Talk:Trinity/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Since Ebionism is not so much a variation on the doctrine of the Trinity as it is a denial of that doctrine, I moved it to a later paragraph dealing with Christian groups that either deny the Trinity, or whose understanding of the doctrine is radically different from the doctrine as understood by the Catholics, Orthodox, and most Protestants.

"The three parts of the Holy Trinity are widely held to be coeternal, of the same substance, and yet inexplicably different."

I have seen this explanation many times before, and found it incomprehensible each time. Can this be rewritten? By definition, if three things are co-existent, co-eternal, and of the precisely the same substance, then they are not different. If these three things are different, then they are not precisely the same. Am I missing something here, or is this a re-working of Tertullian's claim that one must believe something to be true because it is incomprehensible? If so, then I guess the entry should be left as is. Understand that I am not criticising the belief in the Trinity - I am merely trying to find out what just what trinitarians believe in, and I am literally unable to parse the claims that were intended to describe it. The proposed explanation is a tautology.

I just wanted to add my two cents worth here since I think it might help clarify at the outset. As a child, I was taught the Trinity concept and was told it is "very difficult to understand." People don't logically grasp how there could be only one God, yet 3 parts to the Trinity, and how Jesus and the Holy Spirit could also be God. My reaction as a child was, "It's not that hard to understand. If God is God, He can do anything... including being three and one at the same time." You don't have to believe it because it's incomprehensible, but just because it's incomprehensible to the human mind at this point doesn't mean you _shouldn't_ believe it. There's internal logic to it in that the Christian God is omnipotent. There's also internal logic to it in that God in the _Bible_ often refers to Himself in the plural, yet still says there is no other god but Him.

Side notes: It's still a monotheistic religion because by divine mystery, somehow, it is. Remember, because man is limited and can't comprehend everything, it doesn't have to be rational to the outside community; it just has to fit its own internal logic. Perhaps other religions just haven't "lobbied" or had enough influence on historians to be portrayed as monotheistic in the same way, or perhaps they don't fit some sort of qualifications in the doctrine. Personally, I don't think the Trinity doctrine is cognitively meaningless, at least within the faith, because it takes other doctrines to new levels. For example, it means that not only did God give his own son's life for the sins of His people, but He gave His own life as well. Intensifies the depth of love.

-SMS

---

It is possible for two things to be co-existent, co-eternal, and be of the same substance, and yet be different. They could differ in their accidents. (Sorry if I can't make it any clearer than that -- personally I think the doctrine of the Trinity is cognitively meaningless.) -- SJK

Actually, this is clearer. I think I understand what you mean; the only problem is that if this is describing God, it is difficult to describe this model as strictly monotheistic. It sounds like my concept of polytheism. Since I am not a member of the Christian faith community, I don't get a vote in saying whether its rational or not. But I don't find it to have any cognitive meaning if it supposed to be monotheistic. It might be interesting to point out in some article (maybe not thos one) that Jewish esoteric mysticism (Kabbalah) has a concept much like this. This is the concept of God's ten sefirot (emanations). There is no one official text that describes "the" Kabablistic view; rather, different authors describe them in different ways...and one of these ways seems a precise analogue to the Trinity. That particular Kabbalistic view is a minority within the Kabbalah, and has been criticised by rabbis as being "worse than the Trinity", since it makes God into Ten-in-One, instead of Three-In-One! Nonetheless, this view does seem to exist in some Orthodox Kabbalistic texts. (Note: Jews are not religiously obligated to believe in any part of Kabbalah at all, and if they do, they are not obligated to believe in any one particular understanding of the sefirot.) RK

Well, here's my two cents. The best explanation I've found, that is still brief, is what I put in the article: "The difference between them is only that the Father begets the Son, and the Son is eternally begotten of the Father. The Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father. The Son does not beget or proceed; the Father neither proceeds nor is begotten; the Holy Spirit nether begets nor is it begotten. There are no other differences. " That's more or less condensed from the Athanasian Creed. To say it another way, they are different in their personhood, but not different in their substance or essence. The Greeks said they shared the same homoousious, but existed in three distinct hypostases. I forget the Latin translation, though I think there was some confusion in the Latin simply because the Latin meant something very slightly different than the Greek.

