more or less specifically to those aspects of God which are not explicitly revealed, but not, like the doctrine of the Trinity, to teachings which have been revealed. One other theme which often recurs in Eastern thought has to do with the implications or ramifications of trinitarianism for other aspects of theology, such as anthropology, ecclesiology, etc. I note that the NEW RC catechism, obviously influenced by its Eastern "lung," addresses this, even if rather tentatively. Pastor, you are right: I am not as familiar with the classical formularies of the Reformation, etc., as I should be. Do they address that? Just curious.

Finally, perhaps we need to consider subcategories such as "Eastern Approaches" and "Western Approaches"? --Midnite Critic 15:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Am I debating? These are only my views of the recent edits.

There is nothing more specially difficult about the idea of "community" in a single being, than there is about "communion". I do think that "community/communion of persons in a single being" is very clearly Trinitarian; whereas "one God ... exists as a community" is not. "God is a council", "God is a community", "God is a family", in fact, are phrases employed frequently by anti-trinitarians of various sorts.

If by "apophatic" you are referring to what I've said, you are misapplying the term. God is indeed described by these terms; but the original meaning of the words is derived from descriptions of things and ideas that are not God; and for that reason they are the most problem if they seem univocal. Their meaning is appropriated by analogy. As with all analogies, it is only by familiarity with the specific intended sense, that the terms do not accidentally convey an unintended meaning. In this case, communion of persons carries the unintended meaning that God is divided into three independent parts, each with separable personality and identity, who exist together as an intimate community of three entities. The unintended inference that "God" is the name of a class of individuals has to be precluded, or checked immediately once the notion of distinct person is introduced.

I am not enthusiastic about an "Eastern vs Western approaches" approach. This comparison arises from a primarily eastern paradigm and concern. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed we are referring to an Eastern paradigm and concern, but, without being triumphalistic, ones that are also Patristic, or at least rooted in the thinking/writings of the fathers who preceded Augustine. For Eastern Christians, and especially those of the Orthodox variety, Augustine, if not Tertullian before him, begins the process that lead to the Great Schism and, in our humble opinion, away from the traditional/biblical faith of the pre-Augustinian fathers. For us, the "unholy trio" of Western theologians is Tertullian, Augustine, and Anselm (not to mention the various popes, such as Leo the Great, who expanded their authority and thus deformed the original idea of "one episcopate, many bishops." (Gee, I wonder where a concept like THAT came from?) However, as far as I can tell, the difference here between East and West are not mutually exclusive. I just think that following Augustine, the West in general as a less clear understanding of the Trinity than does the East. I know I never really understood it until I started reading the Eastern writers, beginning with somebody as accessible as Kallistos Ware. My references to "debate" was a response to the Lutheran Pastor, who began by saying he had little time to "debate" this morning, which I resonated with.

And no, I am not confusing "analogical" with "apophatic." The latter refers to the "negative theology," characteristic of Orthodoxy, which states that all positive statements about God (or least about the Divine Nature), must be qualified. For example, while it is more accurate to say that "God exists" than it is to say the opposite, the former must always be qualified by noting that God transcends anything that we might understand by "existence." Sometimes this is stated negatively, as in the above, at other times, positively, as in the liturgical formulations which state or imply that God alone "truly" exists.

I go into all this to note that, a)this is a way in which apophaticism and analogy are related, the former qualifying the latter, and b)to note that in the use of analogies, at least in Orthodox theology, there is movement both from that which is not God, to God, and back. For example, Zizioulas argues that our contemporary concept of "personhood" as an ontological category (and therefore, our concepts of human rights, etc.), something not found in Greek philosophy, is directly traceable to the hammering out of trinitarian doctrine in the early history of the Church. The way this worked, first and foremost, was to redefine "ousia" and "hypostasis" in such a way so that "ousia" refers to one thing ("nature" as in Divine or human) while "hypostasis" refers exclusively, in this case, to "person." (Often, in Greek philosophy, these two terms are used more or less synonymously.) This leads to the understanding that a)there is no manifestation of ousia apart from hypostasis and that, at least when one is speaking of humanity or divinity, these hypostases are inherently related such that when one speaks of the Divine, one must inevitably speak of "communion" and, in terms of humanity, one MAY speak of communion, especially when referring to Christians, who are, as St. Paul writes "members one of another."

