Talk:Trinity/Archive 2

message: Well, it has been my boldest edit in wikipedia so far.
The "new" page is a remake mainly by Mkmcconn, Wesley and myself (but the contents are mainly theirs) which has the following advantages:
*It starts properly (that is, it states "what" the Trinity is)
*Ît covers the subject more clearly and deeply
*It is more readable
Obviously, the fact of putting it here is my and only my act. You may get angry with me but not with the above mentioned users.
Anyway, the fact that there was a parallel project going on was stated in this talk page, as can be seen.
And now, your comments, if there are any.
I have put the disamb. at the top because otherwise it is too far. Pfortuny 11:51, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: New article

message: The text of those long edits follows: (apologies)
----
But the Son is "begotten before the worlds", and yet all three are eternal and uncreated. How can this be?
Augustine had this to say regarding the relationship between God and time: "Since, therefore, You are the Creator of all times, if any time was before You made heaven and earth, why is it said that You did refrain from working? For that very time You made, nor could times pass by before You made times. But if before heaven and earth there was no time, why is it asked, What did You do then? For there was no 'then' when time was not. Nor do You by time precede time; else wouldn't You precede all times. But in the excellency of an ever-present eternity, You precede all times past, and survive all future times, because they are future, and when they have come they will be past; but 'You are the same, and Your years shall have no end.' (Ps 102:27) Your years neither go nor come; but ours both go and come, that all may come. All Your years stand at once since they do stand; nor were they when departing excluded by coming years, because they do not pass away; but all these of ours shall be when all shall cease to be. Your years are one day, and Your day is not daily, but today; because Your today yields not with tomorrow, for neither does it follow yesterday. Your today is eternity; therefore You begat the Co-eternal, to whom You said, 'This day have I begotten Thee.' Thou hast made all time; and before all times You are, nor in any time was there not time."
In other words, the Son can be both begotten and eternal, because in God's realm there is no time, rather he lives in an eternal present.
C.S. Lewis put it like this in "Mere Christianitty"... "Our life comes to us moment by moment. One moment disappears before the next comes along: and there is room for very little in each. That is what time is like. And of course you and I tend to take it for grated that this time series—this arrangement of past, present and future—is not simply the way life comes to us but the way all things really exist. We tend to assume that the whole universe and God Himself are always moving on from past to future just as we do. Almost certainly God is not in time. His life does not consist of movements following one another."
Having understood how it can be that the Son is eternal, having been begotten in eternity, even so, how can it be that he is uncreated? The church draws a distinction between the substance of created things, and the substance of deity. Because the Son is begotten, not made, the substance of his person is that of Yahweh, of deity. The creation is brought into being through the Son, but the Son himself is no part of it.
The church fathers used a number of analogies to express this thought. Irenaeus was the final major theologian of the second century. He writes "the Father is God, and the Son is God, for whatever is begotten of God is God".
Justin Martyr says "just as we see also happening in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled another, but remains the same; and that which has been kindled by it likewise appears to exist by itself, not diminishing that from which it was kindled. The Word of Wisdom, who is Himself this God begotten of the Father of all things."
Tertullian says "We have been taught that He proceeds forth from God, and in that procession He is generated; so that He is the Son of God, and is called God from unity of substance with God. For God, too, is a Spirit. Even when the ray is shot from the sun, it is still part of the parent mass; the sun will still be in the ray, because it is a ray of the sun-there is no division of substance, but merely an extension. Thus Christ is Spirit of Spirit, and God of God, as light of light is kindled."
(...Mkmcconn's paragraph about impossibility of explaining it)
It is often opined that because God exists in three persons, God has always loved, and there has always existed perfectly harmonious communion between the three persons of the Trinity. One consequence of this teaching is that God could not have created Man in order to have someone to talk to or to love: God "already" enjoyed personal communion; being perfect, He did not create Man because of any lack or inadequacy He had. Thus we find God saying in Genesis, "Let us make man in our image". 
----
OK. The contents may be (and probably are) interesting. The problem is: they are more about how it can be than about the Trinity. On the other hand, they look like apologetics to me, and I do not think this fits in an Encyclopedia. But this is just my opinion. Pfortuny 17:24, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, then, as you are new, would you mind trying to adapt your behaviour to the customs? No offence intended, but before making a long edit to an article, ask for opinions at the talk page (just in case what you are going to insert or delete has already been discussed, for example. Pfortuny 17:52, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: When writing at the talk page, you end by putting four "tildes" like this ~~~~. Then your username and the timestamp appears, as here: Pfortuny 17:52, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Please, bear with my English. You can talk to me at user talk:Pfortuny Pfortuny 17:52, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The Augustine, C.S. Lewis etc... edits