Speaking for the Eastern Orthodox, a related claim is that while the three persons of the Trinity share one Divine Nature, all humans share a single Human Nature. Relationships between people are generally fractured and broken, to a greater or lesser extent depending upon the people. Relationships between God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are perfect, in terms of love, clear communication, and so forth. That relationship is the only one anywhere that is not in the least bit disfunctional. So for the Eastern Orthodox, part of the promise of salvation is a complete healing of relationships between each person and the three Persons of the Trinity, and between us people. That healing began with the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, when Jesus united the Divine and Human natures perfectly in himself. (That is, he became fully human without ceasing to be fully divine.) That's at least part of what makes this doctrine important, and not just abstract mumbo jumbo, or a difficult intellectual exercise. Hope this helps, but I'll understand if it only muddies the waters. --Wesley

If I ever get around to writing up the Unification Church version of the Trinity, I'll include it in the article or supply a link to it. It's kind of a bridge between traditional trinitarianism and modern unitarianism (by the way, I was a UU when I joined the UC (on the QT)). Hmm, am I getting silly?

Are there any official or standard UU views on the trinity, or are you saying that you will describe the range of most commonly held views? Either way is fine. RK

Sigh. My acronym jest apparently fell flat. :-( To clarify,

  • I joined the Unitarian Church in my mid teens. At age 18, I joined the Unification Church.
  • Both churches (-tarian and -fication) disagree with traditional views of the Trinity.
  • I will describe only the Unification view of the trinity, not the Unitarian.

--Ed Poor

I deleted text that said (quoting from memory because I forgot to cut--doh!):

Each [person of the Trinity] just shows a different character at a given point [in history].

This is an ancient heresy called Modalism, which I think is the same as Sabellianism after its proponent, Sabellius. It suggests that God just wears different hats or masks, or operates in different modes or characters at different points in time, like a Greek actor changing masks. This is refuted in Scripture when all three show up at once, especially at Christ's baptism (Epiphany/Theophany), and was also refuted by the Ecumenical Councils. I think modalism was mentioned earlier in the article; no need to repeat it here. --Wesley

(moved discussion here from the actual article) From the article:

The doctrine of the Trinity does not appear explicitly in the Bible (indeed not even the word itself is found there), but there are many passages that believers in it point to as implying it. One of the clearest passages is the baptism of Jesus Christ. As Jesus came out of the water, a voice from Heaven said "This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased". At the same time, the Holy Spirit descended in the form of a dove, landing on Jesus' head. Thus the three persons of the Trinity were made manifest at once. This is commemorated each year in the Church at the Feast of Theophany on January 6.

( It says no such thing that the "Holy Spirit descended in THE FORM of a DOVE ..." it states that the CLOUD descended LIKE a dove. In other words, it describes the manner of descent, NOT the "form" i.e. shape of the cloud. Furthermore, there is no mention of any dove "landing on Jesus' head" ... this is simply and purely another fantasy of whoever the author of this careless piece of writ was - ref: David Sutherland newmedia@ihug.com.au )

um, I think I might be the author of this admittedly careless piece of writ. I'll grant you that the RSV at least uses the word LIKE rather than FORM, but Matthew 3 at least has no mention of any CLOUD at all, not even as a source of the voice. I think I was remembering "... in the form of a dove..." from an Orthodox hymn regarding the feast; not sure whether there's any material difference between the two. Nitpicking is welcome, I do plenty of it myself, but be prepared to give your sources if you do. Also, suggested replacement text is always welcome. I'll replace my informal paraphrase of the passage with a quote from the RSV, hoping it doesn't violate any copyrights. The relevant quotation is And when Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him; and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased. -- Matthew 3:16-17, RSV. --Wesley
I also have questions about copyrights. I've tried to carefully understand the copyright notices of the modern, English translations, and they all succeed in making me feel cautious about posting them here. As far as I can tell, there are only a few public domain English versions:
  • World English Bible
  • The American Standard Bible (ASV) of 1901
  • The King James Bible (KJV)
  • Updated King James Bible (UKJV) - script-converted text.
  • The King James Bible (Clarified) - used Webster 1833 to modernize the language
  • Hebrew Names Version
  • Darby's Bible Translation
  • Young's Literal Translation

Mkmcconn 02:41 Oct 25, 2002 (UTC)

I understand your caution. I think the fair use part of copyright law would allow the use of just a couple verses; there's some percentage of the entire work that you can't cross, but a couple verses is going to be much smaller than the whole Bible, and should be safe. And you see verses quoted with attribution in all sorts of books, not always with the Bible translation publisher's express permission. Wesley

"Despite this concept of the Trinity, Christianity is considered a monotheistic faith, though many theologians of other monotheistic faiths such as Judaism and Islam have found the concepts difficult to reconcile. "

This seems to connote that the reconciliation of the Trinity and monotheism is too subtle or "difficult" for Jews or Muslims to understand. It seems to me more neutral to say simply that Jews and Muslims reject the idea that the Trinity can be monotheistic. It isn't a matter of "difficulty", but of disagreement. (It would certainly not be NPOV to imply that the fact of their rejection is evidence of their lack of understanding.) My adjustment to the phrasing is in this light.