Obviously, for humans, this state of communion is impaired by the fall (precisely because communion with God is impaired) and is only restored in the Church as the mystical body of Christ. Thus, a "person" is an "open system," a "locus of relationship," relationships, in the case of the Divine Persons, which are determined exclusively by their relationships, their communion, with each other. Humans, created "in the image and likness of God," were created only for this communion as well, first with the Divine Persons and then, with each other. After the fall, outside of the Church, we speak of interpersonal (which is redundant, really) relationships, but not all relationship is communion, community. Now, given all that, I like your suggestion concerning "communion of persons who are a single being." That works for me, but to be very clear, it is impossible to speak of "independent persons" in any context. That is an oxymoron. "Do not ask for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."--Midnite Critic 20:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

You might consider whether an application of your last point would be, that the "East" impairs itself when it diminishes the "West" of the ancient and undivided Church. Anyway, I am glad that you like the phrase "single being". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 05:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Point taken. At the same time, the Church was divided by 500, in the wake of Chalcedon, and the fissures that lead to the division of the Byzanto-Roman "Great Church" in the 11th Century begin at least as early as Augustine, who, in many ways, is certainly heir to Tertullian. --Midnite Critic 15:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Back to the Introduction...

Dear Friends: please excuse the absence for a bit. This is a buzy time of year in an academic library!

While I appreciate the changes that have been made, I still would like to restore the ancient formula.

I've done a bit of research and, so far, I find reference to the formula "one God in three Persons" as early as Socrates Scholasticus of Constantinople (early 5th century) So, if I'm correct, this statement is the consensus of the whole church, east and west, through nearly 1600 years. I'm not sure how widely it is catechised in Eastern traditions, but it is thoroughly taught and sung throughout all Western traditions. Each tradition interprets it someone differently, but all confess it as truth. (even those who insist on not having creeds! 8-) )

I think it would serve us best not to adjust this formula in the introduction, which may if not actually break one of the few consensuses of the whole faith. We can clarify the different ways that folk have unpacked the doctrine and the way others have received those presentations of the one truth.

Having done a bit of reading (emphasis on the bit) I'm having less trouble with the "community" concept. Still, my initial reaction is evidence of why we should stay with "God in three persons."

--CTSWyneken 11:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Midnite Critic! I think that will satisfy me on the intro. I'll be good, for now! 8-)

--Bob 21:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Okay...<grin>. You're welcome. Greg, aka --Midnite Critic 02:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

A few section changes

When I was reading through the article, the contents of "Historical view and usage" threw me for a loop because most of the section discussed the nature/ontology of the Trinity in the modern (unqualified) sense. The bit on history seemed like a good lead in, so I changed the second level heading to "Ontology of the Trinity" and made "Historical view and usage" the first subsection.

The bit on "Christian Life and the Blessed Trinity" also seemed out of place as that section discusses the implications or application of the concept of Trinity, and not the nature of Trinity itself. So, I moved that to be a second level section after the section on dissent, figuring that it would read best as "point/counterpoint" and then onto a new subject.

Speaking of sections, it seems that the "Historical view and usage" section should be merged with the "Historical development" section. I thought I'd leave this change to the more involved authors, though.

WikipediaAdventures 21:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

KarmaKameleon

He's the one trying to get "nontrinitarianism" deleted because he claims can't find any significant number of Google hits for it which don't come from Wikipedia itself. AnonMoos 04:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, I voted it to be merged, renamed, or deleted. I could'nt find a dictionary entry or any book that uses the term to describe a group. KarmaKameleon 20:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The reason you didn't find it is that we were using it as a sort of umbrella term to describe several distinct groups that have in common their repudiation of the Trinity. Wesley 06:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Or, we could just say I couldn't find it in any dictionary because it's a neologism. KarmaKameleon 17:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Language Adjustment to 2nd Paragraph

I'd like to change:

Traditionally, in both Eastern and Western Christianity, this doctrine has been stated as "One God in Three Persons," all of whom share the one Divine essence (or nature) but yet are distinct Persons.

to:

Traditionally, in both Eastern and Western Christianity, this doctrine has been stated as "One God in Three Persons." These three Persons are believed to share the one Divine essence (or nature) but yet remain distinct.

for purposes of clarity. --CTSWyneken 11:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

It's clearer as it is, IMO. I don't see that "One God in Three Persons" explains anything to someone who does not know what the Trinity means already.

