Talk:Trinity

By beginning with alleged Biblical support for the trinitarian doctrine the article falls into two fallacies:

• The idea that trinitarianism is uncontroversially found in the Bible (including the Old Testament - now we're embracing prefiguration and supersessionism too!)
• The idea that the New Testament predates and defines Christianity, as opposed to being a product of the late 1st century whose contents and canonical versions only were selected after theological debates within Christianity already existed, by people with stakes in those debates

The "history" section should come first with the Bible passages integrated later into an overview of the various positions. This is how Christianity is taught by any serious religious scholar who is not doing apologetics. Predestiprestidigitation (talk) 03:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

First off, Jews did not traditionally have a habit of coining abstract terms of philosophical analysis (that was much more of a Greek thing) -- in the Hebrew Bible there are no words with the specific meanings "religion", "Judaism", or "monotheism" (as discussed in the most recent talk page archive linked above). Therefore the absence of a word meaning "Trinity" in the text of the New Testament is not decisive in itself. Second, most of the theological debates in early Christianity were Christological, and not really directly about the Trinity. In any case, the beginning of article should be a concise summary of what traditionally "mainstream" accepted Christian theology says about the Trinity, because almost everything else in the article (including possible historical problems) will take that as a point of departure... AnonMoos (talk) 05:24, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's the point. The naive churchgoer's understanding of Christianity is "the Bible, then the fundamental doctrines like the Trinity, then the patristic fathers debating other stuff." But in fact it was totally different: The NT was produced *by* the second generation of disciples, and reflects controversies that already had arisen in a church that was at least 40 years old by the time that the oldest material in the NT was written, then only centuries later did trinitarianism become a significant issue. There isn't really anyone who disputes this other than a small fringe of non-academic Protestants who will tell you that God prefigured later debates by divinely inspiring resolutions to them in material written centuries earlier. The article leads people to the wrong idea about the historical development of the doctrine and presents the false apologetic notion that trinitarianism was a commonly understood belief in the early church.

If you took a course in which the professor started with everything that's known about what people thought about the Trinity soon after Jesus' death, and then slowly proceeded forward in time, then the professor may have had sound pedagogical reasons for adopting that particular approach in that particular class. However, for the purposes of this article, almost everything which is not directly explaining traditional "mainstream" accepted Christian theology will be criticisms of traditional "mainstream" accepted Christian theology, alternative doctrines which are contrasted with traditional "mainstream" accepted Christian theology, etc. etc., so therefore the only reasonable procedure is to start the article with a concise description of traditional "mainstream" accepted Christian theology, so that people reading the article from the top down will know what it's talking about. That does not mean that Wikipedia should endorse traditional "mainstream" accepted Christian theology, of course (it shouldn't). AnonMoos (talk) 14:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

The beliefs of traditionalist Christians should be accurately included in the article, but its structure should not depend on them. Predestiprestidigitation (talk) 11:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Why do you assert that "Trinitarianism was [not] a commonly understood belief in the early church"? It was; in fact it was so commonly understood that there were no prominent controversies about it until after the Christological questions had been addressed. The heresies and denials came after the common doctrines and beliefs were established by early believers. The Church only moves to define doctrines after they are significantly challenged. Elizium23 (talk) 11:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

That's the retroactive, apologetic explanation for why no one ever mentioned it - the real reason is that of course the first centuries of Christians thought that God, Christ, and the Spirit were three distinct beings, Christ was literally "God's son," etc. Only later on did the obvious polytheism of this approach become a problem and result in the trinitarian ideas that try to explain how one God is "three persons" and such. Predestiprestidigitation (talk) 11:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