The baptism of Jesus is a good illustration of the "tri" in Trinity, but an example for the "one substance" part would also be nice. For many who reject the Trinity, the baptism of Jesus is seen as evidence that the three Divine beings are not one substance, even if they are similar and "one". For an illustration of other meanings of "one", look at the 17th Chapter of John: "21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be cone in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me." Q

It's an example of the attempt to affirm with equal belief, two things things that are not reconcilable in an ordinary way. The singleness of God is demonstrated to the satisfaction of both, the Jews and the churches of the ecumenical creeds.
(Deuteronomy 6:4, "Yahweh your God is the one, the only Yahweh" - Isaiah 45:22, "For I am God and there is no other" - Jeremiah 10:10, "Yahweh is the true God" - Galations 3:20, "God is one" - 1 Timothy 1:17, "The only God" - James 2:19, "God is one" - 1 John 5:20, "He is the true God" - Isaiah 43:10: "No God was formed before me, nor will be after me. I, I am Yahweh, and there is no other Savior but me." - Isaiah 44:6: "I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God." - Isaiah 45:5, 6: "I am Yahweh and there is no other, there is no other God except me. Though you do not know me, I have armed you so that it may be known from east to west that there is no one except me. I am Yahweh and there is no other." - Isaiah 46:9: "for I am God and there is no other." )
Similarly, the deity of the Son is demonstrated to the satisfaction of both, the Mormons and the creedal churches. But, because there is not agreement concerning the singleness of God, the two groups have different ideas of "threeness". The result of affirming both the single God and the plurality of persons with equal belief, is the doctrine of the Trinity: a single personal being, in whom there is an eternal distinction of three persons. Does this help?
Also, I had thought that Mormonism did not affirm the personality of the Holy Spirit. But, if the Holy Spirit is not a "person" in a sense analogous to the Father and the Son, then why do Mormons say that they have a version of the Trinity? Isn't the Holy Spirit then yet another kind of being? Is this another misconception on my part? — Mkmcconn
Thanks for the insights, Mkmconn. Unlike the JWs and others, Mormonism does affirm the personality of the Holy Ghost. The difference is the HG is a spirit personage, without a tangible body, whereas the Father and Son have perfect bodies of flesh and bones. Mormons use the term Godhead, since the Nicene Trinity requires the three to be "consubstantial" (homoousios in Greek).
Thanks for your patience with my ignorance of the subject. May I get one more thing cleared up? Do the Mormons consider the Holy Ghost to be the father of Jesus? If the Father has a body, and Mary became pregnant by his body, then what role is the Holy Ghost believed to have? I appreciate the number of things you have clarified and corrected for me about Mormonism. As I'm sure you are fully aware, it's easy to pick up a lot of misinformation. Mkmcconn
No problem. A lot of anti-Mormon sites on the Web cite various quotes to imply that Mormons believe that God the Father had sexual relations with Mary. Here is what former LDS Church President says on the issue:
You asked about*the birth of the Savior. Never have I talked about sexual intercourse between Deity and the mother of the Savior. If teachers were wise in speaking of this matter about which the Lord has said very little, they would rest their discussion on this subject with merely the words which are recorded on this subject in Luke 1:34-35: "Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." Remember that the being who was brought about by [Mary's] conception was a divine personage. We need not question His method to accomplish His purposes. Perhaps we would do well to remember the words of Isaiah 55:8-9 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts higher than your thoughts." Let the Lord rest His case with this declaration and wait until He sees fit to tell us more. [1]
I found the above quote on an LDS apologetics web site called FAIR. Several authors submitted responses to an anti-Mormon book called "Mormonism 101". The contributor who used this quote, David Waltz, who is Catholic, had some interesting things to say about the LDS view of God and the Trinity. The interesting part starts 1/3 of the way down, with the heading, "THE NATURE OF GOD" Q
The article has a defect common on apologetics sites, regardless of the view being defended, in that it attempts to defeat the question instead of answering it. Nevertheless, it is helpful. Thanks for pointing it out. Mkmcconn
Yeah, that seems like a valid observation. Here is a link to the religious tolerance page on the subject (halfway down). [2] Other than on various web sites, it's a (supposed) doctrine that I've never heard mentioned. Before seeing it on the web, I only knew of the Biblical and Alma 7:10 verses on the subject. One thing I disagree with on the Religious Tolerance is the role of Mormon Doctrine as the official guide for Mormon Doctrine. It is written in an encyclopedic style, but I don't see it used all that much. Also, it was written before the author was an apostle, prefaced with a disclaimer that he took sole responsibility for its content. Q
A catholic friend told me a story in which St. Augustine was looking at water draining out of holes in the sand on the beach. Unable to understand how this happened, he was inspired to realize the answer was that it, like the trinity, was a mystery--we don't need to understand. Q

