Talk:Trinity/archive 4

message: That is the name that appears on the christianity series bar. I suggest that one (or both...) of them be changed so that its uniform. I don't know which one should be changed so I'll defer to whoever knows something about this. I proposed two potential moves. Savidan 21:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you proposing "The Trinity" or "The Holy Trinity"?  The first I think we can dispense with. Although the word normally takes the definite article in ordinary usage, it's not normally done to use it in article names.  As for the latter, that's probably the most common way the Trinity is named but it's also called Divine and Blessed. Bare "Trinity" is less ambiguous, and "Holy Trinity" already redirects here anyway. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Csernica -- don't see any reason to change the way it is now. AnonMoos 02:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Please don't include the definite article in the title. It goes against standard style.  19:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  move to "The Trinity"? 

message: These terms are all in fact synonyms in this context.  Human "nature" (essence or being) is created in the image and likeness of the Divine Nature, as human persons are created in the image and likeness of the Divine Persons, and the fact that these words are synonymous here is seen most clearly in the formula concerning Christ, "consubstantial with the Father in His Deity, consubstantial with us in His humanity."  --Midnite Critic 18:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In this context, they are not the same; and this is explained by your example.  The Son is consubstantial with the Father (he is the one God), but in a different sense than consubstantiality with our humanity (he is another human being).  The real focus of the problem here is on the use of the word "Person", which in English is full of the connotations of a separate being, rather than a distinct subsistence. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But isn't it more sensible, in regards to John 10:30, to say that this is a statement of unity in will and purpose and cooperation? The same word hen is used to refer to Paul and Apollos being "one" at 1 Co 3:6,8 as well. Likewise, as you pointed out, at John 17:21, 22 the disciples were to be one just as the Father and Son are, and just as husband and wife are to be "one flesh", working in unity with each other, not part of a confusing mesh of being and nature and consubstantiality that is never made clear. Jesus states at 1 Co 1:10, for his followers to be "perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment." One in purpose and cooperation. Just as Paul said, those conforming to the way of Christ are to 'be renewed in the spirit of their mind', and they "put on the new man" (Eph 4:22-24), not a re-creation of a new communion of humans, but a new personality, a new manner of actions, all in accord with the will of God. Doesn't that make much more sense? Oscillate 17:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I removed a paragraph that was just plain (pardon the non-intellectual term) gobbledeygook about the words, ousia, prosopon, and hypostasis, that simply got the history totally wrong, as well as the linguistics.
Nrgdocadams 08:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I'm putting it back. It could be improved, but it's correct. In Nicene usage, hypostasis was used for subsistance and prosopon (originally a Sabellian term) was adopted as a synonym.  It states clearly that there is one ousia and three hypostases. There two natures in the incarnate Christ; I know of no modern Church that teaches there are two hypostases. I'm sorry, but it's you who have the history and words confused. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: "Hyopstasis" -- since its pagan origin is freely acknowledged by all concerned it wouldn't be unwelcome in principle, but Hypostasis (religion) is probably a better place, and it indeed discusses the idea there. Are you sure it was Plotinus though?   has a number of BC citations of the relevant sense, including one from the NT (Heb 1:3). (I wonder if there really ought to be a Hypostasis (philosophy)?  I couldn't write it myself, but the ante-Nicene use isn't the same as the post-Nicene.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essence, Nature, and Being 

message: I don't think that changing "persons" to "personas" at the top of the page really adds very much... AnonMoos 17:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Personas vs. Persons

message: Should the possible non-Christian origin of 'hypastes' (in Plotinus) be made explicit?
-Wilhelm Ritter
:"Hyopstasis" -- since its pagan origin is freely acknowledged by all concerned it wouldn't be unwelcome in principle, but Hypostasis (religion) is probably a better place, and it indeed discusses the idea there. Are you sure it was Plotinus though?   has a number of BC citations of the relevant sense, including one from the NT (Heb 1:3). (I wonder if there really ought to be a Hypostasis (philosophy)?  I couldn't write it myself, but the ante-Nicene use isn't the same as the post-Nicene.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Antecedents

message: I know that "Holy Ghost" is beloved King James and old prayerbook terminology to some, but it really doesn't aid clarity in the modern language, and it's not appropriate to do a mechanical search-and-replace of "Spirit" with "Ghost" -- cenrtainly not without discussing it on the talk page first... AnonMoos 06:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ghost

message: This section, and in particular the recent additions making an analogy to married couples, reads more like a personal commentary than ecyclopedic. I'll leave it up to someone else to decide whether the analogy remains or how to clean it up, as I personally think the it's nonsensical and contradictory to the rest of the scriptures and the usage of hen, as I stated higher up (1 Co 3:6,8; John 17:21, 22). For me, it's so much clearer and makes so much more sense, in context and out of context, that this usage refers to unity of purpose and cooperation, not joined "in some metaphysical sense" that somehow is supposed to help explain the unexplainable. Therefore, like I said, I'll leave it to someone else to decide how to edit that section. <Oscillate 19:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first paragraph of that section is at least sourced, and I've adjusted the citation to be more transparent. As for the second -- I'm not as well-read as I'd like, but this is the first time I've heard of a marriage analogy in describing the Trinity.  If this is indeed a standard figure, then it ought to be sourced somewhere; otherwise it must be cut per WP:NOR. As it stands it's certainly not encyclopedic anyway, just as you say. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mutual Indwelling

message: Some links i had that were deleted a bit ago ... J. D. Redding 18:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External articles

message: I'm sorry to be rehashing this again, but I'm not sure this is correct as stated. In the intro we now have:
:Since the 4th Century AD, in both Eastern and Western Christianity, this doctrine has been stated as "One God in Three Persons"....
The quote marks around "One God in Three Persons" suggest in context that this is an actual 4th Century formulation. I am unaware of any examples of it from the period. Could whoever decided on this phrasing provide a cite? Otherwise I'll be rephrasing it somewhat. (Don't worry. I know there are those who consider this phrase to be key and I won't eliminate it. I'll just remove the implied attribution to the Nicene-Constantipolitan fathers.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: The Latin word "Trinitas" does not most literally mean "a group of three persons or things".  There were a number of existing words meaning "a group of three" which Tertullian or whoever could have used, but instead he chose to coin a special word which is an abstract noun derived from the "distributive" number adjective trini, trinae, trina (masculine, feminine, and neuter nominative forms) meaning "three at a time, three each, three together, three at once", etc.  AnonMoos 09:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Literal latin meaning

message: I deleted a discussion of what Jews might think of the Hebrew morphology of "Elohim" or what have you, chiefly because it was out of place. There's some mention of it in the "Dissent from Doctrine" section; if the details I deleted are terribly crucial, that might not be a bad place to reinsert them. Wesley \
I also removed the recently added paragraph comparing the Trinity to the human's body/soul/spirit; looked too much like original research, but it might be ok if it were properly cited or somehow attributed. Wesley 04:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Elohim' arguments