No one thinks that all the refinements of the Athanasian Creed etc are present in the New Testament (obviously, they aren't). Jews in Judea/Galilee at that time simply did not have the analytical dialectic terminology-coining habits of mind that the Greeks did (which resulted from the Greeks comparing and contrasting abstract philosophical systems). Jews were traditionally more interested in the concrete details of their traditional way of life or religion (not usually clearly distinguished) and in legal interpretations within the system of Jewish Law. Some Jews in Alexandria had acquired some Greek skills of abstract analysis, but the New Testament was not written by Alexandrian Jews. Therefore, no informed person would expect a fully-refined theological system which could stand up to all the possible objections and questions of Greek philosophers to be present in the text of the New Testament. If the essence of the doctrine is present in the New Testament, with the elaborations of dialectics worked out later, then that's enough for many Christians... AnonMoos (talk) 14:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Right, so once again, you've done a good job of summarizing the Christian believers' apologetics talking points about why no one in the first 150 years of Christianity seems to have ever heard of trinitarianism. Wikipedia is supposed to be a secular scholarly source, not a manual that presents Christian doctrine as true, and the current structure of this article is entirely rooted in the latter. Predestiprestidigitation (talk) 23:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Are you assuming that the goal of contributors to this article should be to determine whether or not the doctrine is correct? Are you saying we should adopt modern secular standards of scholarship in order to make this goal achievable?

If I'm accurately summarizing your criticism, I disagree with you.That cannot be the goal. We are not doing research, here. Whether the doctrine is correct or true is not going to be decided, and shouldn't be debated in the article. The only goal is to describe what the doctrine is, accurately and with supporting documentation. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: what are your thoughts on this? Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:09, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

In fact, it's a pretty standard approach in theology to start with the biblical basis of a doctrine and then move onto historical development. I note that this is also what the Encyclopedia Britannica does here. StAnselm (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I have entered the following text:

Odd as it might seem, trinitarianism was not taught by the historical Jesus and his apostles.^[1] Trinitarinism was a response to various creeds which have been labeled as heresies; it was a result of theological disputes that took centuries.^[2][3][4] Post-Bauer historians give the lie to Eusebius's Historia Ecclesiastica with its claim that true faith precedes heresy, and heresy being a wilful, devilish choice to disbelieve the theological truth.^[5][6][7][8]

Also see:

The claimed institutional unity of the Christian Church was propaganda constantly repeated by orthodox Christian writers, rather than a genuine historical reality.^[9]

Which I had entered as:

The claimed theological unity of the Christian Church was propaganda retrospectively projected by the clergy, rather than a genuine historical reality.^[9]

Quoting myself from Diversity in early Christian theology. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Predestiprestidigitation that a history (at least a brief one) should come before the extensive Biblical citations, and with Edalton (elsewhere down the talk page) that the article is inaccessible for people who are not scholars. I am planning over the next few weeks to remedy this by reference to tertiary sources such as the Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy. I invite input — sources especially! — from others who would value a non-specialist introduction to this subject. Jno.skinner (talk) 01:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@TastyBreadToast, I could not find any mention of the Fourth Council of the Lateran in the cited source. Moreover, while I have not checked the full text, I did not find that that council made a declaration on the Trinity in their canons. Elizium23 (talk) 22:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@Elizium23, the reason you couldn't find the quote in the cited source is because the source for this quote wasn't simply cited there. I am the one who added that piece but silly me forgot to cite the source. If you scrolled down all the way here then you'd find the citation for the source I didn't cite.

The full quote goes like this:

"Therefore in God there is only a Trinity, not a quaternity, since each of the three persons is that reality — that is to say substance, essence or divine nature-which alone is the principle of all things, besides which no other principle can be found. This reality neither begets nor is begotten nor proceeds; the Father begets, the Son is begotten and the holy Spirit proceeds. Thus there is a distinction of persons but a unity of nature. Although therefore the Father is one person, the Son another person and the holy Spirit another person, they are not different realities, but rather that which is the Father is the Son and the holy Spirit, altogether the same; thus according to the orthodox and catholic faith they are believed to be consubstantial."