Q - regarding the John 17 passage, the Orthodox and others would not in any way see this as a contradiction to the one-ness of God, but as an affirmation of it. He's also talking about a one-ness among humanity that is much more profound than the unity that gets talked about at international peace conferences, for example. And this passage is part of the basis for the Orthodox idea of theosis, of our becoming one with God, which is possible because Jesus united the divine and human natures in His person through His incarnation. There are undoubtedly other ways to read this, and I probably haven't even given this interpretation half as well as others might. Wesley

Other groups have an understanding of the Trinity that differs from orthodox formulation shared by Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox.

I'm wondering if this sentence communicates what it intends. Do the listed groups all have "an understanding of the Trinity" (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Jehovah's Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals, the Unification Church, and Unitarian Universalists), or is their position not, rather, that the "deity" of Jesus Christ must be explained in some way rather than by the doctrine of the Trinity? The groups are diverse from one another, not only from the catholic doctrine. LDS, JW, Unification, and UU all are anti-trinitarian (do not use the word "Trinity") as far as I know (and I might be wrong). The "Oneness Pentecostals", however, have a non-catholic view of the Trinity, in that they are modalists (Sabellianism). It appears to me that this is the only group listed which can be accurately described as having "an understanding of the Trinity that differs". The other groups, as Islam also, have various anti-trinitarian views. Mkmcconn 18:51 Dec 13, 2002 (UTC)

Oneness Pentecostals are often misunderstood and misrepresented by their detractors. The primary difference between OP's and groups like JW and UU is that OP's believe in the full deity of Jesus Christ and that He is completely one with the Father. Any distinction between the Father and Son is found in the distinction between body and Spirit (Eph. 4:4, Col. 2:9-10). JW and UU believe that Jesus Christ is subordinate to the Father. One of the best explanations I have heard for the differences between OP's and orthodox Trinitarians is that orthodox Trinitarians believe in "one What (God) and three Whos (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit)". Oneness Pentecostals believe in "one Who (God) and three Whats (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit)". jps

Gonna say the obvious: Trinity should be split up and disambiguated. Some of us wanna refer to the New Mexico Trinity rather than this theological mumby jumby =)

Go right ahead. Those of us into the theological mumby jumby would just as soon not muddy the waters further talking about New Mexico and the Matrix. :-D Wesley 17:02, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Several recent edits have tried to remove the notion that non-trinitarians are in the minority among Christians. Like it or not, they most certainly are in the minority. Roman Catholicism alone represents close to half of all Christians, possibly just over half. Add to them Eastern Orthodox Christians and most mainline Protestants, and trinitarians are a very solid majority. Non-trinitarians have been at best an embattled minority throughout Christianity's history. I'm amending the article accordingly. Wesley 16:58, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I have sectioned the page (like it?) to make it easier to read. Now I think

  • The "definition" (Father, Son, Etc...) ought to be the first thing, bc otherwise we are assuming that the reader kows what the subject is about.
  • I'd like to see a bit about the Father's discussion on "ousia", "hypostaseis", "nature", "substance" and "person" (I think it is quite enlightening and interesting). It could be done in a different page, though.
  • In any case, I think the article as it now stands assumes too much on the part of the reader. I may try to suggest some improvements in the future. Pfortuny 10:33, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Overall, I like the division into sections. Thanks! Now I wonder if some parts can be combined. For instance, there are at least two separate places that discuss the apparent tension between God's "three-ness" and "one-ness". Several other points seem to be repeated in different places the same way. As far as assuming too much... perhaps part of the article should assume less and be more introductory, and part could assume more, perhaps making the assumptions explicit? I think a discussion on ousia, nature, person etc. would make a good additional section or subsection. If it were split off, what would you call that article? ;-) Wesley 06:53, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)


