Talk:Trinity

message: 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
:Unfortunately, your ideas about the Trinity seem to come from an offshoot of the 1970s "Jesus freak" movement (not covered on Wikipedia, as far as I can tell), rather than what has traditionally been considered mainstream orthodox Christian theology.  If you can come up with a reliable source, then that definition of the Trinity could be included on the article -- but it would not result in any major rewriting of the article... AnonMoos (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: In the 1970s I read an article in TIME magazine (possibly this one, but it's behind a paywall) that mentioned a leader in the "Jesus freaks" or "Jesus movement" of the day who taught what you mentioned (a "trinity" of Jesus, God, and Satan); otherwise I'm having great difficulty turning up anything in Google.  If someone can access the TIME article and confirm, or you can tell us from what source you got it, then we can begin to evaluate the notability of this idea... AnonMoos (talk) 02:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simplicity 

message: 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)
thread_title: 2022

message: 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)
replies: text: Most of the theological disputes in early Christianity were Christological disputes which partially spilled over onto the Trinity, rather than Trinitarian disputes as such. AnonMoos (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Orthodox theology was always formed as a response to attacks from other beliefs - Judaism and Islam looked upon the polytheism of the early Christians as abominable and Roman pagans looked at it as the ultimate in hypocrisy - these people would rather die than sacrifice to the Roman state gods but had no problem worshipping an executed rabble-rouser alongside their main deity? Unfortunately since this article has been permanently captured by apologetics who insist on foregoing any kind of historical perspective in favor of "the Trinity is actually in the Old Testament" style sophistry, we can't talk about that.  Predestiprestidigitation (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not read the whole article, but just by going by the WP:LEDE, it does not say that the Trinity is THE biblical view. tgeorgescu (talk)  21:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political background missing: Why became trinity an issue, why is it still, for some? Starting point missing? 

message: The article right now is too vague, the title is misleading. 109.245.35.25 (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: What change are you proposing?  The article title might be moved to "Holy Trinity", but that was considered unnecessary in the past.  Religions uninfluenced by Christianity do not really have "trinities" in any specific sense.  They often have triads and trios and triple deities... AnonMoos (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The name should refer to the christian concept bing descrbied 

message: 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)
replies: text: It depends -- it obviously can't fit into simple first-order predicate logic, but there are a lot of things in ordinary language that can't fit into simple first-order predicate logic.  (The statements "John thinks that Bill doesn't smoke", "The person John saw at a distance yesterday was smoking", and "The person John saw at a distance yesterday was Bill" are basically contradictory in simple first-order predicate logic, and from a contradiction anything follows.) AnonMoos (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. Most of the important disputes in Christianity during the early centuries were mainly Christological in nature, not directly about the Trinity. AnonMoos (talk) 10:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This is true, however the article is about the concept of the Trinity, the ancient and the current concept, and is therefore ahistorical in nature. Again, this means that either this article deserves a treatment of this aspect of the concept 'Trinity', or it should at least link to an as-yet-unwritten article describing the logic/illogic of the concept. Ajosephg (talk) 23:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Many Christian theologians (Trinitarians) will admit that the Trinty cannot be comprehended by the human mind, an euphemism for being absurd. tgeorgescu (talk)  23:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logical criticisms of the Trinity 

message: 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)
replies: text: The definition is correct.  It's just a bit more detailed than the definition in Britannica.  Darlig 🎸 Talk to me 23:27, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong definition about the Trinity 

message: 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)
replies: text: However, passages in the Hebrew Bible which Christians have interpreted as pre-figuring the Trinity could be relevant... AnonMoos (talk) 22:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish trinities - off topic  

message: The article claims:
:Though the Trinity is mainly a Christian concept, Judaism has had parallel views, especially among writings from the kabbalah tradition.
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)
thread_title:  Trinity in kabbalah  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Islam is not trinitarian