Here are the sources: ^{[1] [2]} TastyBreadToast (talk) 23:48, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Suggesting swapping the main/primary image in the article to Andrei Rublev's icon. The Shield diagram is a good schematic and deserves a place within the article, but fails as an opening image precisely because of its abstract nature. As an introductory image, it starts the article on the wrong footing, subtracting from the conception of Trinity as dynamic relationship. The Russian icon does this idea so much more justice. Thoughts? Soaringpigeon (talk) 12:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent idea, as Rublev's icon portrays the devotional and religious element of the Trinity far better than the Shield, which is in my opinion logically quite confusing. In the orthodox statements of the Trinity, God's unity is explicitly specified as denoting his substance, and his trinity denoting his person. However, the Shield does not make this distinction and so it just makes the Trinity look like a contradiction. So I find it very unsatisfactory as a lead image. Rublev's icon is an aesthetic and religious masterpiece. Violoncello10104 (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Andrei Rublev's icon shows the Trinity as three separate human figures. This may have great artistic merit, but maybe is not so helpful in elucidating the theological doctrine of the Trinity, and at times has been discouraged in the Catholic tradition. The Shield of the Trinity was devised for the purpose of summarizing the first half of the Athanasian Creed, and does a reasonably good job of achieving that goal... AnonMoos (talk) 00:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't want to remove the Shield since many do believe it elucidates the doctrine, so I moved it down. Yet even if it does elucidate the doctrine, I don't believe it's suitable as a lead image since as Soaringpigeon said, it is too abstract and neglects the religious, devotional and artistic aspects of the Trinity which are equally or more significant aspects of it than the logical nature. Violoncello10104 (talk) 03:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure the icon is a high artistic achievement, but technically it shows the angels who visited Abraham at Mamre, and if it was to be interpreted as a direct unmediated depiction of the Trinity (rather than of the angels of Mamre) then it could be considered theologically dubious in some respects (as in the Fridolin Leiber depictions of the Trinity). AnonMoos (talk) 07:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Right, I am actually a convicted iconoclast of the Reformed faith. One of the reasons I like the icon is because it does not actually depict the Trinity (which is impossible and attempting to do so is forbidden in the Second Commandment), rather it is a shadow of aspects of the Trinity which I've mentioned. In any case, do you think it is a good compromise to have the Shield prominently early on in the article with the Rublev icon as the lead? I appreciate your opinion on this. Violoncello10104 (talk) 11:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I think we should use "Holy Trinity" (d. 1912) painting by Fridolin Leiber. (A typical depiction The Son is identified by a lamb, the Father an Eye of Providence, and the Spirit a dove) This painting depicts the Trinity better than Rublev's depiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AimanAbir18plus (talk • contribs) 08:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Some would say that the Fridolin Leiber image is exactly what we should NOT use -- it presents a visual tritheism which doesn't have the excuse of depicting the angels who visited Abraham at Mamre. As I said in a previous discussion (now apparently in the archives to this page), Fridolin Lieber was a popular piety artist well known for his depictions of children walking on the edges of cliffs being protected by angels, but he was not any kind of authority on theology, and we shouldn't use his art as if he had that status. AnonMoos (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Rublev's icon is not actually a depiction of the Trinity but a depiction of the angels who visited Abraham in Genesis 18. Nevertheless, it is interpreted as a meditation upon aspects of the Trinity such as consubstantiality and communion. It is also a very famous and significant work of Christian art. Leiber's depiction could be used elsewhere in the article, but I think it is not appropriate as a lead image since it would violate the principle of consensus, as it would not be approved of (and even strongly rejected) by some major Christian denominations, such as Reformed Protestantism, along with other iconoclastic groups, and the Russian Orthodox tradition, which forbids the depiction of the Father. On the other hand, Rublev's icon could be approved of by all major Christian denominations. Violoncello10104 (talk) 11:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Difficulty with my account - am sitting now. @Violoncello10104, I agree with your point on the importance of there being consensus among denominations. With this in mind, would a suitable midpoint of agreement be to retain the Rublev icon as the lead image and add some appropriately-worded text to the existing subtitle with the explicit intention of communicating that the portrayal is not be interpreted as an exact representation of the Trinity's likeness? (I take this to be @AnonMoos's concern, and a good point.) One of the intentions of icons is educational, here to draw our attention to the relational life of the Trinity that we are invited into. And it is this aspect that makes it a wonderfully informative image. I haven't added anything to this discussion since my initial suggestion as I don't feel qualified on this topic, so I appreciate everyone's perspectives. I'm hoping this new suggestion is a fitting solution. Sittingpigeon (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry my previous comment was meant to be a reply to @AimanAbir18plus. Once again I think that's a great idea as I find the current subtitle of Rublev's icon could use improvement. Here is my draft of it; I would be interested to hear your, @AnonMoos' and @AimanAbir18plus' opinions.