Have just re-read the first paragraphs... The feast of the Theophany does not exist (as such) in the Roman Catholic Church (and AFAIK Anglicans do not, either): we celebrate the "Baptism of Our Lord" on the first Sunday after Epiphany. How could we say it? I mean, sth like "in Eastern Christian Churches" or otherwise, but I do not know whether it is a good expression. Just to prevent confussion (when I read it I thought, "Oh, they mean Epiphany, not Theophany", but then I searched in google and "Oh, no, they do mean Theophany"...).
OTOH, yes, it makes no sense a new page on the "ousia-nature" problems, just a section. :) Pfortuny 08:50, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
So in the Roman Catholic Church, does Epiphany itself only deal with the Wise Men, the Baptism of our Lord somes later? For some reason I thought that Epiphany and Theophany were for the most part different names for the same feast. Wouldn't be the first time I was wrong. If the closest thing in the West is the Baptism on the following Sunday, then maybe... "This is commemorated each year in the West as the Baptism of our Lord on the Sunday following Epiphany, and in the East as the Feast of Theophany on January 6." Although when talking about modern practice, the East/West distinction is growing increasingly less useful as both churches become more global. Wesley 17:52, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Yes, the "Epi-phany" is (in the RC Church) the "manifestation" (phanos) to those "out of" (epi) the People of Israel: the "the Wise Men" (actually in Spain, where I come from, it is popularly called "los Reyes" -"the Wise Men"), and the Baptism of the Lord is the first Sunday after that. I quite agree that your sentence is precise but will become useless in the near future. I am going to insert it. We should look for a better expression, anyhow, but meanwhile let us follow standard use. Thx. Pfortuny 20:37, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
That's a dubious translation of the Greek, επι. Epiphany translates well enough without being broken up into its roots: "showing forth", "manifest upon", "disclosure", or even more abstractly, "dawning upon", are close enough. That the Gentile outsiders are involved is an important circumstance commemorated by the feast, but that is not implied in the etymology of this word, itself. Mkmcconn 21:01, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for the point. Pfortuny 08:45, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Similarly, "Theophany" means the "manifestation" of God; I've also heard it translated as "God shines forth" or "God shining forth". One of the main hymns of Theophany says, "O Lord, when you were baptized in the Jordan, the worship of the Trinity was made manifest. For the voice of the Father bore witness to you, calling you his beloved Son. And the Spirit in the form of a dove confirmed his word as steadfast and sure. Glory to you, O Christ God, who shone forth and enlightened the world." Less emphasis on the "outsiders", more on his shining forth at baptism. Of course the feast is still closely tied to the Nativity and Christ's birth; I think the Wise Men are mentioned more around Christmas time, as in many other churches. Theophany also happens to be the favorite feast of St. Theophan the Recluse, my patron saint. :-) Wesley 17:33, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I've held back expressing my preference on the issue, but I have to admit that the picture of the Norwegian carving is creepy, and offensive. I agree with anyone who would say that pictures make it more likely that the article will be read and understood. However, it is not necessary that the pictures must portray a specimen of their topic; which in this case is absurd and (as I've said), repugnant. I'll try to say as little as possible beyond that, because I find myself getting a bit hot about the topic. Mkmcconn 14:37, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I completely agree and have made a bold edit changing the sculpture by a more renowned piece of art (and in my opinion, quite nicer). Pfortuny 16:37, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I must confess Rublev's icon of the Trinity is a personal favorite of mine. There's a good article discussing it and its history in the External Links section; it still has a lot of opportunity to be misunderstood. Wesley 18:41, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I've just taken away the Yin-Yang thing. If anyone does think it fits in the article, please revert.