I also wonder if you could perhaps explain why you feel this "doctrinal statement" possessed some unique authority. I search the creed of the First Ecumenical Council in vain for it. As far as I know, it's just one of a number of expressions Christians have used to describe the Trinity. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

For me, the "all of whom" sounds fuzzy. When I hear it, I look back to the subject of the main clause, "doctrine," but that is singular and clearly isn't what "all of whom" refers to. It's a momentary confusion that I think can be clarified by breaking it into two phrases.

Re: the formula, "One God in Three Persons." I do not claim it has any unique authority in any formal sense. It is not in any creed in particular, for example, and without some leg work, I'm not sure how far it goes back. I remember looking at that question a month or so ago, but that's been awhile, so I'll have to revisit it. I'll do some digging, if you'd all be interested.

So, why do I settle on this formula? Because it is a formula that almost every Christian (at least today) recogizes as their faith. Since we're supposed to be describing what all Trinitarian Christians believe, this formula is a very good candidate. It is concise, memorable, familiar to those who confess the doctrine. The latter is a very great feat, since there are few formulas that so many different Christian traditions can confess without modification.

I've been content to live with the first paragraph, even though I think does not do a good job of stating what most Christians believe. I don't think that, if you asked a large number of Christians to define the doctrine that many would produce anything like it. For me, a good comprimize is to include this definition in the second paragraph, so at least in that way, an average Christian will be able to say, "that's it." and not dismiss the rest of the article because it sounds like the article doesn't know what it's talking about. --CTSWyneken 03:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I did a little digging this morning and found a passage in Gregory of Nyssa that uses the phrase εἷς θεὸς αἱ τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις (I hope the greek displays well) which close, but not quite there. It is from Ad Graecos ex communibus notionibus. Volume 3,1 page 28 line 20. This is roughly contemporary with the Socrates Scholasticus entry I mentioned above. As time permits, I'll keeep looking. --CTSWyneken 16:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't doubt it: I never said the phrase was never used, but that it was merely one among many expressions by which the Church attempts to describe the Trinity. I can think of several instances of it in our hymnography. It's just that I don't see how it explicates it any better than what's there, which is in terms that the Fathers use at least as often. (I agree with some of your other criticism, by the way.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

There are actually two issues going on here, I think. The first is that, as I read it, the paragraph is not clear as to what "all of whom" means. My proposal is to clear it up by breaking it into two sentences and thus making the subject of the last clause, then a new sentence, clear.

Whether the paragraph should be there at all is the other issue. I believe it does for the following reasons:

1 -- The first paragraph is not a definition that most Christians are familiar with. Thus, they may be feel that the doctrine is being misstated and not describing what to them is a central doctrine. Its current form is much better than the "community" version, which sounded to me on first blush as not orthodox. After much thought and a little study, I'm somewhat satisfied that the current form is orthodox, although it does cast more weight on the persons than on the essence of the Godhead. Why is this important? Because this article purports to tell me what I believe -- and all Christians do. I kinda take that personally. 8-)

CT - As well you should. Actually, I think you have put your finger on the problem. The West, at least since Augustine, has so stressed the unity of the Divine ousia that the Persons become obscured and the doctrine loses its strength, not to mention its relevance, to the point that Jurgen Moltmann can convincingly argue, in The Crucified God, that Christianity in the West is, in general, crypto-Arian. The Christian East, OTOH, has tried to balance the Divine unity of Essence with multiplicity of Persons. As one of the Gregorys (Nyssa, I think) said, paraphrasing, "When I think of the One, I immediately think of the Three, and when I think of the Three, I immediately think of the One." The point is, the Divine Essence is inherently communitarian and the categories of "ousia" and "hypostasis" are BOTH ontological, meaning that neither can be reduced to the other. This is as orthodox as it gets. --Midnite Critic 14:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the analysis, although, I'm puzzled by the "has so stressed the unity of the Divine ousia that the Persons become obscured " since I was cathechized to keep the balance between the persons and the unity. It is, after all, a mystery. To me, I must admit, the communitarian view sounds tritheistic. It took quite a bit of reflection for me to tentitively recognize it as faithful to the Scriptures. My point is we can avoid all that by using a formula accepted by both east and west going back to the 4th century. The subtlties can wait a few paragraphs to be outlined. Does that help? --CTSWyneken 03:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the correct balance is measured differently in the East. It may not be as much of an issue in the circles where you move, but consider for example the Scutum Fidei diagram so often used in the West. That circle labelled "God" in the middle is extremely problematic since it appears exactly to make a fourth hypostasis out of the essence. In reality that circle doesn't exist on its own considered seperately from one of the hypostases, but you could never tell it by looking at that diagram.