message: Wetman, your edit note indicates that you think that it is not good English to say that "The Holy Trinity is God according to...".  What is your thinking, here? Mkmcconn 20:43, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Introductory paragraph

message: Please, Chrisbitmead, at least agree that there are three people editing this article which think it best to put the quotations away. We strive to reach a level of consensus. It is not that we necessarily disagree with Augustine or Lewis, it is that they do not fit in the article as we understand it.
Moreover, a large piece of prayer like that of Augustine is best suited for wikiquote and referred to from here.
C.S. Lewis, on the other hand, is not tradition or dogma and his explanation is as good (i.e. as bad) as any other. 
I suggest you start a new article on Explanations of the Trinity, if you think the content is necessary. It may be linked from this one, but this one is just about the doctrine, not the explanations. I cannot speak for other denominations, but in the Roman Catholic Church, no explanation is adopted as doctrine in what concerns this mystery. Pfortuny 07:02, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The quotes and Wikiquote 

message: Guys, this is not resolved, and here's why. I've quoted a church father to show that these terms actually meant something to the ancients. 
I'm providing another Augustine quote below as well as a quote from Cyril of Jeruselum, Gregory of Nyssa and Athanasius that directly link the issue of the timelessness of God with the eternality of the begetting of the Son. Their conclusion is that the Son is begotten apart from time, not in time. So that's now FOUR church fathers. As a bonus I also quote Pope Leo the Great who says that the Son exists without time.
Where is the corresponding evidence that the ancients were ignorant of what they were talking about when they wrote the great creeds?
Wesley says that the modern orthodox church claims ignorance of what the details of the trinity doctrine mean. Fine Wesley, the Orthodox church is big enough that it deserves a sentence to that effect. But there is also the historical church to deal with. Who is going to provide the proof that the historical church was similarly happily ignorant?
You see guys, I provide proof, you are providing assertions. I explain what eternally begotten means from the fathers of the church. You seek to keep the reader ignorant. I define doctrine by documenting historical meaning. You want doctrine to be stripped of meaning.  
And even that's ok as an _alternative_ viewpoint IF you can prove a big chunk of the church goes along with that point of view. What's important is not a consensus of Wik contributors, but actual proof from the church that it is happily ignorant. And since I am interested in the historical church, that means a quote from a church father that says "this is all too mysterious, and we don't want to talk about what eternally begotten means".
Proof, people! Not claims! Explanation, not obfuscation!
"As for the Son of God, indeed, He could be born perfect, because He was begotten WITHOUT TIME, coeternal with the Father, long before all things, not in age, but in eternity." -- Augustine "it is vain to conceive of the past times of God's rest, since there is no time before the world." -- Augustine
"As the Son of David, He is subject to time, and to handling, and to genealogical descent: but as Son according to the Godhead, He is subject neither to time nor to place, nor to genealogical descent: for His generation who shall declare? God is a Spirit; He who is a Spirit hath spiritually begotten, as being incorporeal, an inscrutable and incomprehensible generation. The Son Himself says of the Father, The Lora said unto Me, Thou art My Son, to-day have I begotten Thee. Now this to-day is not recent, but eternal: a timeless to-day, before all ages. From the womb, before the morning star, have I begotten Thee." -- Cyril of Jeruselum
‘Older’ and ‘younger’ and all such notions are found to involve intervals of time; and so, when you mentally abstract time in general, all such indications are got rid of along with it. Since, then, He who is with the Father, in some inconceivable category, before the ages admits not of a ‘sometime,’ He exists by generation indeed, but nevertheless He never begins to exist. His life is neither in time, nor in place." -- Gregory of Nyssa
"For such as he that besets, such of necessity is the offspring; and such as is the Word's Father, such must be also His Word. Now man, begotten IN TIME, in time also himself besets the child; and whereas from nothing he came to be, therefore his word also is over and continues not. But God is not as man, as Scripture has said; but IS EXISTING and IS EVER". -- Athanasius
For God the Son of God, the only-begotten of the eternal and not-begotten Father, remaining eternal "in the form of God," and unchangeably and WITHOUT TIME, possessing the property of being no way different to the Father.
: It seems to me that these quotes do not add anything further than what is already economically stated in the article, and as explained with one brief quote.  But these quotes don't really say any more than the name of the doctrine says, do they?  They simply say that the begottenness of the son is eternal - that is, not temporal, not in time.  What I was concerned about before was the length that the article went to, through two very long quotes, to try to explain what it means to be outside of time - what the experience of God must be like, and so forth.  It went on for a long time to say more than needed to be said in this context to explain what the begottenness of the son means.  The relevant portion of the Augustine quote was included - why isn't that enough?  Furthermore, I don't see anything in the above quotes that argues for the inclusion of the "time dilation" comment - which I really do think is irrelevant. Mkmcconn — 20:02, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Proof people. Proof!

