Talk:Trinity/archive Emmerich

message: The image Holy_Trinity_scheme.svg is rather problematic as it was added onto this page, since it could very easily lend itself to non-traditionally-orthodox interpretations (such as that the Spirit is lesser than, and wholly contained within the Son, while the Son is lesser than, and wholly contained within the Father).  The caption "The Holy Trinity Itself" was also very problematic.
For the image to be added to the article, it needs to be demonstrated that the image falls within an acceptable range of fairly widely-used traditional iconography or symbolism, and it needs to be given a link to some appropriate context and explanation. (The Shield of the Trinity diagram is relatively self-explanatory, and has a whole article devoted to exploring its ramifications, while neither is true of :Image:Holy_Trinity_scheme.svg).
In the past, :Image:Trinity faces.jpg  was kicked off this article for somewhat similar reasons... AnonMoos 17:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i think we can consider that diagram as a Father-centric, where the Father became the source from where the Son & the Holy Spirit came fort. 125.163.225.205 (talk) 10:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Problematic image [[:Image:Holy_Trinity_scheme.svg]]

message: Why not add the image to Anne Catherine Emmerich first, with an appropriate explanation of what the diagram meant to her at the time?  Then, depending on how the Anne Catherine Emmerich article develops, a future decision can be made as to whether to add the image to this article also... AnonMoos 17:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the Emmerich article has "three concentric spheres" (unsourced at that). It doesn't say which sphere was which. Until we can reference that this images labels the spheres in accord with Emmerich's vision, they have no place there. dab (ᛏ) 12:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: P.S. A friendly suggestion

message: As far as I understand your intentions, it seems you would really need a 3D-diagram to clearly express your meaning, perhaps roughly along the lines of the rather crude image offerred at right; however, it's far from clear to me that such a diagram would express a mainstream traditionally-orthodox view of the Trinity, or would have a place on the Trinity article.  My suggestion still stands -- go to the Anne Catherine Emmerich page first, and once you've worked the bugs out there, we'll see if anything there is useful for the "Trinity" article. AnonMoos 20:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, it's basically impossible to make an unambiguous drawing of a uniformly dark outer sphere surrounding a uniformly bright inner sphere -- and your 2D-cross section image with concentric circles is also very ambiguous, and lends itself to a quite a wide variety of possible interpretations.  The image :Image:Emmerich-Trinity-maybe.gif doesn't attempt to replicate the appearance of Emmerich's visions (which was itself necessarily a limited metaphor), but rather is a kind of 3-D graph, with encompassingness (or "big diameter" as you seem to call it) on the X- and Y-axes, and intensity (or "shiverness" as you seem to call it) plotted along the Z-axis.  It's a lot clearer in representing that aspect of your apparent view of the Trinity than the lightening of the yellow inner circles in your graphic. AnonMoos 00:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of your objections, my view of the Holy Trinity is as is, e.g. if you would have to look at Holy Trinity itself in Heaven, you would have see Holy Trinity as is in my drawing, in shape of big low-intensity Sun (Father) that contains middle mid-intensity Sun (Son), that in turn contains small high-intensity Sun (Spirit). My drawing looks simply like Holy Trinity photo. Your Hanoi-Tower shape is rather a logical diagram, much like Scutum Fidei, than Holy Trinity direct image. Better commentary image would be in manner of this image: http://geomag.usgs.gov/images/faq/Q5.jpg User:Wikinger 01:05, 25 September 2006''
 
I now recently discovered in revelations by Anna from Warsaw, that Holy Trinity's bigger Persons have no cavities for smaller Persons,  but each big, middle and small Person-Sphere is fully lite and all Persons-Spheres are permeating each other in manner of
   |                                                          |
  ||                                                         |
 ||| , thus there is no containning of Persons in manner of |   .
  ||                                                         |
   |                                                          |
User:Wikinger 01:00, 29 September 2006''
Even unambiguous image of such permeating between Three Persons was made recently here: :Image:Holy_Trinity_interpenetration.png, where density of Substance of each Person is intended to increase when diameter of each Person decreases. 79.162.45.188 (talk) 10:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Possibly clarificatory diagram

message: Holy Trinity consists of three concentrically placed spheres, not from three cylinders as you tried to guess. These Holy Trinity Spheres-Persons are placed like Earth's crust, mantle and kernel. Please replace in talk your bad cylindrical guess with proper spherical model. Holy Trinity has nothing to do with Towers of Hanoi type of shape. Holy Thinity rather resembles concentrical layers of any star or planet. I already got to Anne Catherine Emmerich page and placed there my Holy Trinity 2D image and explanation. User:Wikinger 21:05, 24 September 2006''
:Unfortunately, it's basically impossible to make an unambiguous drawing of a uniformly dark outer sphere surrounding a uniformly bright inner sphere -- and your 2D-cross section image with concentric circles is also very ambiguous, and lends itself to a quite a wide variety of possible interpretations.  The image :Image:Emmerich-Trinity-maybe.gif doesn't attempt to replicate the appearance of Emmerich's visions (which was itself necessarily a limited metaphor), but rather is a kind of 3-D graph, with encompassingness (or "big diameter" as you seem to call it) on the X- and Y-axes, and intensity (or "shiverness" as you seem to call it) plotted along the Z-axis.  It's a lot clearer in representing that aspect of your apparent view of the Trinity than the lightening of the yellow inner circles in your graphic. AnonMoos 00:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of your objections, my view of the Holy Trinity is as is, e.g. if you would have to look at Holy Trinity itself in Heaven, you would have see Holy Trinity as is in my drawing, in shape of big low-intensity Sun (Father) that contains middle mid-intensity Sun (Son), that in turn contains small high-intensity Sun (Spirit). My drawing looks simply like Holy Trinity photo. Your Hanoi-Tower shape is rather a logical diagram, much like Scutum Fidei, than Holy Trinity direct image. Better commentary image would be in manner of this image: http://geomag.usgs.gov/images/faq/Q5.jpg User:Wikinger 01:05, 25 September 2006''
 
I now recently discovered in revelations by Anna from Warsaw, that Holy Trinity's bigger Persons have no cavities for smaller Persons,  but each big, middle and small Person-Sphere is fully lite and all Persons-Spheres are permeating each other in manner of
   |                                                          |
  ||                                                         |
 ||| , thus there is no containning of Persons in manner of |   .
  ||                                                         |
   |                                                          |
User:Wikinger 01:00, 29 September 2006''
Even unambiguous image of such permeating between Three Persons was made recently here: :Image:Holy_Trinity_interpenetration.png, where density of Substance of each Person is intended to increase when diameter of each Person decreases. 79.162.45.188 (talk) 10:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  There are three spheres, not three cylinders 

message: The topic of this page being development of the article. This material strikes me as a theological nullity. I suppose there's a small population of Catholics who might particularly venerate this saint and give some attention to the visions, but for Christianity at large -- particularly historical Christianity -- this is barely noticeable. Based on its notability, I don't think it merits more than a line or two in the article. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I heartily concur with TCC. Giving it a line or two in this article seems rather generous in fact. Wesley 04:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dragging this back on-topic