Consider also the "Beatific Vision" the Roman Catholics teach is received by the blessed in Paradise, where the blessed behold God "in his essence". This sounds like a patent absurdity to any Eastern Christian even with the gloss that's usually provided: to see God "as he really is". A bare essence doesn't exist on its own: it must be hypostasized. To see God directly (or as directly as we can) it's enough to see Christ in whom we can see the Father, and who himself can only be seen through the Holy Spirit. To put it as the dogma of the Beatific Vision does sounds to us as if this isn't good enough somehow, and they'd rather bypass all the Persons to look "directly" at that middle circle in the Scucum Fidei.

These absurdities are avoided by describing the Trinity as a community, where it's possible to stress that apart from the three Persons there is no center circle -- or rather, each of them is equally the center. (And this is without even considering the essential inapproachability of God, where as finite creatures we will never be able to fully apprehend him blessed or accursed, alive or in the life to come.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you read the captions on the diagram (as opposed to just considering the pure geometry of the diagram without the captions, then it's easy to see that the center node has very different status than the other three. And the main motivation for inventing the diagram was to have something which compactly and conveniently summed up the first half of the Athanasian creed, so that propositions such as "The Father is God" could be read off the diagram directly — rather than out of any mystic vision of the direct essence of God. And the word "community" has unfortunate connotations or mental visual imagery in the modern English language. AnonMoos 14:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

But the diagram very often appears, as here, without an explanatory caption and is very easily misunderstood. Really though, I should have mentioned it more by way of illustration myself; it's far less of a problem than the way the "Beatific Vision" is put since that's dogma, at least as far as the Catholics are concerned. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd be happy for a disclaimer to be added to the Scutum Fidei, if it's brief and reasonable. All I can think of right now is "This was never intended to be a component diagram of the internal structure of the Godhead, but is rather merely a compact device to allow propositions contained in (or implied by) the Athanasian Creed to be read off of it" -- but I know that won't do! AnonMoos 13:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

My point is that there are a range of ways that Christians, even in the West, talk about the Trinity. As far as I know, no orthodox Christian, East or West, has a problem with Gregory of Nyssa's formula. Does anyone know of it being disputed? We can, and should, bring the discussion later around to each way of viewing what everyone confesses is a divine mystery. BTW, while I would prefer the formula to be the main description, I am content to leave it as is. I just want to clean up the referent in the last part of the second paragraph.--CTSWyneken 16:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a fundamental problem with you doing that; however, I guess I'm puzzled as to why the current wording is problemmatic for you. You seem to imply that it is somehow unclear, but in context, the phrase "all of whom" clearly refers to "the three [divine] persons". What am I missing? --Midnite Critic 16:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It may be just my ears, or should I say, eyes, 8-) but it doesn't sound to me like the referent is totally clear. Of course, I hit my students with overuse of pronouns, passives, participles, and other indirect writing. Maybe I'm too stuffy a prof... I strive for chrystal clear prose. If you all really don't want to humor me, I'll drop the point. If not, I'll happily make the change, go off and chew on my bone until it falls apart. --CTSWyneken 23:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

2 -- The ancient formula is one of several ways the whole Church has taught this doctrine. This will help to calm the fears of others like me -- especially those who have not done graduate work in theology.