message: Wesley, I've clarified your objection slightly with allusion to when this began.  Most historians acknowledge that the formal trinitarian formulation may even have been a slightly minority view preceding the first Council of Nicea, but it definitely came to be imposed by force once anti-Trin views became proclaimed as "heresies".  The emperor Constantine placed unity above respect for any form of dissent, however, and as I recall may even have poured molten lead down the throats of some recalcitrant anti-Trinitarians (ah, ain't we Christians known for love).  
More importantly, however, NPOV really requires that your objections be placed in the upper area arguing on the doctrine's behalf, rather than interjected at convenient points in the counterargument, or someone like me might pepper the upper article itself with polemical disagreements.  So again, basic neutrality.  Regards, Chris Rodgers 05:23, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged Pagan Origins 

message: #Why is there that very confusing opening definition before the Introduction to this article?  The opening sentence of the Introduction is a much better topic sentence for an NPOV article.  The very first sentence also refers to Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic and most Protestants, leaving out Catholics who are not RCs.
#There are a lot of redundant links in this article.
#Can we be careful not to write 'Catholic' (not even with a big 'C') when what we mean is 'Roman Catholic', and not to say 'Roman Catholic/Catholicism' when we mean 'Catholic' or 'Catholicism'?  In two instances here I cannot tell which the author meant.
It's a lovely article; I don't mean to nit-pik and I don't say that I could have done any better, but these minor issues are nevertheless important. Quill 08:14, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I merged the two paragraphs to make a new introduction. Mkmcconn — 16:02, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  What?! 

message: :In practice, what a Christian begins to learn about the Trinity starts with Christian Baptism.
Huh?  That may be true in some traditions, but it makes zero sense in many.  In many traditions a person would not be baptized until coming to understand sin and the accompanying concept of alienation from God the Father, along with the atoning work of God the Son.  Thus an elementary understanding of the Trinity is present.  In other traditions, one is baptized as an infant and learning does not occur until much later. Jdavidb 17:23, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "starts with" is not the same as "starts at". Mkmcconn (Talk) 18:02, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed. This is symbolized in many Catholic and Orthodox churches by placing a baptismal font near the entrance to the nave; corporate worship begins with, among other things, each person remembering their baptism as they come in. Wesley 01:17, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starts learning at Baptism? 

message: From the article:
: This article covers the Christian views on the Trinity. For other uses of trinity, please see the disambiguation page.  This entry refers to the religious, spiritual, or philosophical uses of the word.
Why put this in the begining? Since Hindu belivers and others (Ancient Egypt for example, which is much more interesting to me than religions that are alive and can be learned by walking a mile to a church) have a concept of a trinity wouldn't it be just great if there was a heading/section titled "Trinity in other religions" or some such thing? Change the above to say something like: 
:"This article mainly covers the Christian Trinity and its religous, spiritual or philosophical meanings. For other trinity myths|views|whatever see below. For other uses of the word trinity, please see the disambiguation page"''
Maybe it's silly, I just think this isn't NPOV (I use wikipedia for history mainly, you know). Well, either way that's my 2 cents, thanks for your time.JoeHenzi 06:12, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thought about it some more. Basically I don't think people come to wikipedia to learn about their religion. Know what I mean? People come here, I hope, to learn about other religions... links to various beliefs in one article seems critical for those trying to understand the overall ideas of theology. I've come here and looked into stuff about my own beliefs, to clarify names in my texts, etc... but often that leads me to similar belief pages. Nothing is cooler to me than seeing something like "...this belief is similar to the Invisible Pink Unicorn's belief that God..blah.blah...." Often times it allows me to understand my own texts more, comparison allows me to fill in gaps. Sorry again, don't flame me :) JoeHenzi 06:36, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I'm asking for an additional section... but I'm at a loss to find more "trinities" for it. Maybe a quick sections saying what Trimurti is and a *quick* comparison of the two (which would naturally link to Trimurti). But, as I can't find more information with my limited resources I'll be happy with what we've got. Just throwing ideas about, no big deal : ) JoeHenzi 10:56, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  disambiguation? 

