This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Trinity article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Not sure what is going on here. For some reason this has remained unclear. God the son refers to Christ. God the Father refers to God himself. God the holy ghost refers to the devil, Satan. If you become unclear about the bible I recommend reading more articles on Wikipedia for it can be informative and the information is clearly stated. I could tell from the talk sections that comprehension seems to be of little importance. It shouldn't be. So from here, don't expect anything else considering what is already in the articles is safe for public reading. Please don't get me wrong and include Lucifer a part Trinity (3 as 1). Lucifer is 'sembiant' and it would be a harmful clad of information regarding some unknown duality to to the existence of the theological God. -- 04:43, 2 February 2019 2605:a000:dfc0:6:6dbe:23df:7751:5af1
Sorry for the very belated reply, but I just recently found out that the Church of the Process had a pseudo-Trinity of Lucifer, "Jehovah", and Satan, which is related to what you mentioned (though not exactly the same)... AnonMoos ( talk) 22:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
As a political scientist form a Christian background I am ciurious as to why trinity became a big issue in the fourth century AD, and why it still is. Why did church leaders then, see a need to upgrade (or, some will feel, argue against a downgrading of) Jesus' status? Had it something to do with inventing roots for a desired or slowly happening change in church leadership form egalitarian elder's councils per church (as I thought, was the Jewish tradition), into a Holy See assuming sort of royal prerogatives and leading powers? And why the need for the holy spirit also to be upgraded and integrated into the 'one'? And why did separate church organizations choose positions around opposing opinions on this issue?
Next issue: I would assume that in the current century many Christians would feel less need to recycle a pre-mediaval debate that has little roots in the bible itself, without explaining what it meant for religious development then, and what it means for religion today. Why is it felt as highly relevant concept by some groups of Christians today?
In the current version there is a problem with the "Befor the Council of Nicaea- paragraph ". It proposes that the trinity formula came up in the first century, but all the examples seem to miss the central point of trinity that the three constitutent parts (father, son holy spirit) not only all three exist side by side, but that they ARE THE SAME. Which, if I read further, was first (nearly?) postulated in 381. Why is this year not mentioned as founding moment of trinity as we know it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pieter Felix Smit ( talk • contribs) 12:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
The article right now is too vague, the title is misleading. 109.245.35.25 ( talk) 17:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
By beginning with alleged Biblical support for the trinitarian doctrine the article falls into two fallacies:
The "history" section should come first with the Bible passages integrated later into an overview of the various positions. This is how Christianity is taught by any serious religious scholar who is not doing apologetics. Predestiprestidigitation ( talk) 03:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
The beliefs of traditionalist Christians should be accurately included in the article, but its structure should not depend on them. Predestiprestidigitation ( talk) 11:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Odd as it might seem, trinitarianism was not taught by the historical Jesus and his apostles. [1] Trinitarinism was a response to various creeds which have been labeled as heresies; it was a result of theological disputes that took centuries. [2] [3] [4] Post- Bauer historians give the lie to Eusebius's Historia Ecclesiastica with its claim that true faith precedes heresy, and heresy being a wilful, devilish choice to disbelieve the theological truth. [5] [6] [7] [8]
The claimed institutional unity of the Christian Church was propaganda constantly repeated by orthodox Christian writers, rather than a genuine historical reality. [9]
The claimed theological unity of the Christian Church was propaganda retrospectively projected by the clergy, rather than a genuine historical reality. [9]
References
@ TastyBreadToast, I could not find any mention of the Fourth Council of the Lateran in the cited source. Moreover, while I have not checked the full text, I did not find that that council made a declaration on the Trinity in their canons. Elizium23 ( talk) 22:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
References
The main Article 'Trinity' has no mention of the very substantial literature from numerous sources critical of the Trinitarian concept based on its logical incoherence. This is a major omission from the history of the concept: the early church struggled greatly with this concept (as well as that of homoiousos vs homoousios) because of both faith-based but also logical contradictions in the idea, and although faith-based criticism is covered in the article, nowhere in the main article does it discuss the logical contradictions in the Athanasian formula, and nowhere else in Wikipedia is this covered.