3 -- Sooner or later, non-Christians who read this article will run into the formula. It is good for them to know that many Christians will describe the doctrine this way. --CTSWyneken 11:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, please ignore anything I've said here. I seem to have completely lost track of the conversation at some point and I now realize I had something else entirely in mind. I apologize if I've only made matters worse. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I've found this a rather civil conversation and have enjoyed all sides of it. No need to apologize at all. --CTSWyneken 18:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

CT: I added "three" after "all". Does that help? --Midnite Critic 12:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it does, especially since I'm feeling a little silly for belaboring the point. --CTSWyneken 18:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Trinity faces.jpg

I agree with Csernica -- those late medieval and 16th century three-faces-on-one-head depictions of the Trinity do not date back to early Christianity, have been repudiated by the modern Catholic Church, and were always intensely disliked by Protestants. It's extremely doubtful whether that image belongs in this article at all, and certainly not at the very top of the page. AnonMoos 19:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

IP 208.254.174.148 edits

Dear 208.254.174.148, it's highly dubious whether the Hebrew word "Elohim" has the meaning "mighty lords", and you seemed to be ignorant of the fact that "Elohim" takes singular verb agreement in Genesis 1:26 (Wayyomer), as it does in most places in the Hebrew Bible. AnonMoos 03:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

What is this phrase supposed to mean?

"the unifying qualities of principal between Christ and his followers as between the father and the son."

I have no idea... AnonMoos 14:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed change to the first paragraph

I propose to change "Christian" to "Catholic" in the first paragraph. This will make it aligned with the first paragraph of the section "Scripture and tradition" which states:

"The term Trinity(snip), and indeed did not exist until about AD 200 when Tertullian (who eventually converted to Montanism) coined it as the Latin trinitas and also probably the formula Three Persons,". KarmaKameleon 18:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I think leaving it as Christian would be the best idea. There are very few Christians who aren't Trinitarian in some sense - any congregation that recites the Apostle's or Nicene creeds, for example, regardless of whether they're RC or not. 00527 19:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

That is(Apostle's or Nicene creeds) exactly my point. The creeds are catholic creeds. Though few, there are Christians who are not trinitarian which makes the paragraph inaccurate. KarmaKameleon 01:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

"Catholic" in what sense? Roman Catholic? If that is what you mean, what about the Oriental Orthodox, who broke with Rome between 451 and 500? What about the Assyrian Church of the East, who broke with Rome shortly after 431? What about the Eastern Orthodox? What about the Protestants, descended from the RCC? Yes, you are right: there are nontrinitarians who claim the name of "Christian." However, overall, they are a small minority, and they, and their beliefs, are discussed in the article itself. The fact remains that trinitarianism is a Christian doctrine and is held as such by the very large majority of Christians and their churches. Remember the Wiki thing about not having to give undue exposure to minority opinons? --Midnite Critic 02:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

First, I want to make a correction; should be catholic with a small c. Anyway, catholic in this sense: "The Nicene Creed(325), recited in the churches of many Christian denominations, speaks of "one holy catholic and apostolic church.". I strongly believe this was the desire of the formulators of the dogma, that everyone will be called by this term. The Apostle's creed also mentions "the holy catholic Church". I believe this was when then were one church in existence and it was referred to by church fathers as the one universal church. KarmaKameleon 03:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

You're certainly right about that. If by "catholic" you mean "orthodox" (lower case "o"), as in not heresy, that's true. But I'm not sure what changing "Christian" to "catholic" in the introductory paragraph clarifies for a first-time reader. I think the Critic's point is good: if changed from "Christian" to "catholic," it seems to define the Trinity (especially in its very first paragraph) primarily in contrast to non-Trinitarian belief. I'd be interested in hearing more about your opinion, though. 00527 15:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

"Catholic" will confuse people. It's a Christian doctrine (some would say the Christian doctrine)...best to leave it as is. KHM03 16:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe that in 325, there was only one declared universal church, and it was called catholic church. The present confusion with the term catholic vs Catholic started with the Vatical Council of 1870, when the Roman church officially called itself "Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church" effectively laying exclusive claim to the name catholic.