message: Why is the Apostles' Creed included in the lead paragraph as affirmation of the Trinity? Although it refers to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, it does NOT include any language that relevant of the central tenets of the Trinity, (that is the co-equal and co-eternal nature of the three). 
In fact, the WP Apostles' Creed has this comment: 
:"It does not address some of the Christology issues associated with the later Nicene Creed ..." Those issues would include the Trinity, the very point under discussion!
For these reason I believe that this reference should be deleted or moved elsewhere in the article. Thoughts anyone?--DannyMuse 17:11, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apostles' Creed 

message: Regarding this new paragraph:
: Some consider that the trinitarian formula is essentially nonsense, and that professing that one "believes" in it is essentially professing a belief in something meaningless. The justification for this view is based on the idea that each member of the trinity is alledged by its proponents to be fully God with each member sharing in, or existing as, the totality of the divine substance, and yet they are not one another.
While I have no real objections to the content of this paragraph, would it be possible to attribute it to an author, or to a group of people such as (perhaps) nontrinitarian Christians, or atheists, or whatever group whose members generally believe that the trinitarian formula is nonsense? Giving it attribution ought to strengthen the paragraph, and would avoid the use of "weasel words". Wesley 03:03, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attribution 

message: why is the section on the history of the notion buried towards the end of the article? It is common practice to give an overview of historical developments at the beginning. The section itself is also either weasly or confused. There is no information as to the status of the concept prior to Nicaea, and possible origins are listed under "dissenting opinions". Afaik, it is undisputed that the concept arose around 300, and the pagan parallels are not so much dissenting opinions, but suggestions for possible origins. (I mean, you can be an orthodox Christian, accepting Trinity as integral to Christianity, and still wonder where the concept originated. It was not taken from Judaism, to be sure, and it is not in the Gospel) dab (ᛏ) 08:08, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is not undisputed. The doctrine of the Trinity is seen in both the Old and New Testaments, and is evident in the earliest Christian writings both in and outside the New Testament. An orthodox Christian believes the doctrine of the Trinity is true because God has revealed it; without God's self-revelation, it would be impossible to know anything at all about the nature of God. What you suggest is like saying that a Christian can believe that God exists while at the same time wondering how mankind first invented the idea that God exists. It would be internally contradictory. Wesley 04:07, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: history section

message: This statement: "It is seen clearly in Scripture as early as Genesis 18:1-16."  How is it "clearly seen"?  This is definitely POV, as obviously the "clearly" is a subjective term.  These series of scriptures simply states three men are present before Abraham and that God speaks to him through them (or through one of them).
It could just as easily be stated that "clearly" according to Acts 7:55, the trinity in "clearly" disproved.  Note the various positions of the three in question, the father, son & holy spirit/ghost; it becomes clear that in a spiritual state each of these occupies a distinct position and not one of a single entity.  We could go tit for tat with points such as these, clearly highlighting distinct POV's.
: Netkinetic, I've put the reference back in, but by attributing it instead of calling it something "clearly seen". I hope this is a fair compromise. Wesley 04:16, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genesis 18:1-16 

message: Samuel Katinsky has apparently misread or misunderstood the theology of the Council of Chalcedon, accepted as authoritative by all Catholics and Orthodox (and some Protestants).  Chalcedonians believe that the three Persons of the Trinity are one in nature, will, power, action, being, and essence.  Christ has two natures -- the divine nature he has from all eternity, and the human nature he assumed at the Incarnation --, and each of these natures has a will.  (We Orthodox are duothelite, if you will.)  But the divine will is simply and numerically one.
I'm editing the main page to correct this point.  If there's any disagreement, we should probably hack it out with references?  Frjwoolley 19:06, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No, Chalcedonian (i.e. Catholic & Orthodox) theology says God has one will 