I just realized, reading this text apparently for the first time, that it's in pretty sore need of deep revision, if its intention is to describe what trinitarian Christians believe concerning the Trinity. While it may portray what some people think trinitarians believe, it's quite off; and as the opening paragraphs indicate, even the smallest differences are of considerable consequence. Mkmcconn 22:10, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Wow, I really thought you had read it :). Now I am so relieved... You are absolutely right. At the same time I think a common views article is necessary and then maybe either different articles for each view or different sections. View is the first word that came to my mind. Also it is too long now to keep the reader's interest, in my opinion (could do with a reordering and polishing and subsectioning...) Pfortuny 22:15, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
yes, this article has evolved in a rather haphazard fashion. If you start re-ordering it in a sensible way, you'll soon see that there's actually a lot that is duplicated and could be removed without really losing anything. As it is, this article reinforces the trinity doctrine's reputation for being convoluted and hard to understand. Wesley 11:42, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Now, who shall bell the cat? :) I might try but it may take quite a while... quite a long while and I am not the most learned on the subject... Any volunteers? Pfortuny 17:57, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Holy Trinity?

One minor help to begin with, might be to label this article in a completely exclusive way, so that none of the irrelevant material about "other" trinities is included. In my opinion, this might be acheived by moving this article to "Holy Trinity", and splitting out the other material. Mkmcconn 17:20, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Agreed. Only we will have to deal with the atheists etc. complaining about POV and so on... However, I completely agree with you.
Anyway this will mean having a disambiguation etc... and I forsee "losing" the main meaning in favour of a silly disambig. "The film character", "The Yin-yang meaning" etc... But I am pro-change. Pfortuny 17:45, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I agree that a more exclusive article name would help. Would something like "Trinity (Christian)" be considered more NPOV? Neopagans might also consider their trinity "holy", as might the Hindus theirs.
Another good early help might be to set up a new outline of headings and subheadings at the bottom of the article, maybe mostly empty at first. Then material can be moved and condensed into the new sections; maybe after there's consensus on the outline. Wesley 17:50, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I would be happy both with Holy Trinity (very happy) and with Trinity (Christian) (just happy). I guess they would think the "(Christian)" title more NPOV. Am I getting old or are people getting too too picky with religious POV? (this is a side-comment which expects no answer).
It is not quite correct to build up sections etc... in the main article before they are filled with something. I am copying it User:Pfortuny/Trinity and feel free to modify that. You (I mean anyone interested) may play there in order to get a consensus. I suggest using that copy as "framework for another new and better version" if you like. Pfortuny 17:57, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'll just start working my way down the article with y'all. Call me up short if I'm getting carried away, but I'm too busy at the moment to do very much damage. Mkmcconn 22:41, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

About the "gender neutral" expression, who uses it? I am completely ignorant on that. Pfortuny 18:54, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I can't answer the question without prejudice. It's associated in my mind with the most extremely modernist segments of Protestantism. But I frankly care so little for what the latest trends are at the extreme edge of modernism, that I am sure that Im no reliable reporter of the facts. For all I know, it makes its way into mainline and evangelical churches sensitive to the civil rights implications of the language used in reference to God. Mkmcconn 04:43, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
One group that I assume would be a proponent of such language is Christians for Biblical Equality ([3]). I would think that the Disciples of Christ would be at least tolerant of such language, based on conversations with my mother-in-law who earned an M.Div. at a Disciples of Christ seminary; she's a CBE fan as well. Can't say how widespread it is, or give a specific citation that either of those groups actually use it, but I'm fairly sure that it's "out there" to some extent. Wesley 18:23, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The Facts section
I boldly moved it talk:Trinity/old1: too long, anonymous and too little explanations. Feel free. Pfortuny 21:34, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't like that way of discussing topics, either; but I do think that some of the material should find its way back into the article, or the antitrinitarianism article, to expand the picture of why many who call themselves Christians object to the doctrine of the Trinity. Mkmcconn 21:46, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Agreed, it simply appeared too bluntly here, didn't it? Pfortuny 21:57, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)


" is considered essential by Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and orthodox Protestantism" -- is it POV to speak for "orthodox Protestantism" -- I mean, each protestant sect or even cult thinks they are the orthodox protestants, right ? Jesus Blows Goats 06:06, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

There is a problem with the terminology; however, where there is such a thing as "orthodoxy" in Protestantism, this is the orthodox position. Alternatively, where there is an isolated group which represents no position but its own, or groups which reject the imposition of doctrinal definitions, "orthodoxy" doesn't have a positive meaning: it represents an imposed doctrine, which the group rejects. Protestantism, qualified by "orthodox" means roughly, the same doctrine as Orthodox and Catholic churches, except for those elements which distinguish all Protestants from all Orthodox and Catholic churches. Mkmcconn 05:08, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)