I believe that it will clarify the paragraph. Arius, though declared a heretic by the catholic church and a big player in the trinity debate, believed in Christ and is therefore a Christian. KarmaKameleon 18:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Could you perhaps give me an example of the kind of first-time reader that would be more enlightened by "catholic" than "Christian"? I'm going to presume that someone reading the introductory paragraph to an article about the Trinity might not be as familiar with Arianism or the Vatican Councils as we are. 00527 19:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that in the first paragraph, it's best to introduce new readers to the subject by saying we're talking about a Christian doctrine, not a Jewish doctrine or a Buddhist teaching or some character from The Matrix. Anyone with any familiarity with Christianity at all will know that most if not all Christian doctrines experience at least some dissent from some quarter by people who call themselves Christian. If the new reader will but proceed to the article's second paragraph, the point KarmaKameleon wants to make is I think plainly made. Wesley 23:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I truly believe that the word, not to mention the doctrine, will never be confused with any other doctrine other than christian. Not in our time anyway. Plus, we do have the disambiguation link. I think the change will make the first paragraph accurate and fair to those who believe in the trinity and consider themselves christians. Prior to 325, there was only one church, of which both Arius and Athanasius were members of. I believe they were the "Christians" in that time period. I strongly believe this was the beginning of the branching out of the christian faith, which did not stop even in our time. To make themselves distinct from the other branches, the formulators of the Nicene creed and the trinity doctrine called themselves catholic. This does not take away the fact that Arius and others like him are christians. KarmaKameleon 17:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhap as simple definition after the term catholic (small 'c') is used , i.e. (meaning the whole Christian church). Whereas, Catholic (cap. 'C') refers to the Roman Catholic church. This is one of largest misunderstandings by Christians and non-Christians alike.

It is actually there in the article Catholic. It's the first bullet point. If there are no other objections, I'll make the changes to the trinity article, from Christian to catholic. I'll also make the following changes to the first bullet of the article Catholic:"The term catholic refers". I'll do it tomorrow if there are no objections. KarmaKameleon 20:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Christian catholic is redundant

"Christian catholic" is redundant, in my opinion. KarmaKameleon 18:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Point taken. However, the idea is to be clear, and sometimes, redundancy is required in order to make that possible. Part of the problem here is that, the definition of "catholic" as "universal" aside (which is itself problemmatic), a group of prominent anti-trinitarians, the Jehovah's Witnesses, try to make a lot of theological capital out of the contention that the "Trinity doctrine" is "catholic" but (therefore) not "christian." Because of that, I think it is important to emphasize that the doctrine of the Trinity is, in fact, "Christian." --Midnite Critic 19:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Your last edit is still redundant, but I'll let it go for now to maintain good relations. If I may say so, I think many here who are believers in the trinity are just a bit sensitive about being called catholics. As I pointed out, "Catholic" was not an official name until the 1800's. I'm almost sure, before then, "catholic" was not offensive to non-Catholic trinitarians. KarmaKameleon 19:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Although I am "Orthodox," I glory in the word "Catholic," a word which Rome has no monopoly on. My main concern here is as stated above; also, again, as others have stated, the first time reader is going to be confused if "Christian" isn't somewhere in the first sentence, IMHO. I appreciate your desire to maintain good will, and it is reciprocated. I would note, however, that you were alone in your desire to replace the word "Christian" with "catholic." --Midnite Critic 22:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Would "Catholic Christian" be better, as "Methodist Christian" or "Presbyterian Christian", etc.? Merry Christmas...KHM03 00:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Change to Definition of Modalism

The previous definition of Modalism stated that Modalists viewed Jesus as little more than the burning bush before Moses. Modalism views Jesus as the fullest incarnation of the One God, not a mere theophany as was the burning bush. It recognizes that Jesus is the only Begotten of the Father and the Son of God. This does not change the actual article on the Trinity in any way, but merely corrects the misrepresentation of the Modalist belief. The section title was also updated from "Other Views On the Trinity" to "Alternative Views to the Trinity".

The previous section title was more comprehensive. AnonMoos 19:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia updating so I am not sure that I followed correct "procedures", if that is even the proper term. I changed the section title because these are not views on the Trinity (economic vs. immanent) but rather very opposing views concerning God Himself. It seems intellectually dishonest for Trinitarians to assume that all views about the Christian God must relate to the Trinity. ~Eis Theos (December 29, 2005)

Are you sure that the previous statement was correctly understood? The idea is that the human Jesus was merely a passive vessel for the indwelling God, much like the bush was merely a vessel for the divine manifestation. I agree that as phrased it was rather too elliptical to be very informative, though. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Saying that Jesus was a passive vessel intimates that Jesus had no human will separate from His divine nature, much as the burning bush had no will. This logic would negate the power of the cross in that Jesus, as a man chose to die, and make events such as Gethsemane irrelevant and meaningless. Modalism states that Jesus had a dual nature in that He was both God and man. Thus, as a man, He could suffer and die, which is something that God as an eternal Spirit cannot do. The previous statements seemed to imply that Modalism fails to view Jesus as fully God and fully man. ~Eis Theos (December 30, 2005)