message: ---
This sentence is incorrect:
This one God however exists in three persons, or in the Greek hypostases.
The Greek for person is prosopa
greek->latin->english
hypostasis->substantia->hypostasis (hidden spritual reality)
prosopa->persona->person (persona would be more correct)
----
The problem is that the words changed meaning.  "Hypostasis" originally was roughly equivalent to "ousios", being, what is called "substantia" in Latin.  (And God is one substance or hypostasis).  But eventually it came to be used for what in Latin is "persona".  This is why the union of two natures in Christ is called the "hypostatic union" -- a union of two natures in one person.
: Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe correct Trinitarian doctrine is that God is one substance (homoousios) yet three hypostasis.
I wonder whether this page should include something about the historic stages of terminology used in discussing the Trinity.  Frjwoolley 23:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was somewhat mistaken above. I'm pretty sure this is the NPOV: Hypostasis is the same word in Greek, Latin and English, it literally means hidden spiritual reality but is also used as a technical word who's meaning is a great subject of debate; Ousios in Greek is substantia in Latin is substance in English; prosopa in Greek is persona in Latin and is traditionally translated person in English, in modern English persona would be more correct, or at least people (Is "three persons" correct modern English? I suspect it is correct Elizabethan English). These words have not changed meaning, some people might confuse them or claim they have other meanings, but they do not, check any dictionary for reference. To confuse their meanings is just sloppy scholarship. It should be pointed out that the great Trinitarian debates were conducted in Greek and Latin, so English is always a translation, same problem as the translation problems of the Bible. A good English scholar should always keep this in mind.
And yes, the Hypostatic Union is the union of two natures in one persona/person, but that does not mean hypostasis means person. The Three of the Trinity are Three Hypostases and Three Persona yet One God - however it is incorrect and sloppy to conclude that Hypostasis and Persona must therefore be the same thing.
I just read the entry for Hypostatic Union which says it is from the Catholic Encyclopedia. It says Paul used hypostasis but not in the sense of person. Seems to me that's one fixed data point when hypostasis does not mean person. It also mentions the use of hypostasis by the Greek philosophers, when it certainly didn't mean person or ousia. That's another data point. Then the article says Augustine felt that hypostasis and ousia were the same thing (presumably he wasn't aware of any difference). That's another datapoint, but it's just Augustine's opinion. But again there is no equating of hypostasis with person. It should be pointed out that most of Christianity, at least Orthodox, was still in Greek, so Latin is a translation and may suffer from translation problems. But I still say it is sloppy to automatically assume that Hypostases and Persona/People/Persons are the same thing. Why make that assumption? How is that neutral?
One more point: the doctrine of the Trinity states that there are three hypostases but all are homo-ousios (of the same substance). Clearly there is a distinction also between hypostasis and ousios even if Augustine didn't see it.
Just to summarize again, I believe this is the NPOV:
Greek->Latin->English
hypostasis->hypostasis->hypostasis (a technical term who's meaning is unclear, hidden spiritual reality, think The Matrix)
ousios->substantia->substance
prosopa->persona->person (in my opinion persona would be a better translation into modern English, at the minimum it should be three people not persons)
----
(If you put four ~s at the end of your entries, you get a signature/timestamp, which makes it easier for people to follow who's saying what.)
You're exactly right — God is one ousios and three hypostases.
Check out the discussion in the Catholic Encyclopedia article "Person" (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm, down toward the bottom), and you'll see what I mean about the words shifting.  (Even my desk dictionary, the Merriam-Webster 2nd edition, explains the historical change in the meaning of "hypostasis".)  One of the big challenges for theologians in the 3rd and 4th centuries was to find ways, in various languages, to state transcendant eternal truths in mutable human words.  I don't think there's a POV issue here at all.  Orthodox, Catholics, and most Protestants all agree about the doctrine; the problem lies in explaining clearly what it is we agree about!  I didn't assume or conclude that "hypostasis" refers to what (in Western languages) we call "persona" or "person"; it's the way the word has been used, consistently, East and West, since late in the 4th century.  Frjwoolley 15:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct Terminology, [[hypostasis]] v. [[ousios]] v. [[prosopa]] 

message: I adjusted the opening sentence, which while not inaccurate of itself, comes across as maybe a little declarative.  I tried to find something that seems more neutral and hope others agree.  
: You mention the strongest objection to the edit, Chris.  You say that what was there was "not inaccurate", whereas I say that what you put in its place is less accurate.  The doctrine of the Trinity is not that the Trinity is a doctrine of God, but that the Trinity is God.  
: Similarly, the guessy language concerning what the persons are called "usually called", as though the language were arbitrary, is not the doctrine.   The article goes on to explain, as it should, that there are some who believe that adjustments need to be made according to the times; but these people are objecting to the established version of the doctrine, and hope replace the old version with what they argue is a better, although less biblical and less traditional yet still more strictly true, more modern and fairer, gender-inclusive version. 
: Finally, I changed the "most denominations" language.  Even if there were more anti-trinitarian denominations than trinitarian denominations (which there are not), the issue of comparison is not the number of denominations, but the standing of this doctrine among the churches which represent most Christians (whatever a Christian is, in that sentence).  Mkmcconn (Talk) 04:53, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Matthew 16:13-17 (and opening sentence)