Talk:Nontrinitarianism/References

message: This page, in spite of what its creator GabrielVelasquez claimed, is a talk page, and in 2014 an editor has commented:
While browsing  the page i found that the section "some Encyclopædias" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nontrinitarianism/References 
are not accurate and project a view opposite to what the source is saying. 
some Encyclopædias 
@ The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”—(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.
The impression the above quote leaves, that Britannica says that Trinity is a pagan development 300 years after the apostles. In fact the quote deliberately left out the sentence before: "Thus, the New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity" Again extremely misleading!
# (1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126  actually said :
- Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: "Hear, 0 Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord" (Deut. 6:4). ... Thus, the New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. (Encyclopedia Britannica, Trinity, Vol. X, p.126, 1979)
@ The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299. 
#(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299
The inaccuracy of the context ( above quote ) can be seen when continuing to read on page 300:
"If it is clear on the one side that the dogma of the Trinity in the stricter sense of the word was a late arrival, product of three centuries' reflection and debate, it is just as clear on the opposite side that confession of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - and hence an elemental Trinitarianism - went back to the period of Christian origins" - 
@In The Encyclopedia Americana we read: “Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”—(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.
#(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L
is deceptive misquote because it projects the false impression that The Encyclopedia Americana are saying that early Christian teaching" was not Trinitarian.
"For the early Christian belief that Jesus was divine, the Son of God, and that as the risen, glorified Messiah or Lord, He was now at the right hand of God: required the use of theistic language." (Encyclopedia Americana, Trinity, p116)
@According to the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”—(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.
#(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467
First, Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel differentiates between the "Platonic trinity" and the "Christian trinity".
The Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel doesn't say that the Christian trinity is borrowed from either the Platonic or pagan trinities. All the dictionary says it that Plato borrowed his trinity from the pagans. The dictionary suggests, but clearly indicates it is not sure, ("appears to be" is not certain) that there is a connection between the Christian trinity and the "Platonic trinity". In other words, the dictionary is guessing! 
@ John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”—(New York, 1965), p. 899.
the above quote fail to tell the same article also says:
"Trinity. The trinity of God is defined by the Church as the belief that in God are three persons who subsist in one nature. The belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly and formally a biblical belief. The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of "person" and "nature" which are Gk philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as "essence" and "substance" were erroneously applied to God by some theologians. ... Without an explicit formula the NT leaves no room to think that Jesus is Himself an object of the adoption which He communicates to others. He knows the Father and reveals Him. He therefore belongs to the divine level of being; and there is no question at all about the Spirit belonging to the divine level of being. What is less clear about the Spirit is His personal reality; often He is mentioned in language in which His personal reality is not explicit. (Dictionary of the Bible, John L. McKenzie, Trinity, p899) 
The NT does not approach the metaphysical problem of subordination, as it approaches no metaphysical problem. It offers no room for a statement of the relations of Father, Son, and Spirit which would imply that one of them is more or less properly on the divine level of being than another. (Dictionary of the Bible, John L. McKenzie, Trinity, p899)
The OT does not contain suggestions or foreshadowing of the trinity of persons. What it does contain are the words which the NT employs to express the trinity of persons such as Father, Son, Word, Spirit, etc. A study of these words shows us how the revelation of God in the NT advances beyond the revelation of God in the OT. The same study of these words and their background is the best way to arrive at an understanding of the distinction of persons as it is stated in the NT." (Dictionary of the Bible, John L. McKenzie, Trinity, p899)
Thank you,  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.174.42 (talk) 05:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)