These criticisms are and important part of the ancient and modern history of the concept and so deserve to be covered, either in the main article itself or in a linked article. Ajosephg ( talk) 20:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
From the beginning, the introduction gives explanation about the Trinity in a one-sided way. However, if we find definition about the Trinity in Britannica, it explains in a different way. The introduction should give a clear and neutral explanation. Otherwise, it should be explained correctly. Trinity means, according to Britannica and many Bible verses, three in one (triune God). 175.136.227.74 ( talk) 08:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Judaism doesn't have the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. In fact, the section about the trinity in Judaism shows that there is no such doctrine in Judaism. Therefore that material covers a different topic and should be removed from this topic. — Mark ( Mkmcconn) ** 06:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
The article claims:
This is not supported by the linked references. The relationship between the described ideas and trinitarianism is superficial and not relevant.They are not parallel, but directly contradictory concepts. The claim is synthetic, and should be removed. — Mark ( Mkmcconn) ** 07:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
The discussion of Islam is important to the topic of Islam and unitarianism, but unless the section is re-written to further explain the doctrine of the Trinity, it is off topic. We don't need to try to prove the doctrine true or false. We only need to describe it. By including off-topic debates, this article is made less readable and more confusing than it could be. — Mark ( Mkmcconn) ** 07:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Trinity article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Not sure what is going on here. For some reason this has remained unclear. God the son refers to Christ. God the Father refers to God himself. God the holy ghost refers to the devil, Satan. If you become unclear about the bible I recommend reading more articles on Wikipedia for it can be informative and the information is clearly stated. I could tell from the talk sections that comprehension seems to be of little importance. It shouldn't be. So from here, don't expect anything else considering what is already in the articles is safe for public reading. Please don't get me wrong and include Lucifer a part Trinity (3 as 1). Lucifer is 'sembiant' and it would be a harmful clad of information regarding some unknown duality to to the existence of the theological God. -- 04:43, 2 February 2019 2605:a000:dfc0:6:6dbe:23df:7751:5af1
Sorry for the very belated reply, but I just recently found out that the Church of the Process had a pseudo-Trinity of Lucifer, "Jehovah", and Satan, which is related to what you mentioned (though not exactly the same)... AnonMoos ( talk) 22:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
As a political scientist form a Christian background I am ciurious as to why trinity became a big issue in the fourth century AD, and why it still is. Why did church leaders then, see a need to upgrade (or, some will feel, argue against a downgrading of) Jesus' status? Had it something to do with inventing roots for a desired or slowly happening change in church leadership form egalitarian elder's councils per church (as I thought, was the Jewish tradition), into a Holy See assuming sort of royal prerogatives and leading powers? And why the need for the holy spirit also to be upgraded and integrated into the 'one'? And why did separate church organizations choose positions around opposing opinions on this issue?
Next issue: I would assume that in the current century many Christians would feel less need to recycle a pre-mediaval debate that has little roots in the bible itself, without explaining what it meant for religious development then, and what it means for religion today. Why is it felt as highly relevant concept by some groups of Christians today?
In the current version there is a problem with the "Befor the Council of Nicaea- paragraph ". It proposes that the trinity formula came up in the first century, but all the examples seem to miss the central point of trinity that the three constitutent parts (father, son holy spirit) not only all three exist side by side, but that they ARE THE SAME. Which, if I read further, was first (nearly?) postulated in 381. Why is this year not mentioned as founding moment of trinity as we know it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pieter Felix Smit ( talk • contribs) 12:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
The article right now is too vague, the title is misleading. 109.245.35.25 ( talk) 17:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
By beginning with alleged Biblical support for the trinitarian doctrine the article falls into two fallacies:
The "history" section should come first with the Bible passages integrated later into an overview of the various positions. This is how Christianity is taught by any serious religious scholar who is not doing apologetics. Predestiprestidigitation ( talk) 03:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
The beliefs of traditionalist Christians should be accurately included in the article, but its structure should not depend on them. Predestiprestidigitation ( talk) 11:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Odd as it might seem, trinitarianism was not taught by the historical Jesus and his apostles. [1] Trinitarinism was a response to various creeds which have been labeled as heresies; it was a result of theological disputes that took centuries. [2] [3] [4] Post- Bauer historians give the lie to Eusebius's Historia Ecclesiastica with its claim that true faith precedes heresy, and heresy being a wilful, devilish choice to disbelieve the theological truth. [5] [6] [7] [8]
The claimed institutional unity of the Christian Church was propaganda constantly repeated by orthodox Christian writers, rather than a genuine historical reality. [9]
The claimed theological unity of the Christian Church was propaganda retrospectively projected by the clergy, rather than a genuine historical reality. [9]
References
@ TastyBreadToast, I could not find any mention of the Fourth Council of the Lateran in the cited source. Moreover, while I have not checked the full text, I did not find that that council made a declaration on the Trinity in their canons. Elizium23 ( talk) 22:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
References
The main Article 'Trinity' has no mention of the very substantial literature from numerous sources critical of the Trinitarian concept based on its logical incoherence. This is a major omission from the history of the concept: the early church struggled greatly with this concept (as well as that of homoiousos vs homoousios) because of both faith-based but also logical contradictions in the idea, and although faith-based criticism is covered in the article, nowhere in the main article does it discuss the logical contradictions in the Athanasian formula, and nowhere else in Wikipedia is this covered.
These criticisms are and important part of the ancient and modern history of the concept and so deserve to be covered, either in the main article itself or in a linked article. Ajosephg ( talk) 20:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
From the beginning, the introduction gives explanation about the Trinity in a one-sided way. However, if we find definition about the Trinity in Britannica, it explains in a different way. The introduction should give a clear and neutral explanation. Otherwise, it should be explained correctly. Trinity means, according to Britannica and many Bible verses, three in one (triune God). 175.136.227.74 ( talk) 08:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Judaism doesn't have the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. In fact, the section about the trinity in Judaism shows that there is no such doctrine in Judaism. Therefore that material covers a different topic and should be removed from this topic. — Mark ( Mkmcconn) ** 06:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
The article claims:
This is not supported by the linked references. The relationship between the described ideas and trinitarianism is superficial and not relevant.They are not parallel, but directly contradictory concepts. The claim is synthetic, and should be removed. — Mark ( Mkmcconn) ** 07:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
The discussion of Islam is important to the topic of Islam and unitarianism, but unless the section is re-written to further explain the doctrine of the Trinity, it is off topic. We don't need to try to prove the doctrine true or false. We only need to describe it. By including off-topic debates, this article is made less readable and more confusing than it could be. — Mark ( Mkmcconn) ** 07:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)