Trinity, icon by 15th-century Russian painter Andrei Rublev. — This portrayal of the three angels who visited Abraham at the Oak of Mamre (Genesis 18) is not interpreted as an exact representation of the likeness of the Trinity, but rather, it is considered educational in drawing one's attention to the relational life of the Trinity, and inviting its viewer into this life. The icon is an artistic meditation upon the religious and devotional aspects of the Trinity. Violoncello10104 (talk) 05:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

That's fine for what it is, but a little wordy for an image caption, and the part after the first clause could probably be shortened. Something like "It was not intended as a literal direct depiction of the divine Trinity, but as a meditational tool based on a Biblical narrative." AnonMoos (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

So we have a Father, a Son, and that means the Third Person of the Trinity has to be the Mother. What other way to explain the Trinity. Nathan spooner (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

See WP:OR. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Carl Jung agreed with you, but unfortunately all historic traditions of Christianity do not. AnonMoos (talk) 01:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, AnonMoos, Elaine Pagels and Michael Coogan are WP:CITED at Gender of God, having similar views. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Don't the scriptures say "Man and woman, we created them In our image." 174.87.86.116 (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

As for the Trinity, why does the mother always get left out? After all, a Father doesn't have a Son without a Mother. And since we're made in the image of the creator, what else might the Holy Spirit signify? 71.80.252.136 (talk) 02:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Consult my reply above in this section. AnonMoos (talk) 09:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The Trinity: The Father, the Son and the Mother's Holy Spirit. What's complicated about that. Nathan spooner (talk) 04:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Nathan spooner: It needs WP:SOURCES, very strong sources. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

It's more than obvious that the Holy Trinity means: God the Father, God the Son, and the Mother's Holy Spirit. After all, if we have a father and a son, then the only remaining person is the mother. What other explanation makes sense? 71.80.252.136 (talk) 21:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

You have to WP:CITE WP:RS. Logic won't do. See WP:OR. 22:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Anonymous IP -- please stop adding comments in the wrong section of the talk page. That's the kind of thing that gets rather tiresome rather quickly. AnonMoos (talk) 18:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry and thanks for the update, I'll look for the correct topic. 71.80.252.136 (talk) 00:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

So we have a Father, we have a Son, so the Third person of the Trinity must be who else but the Mother. How is this not the case?

Genesis 2:25- "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness (our image, not singular) 2:27- "...male and female he created them."

Sounds like a reference to a father a mother and a son. Which part of this in incorrect? 174.87.86.116 (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Needs WP:SOURCES. We don't believe any editor on their word of honor. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

The New Testament was most likely written in Aramaic. Nathan spooner (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Nathan spooner, that's a very much WP:FRINGE view, according to WP:CHOPSY. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Nathan_spooner -- There's a possibility (though supported only by a minority of scholars) that a written Aramaic "sayings document" (i.e. an unadorned list of quotes from Jesus) could have been one source for some of the New Testment Gospels, but the New Testament books as we have them were composed in Greek. Some people try to obscure the important distinction that Jesus spoke a Western Aramaic dialect, while the Aramaic NT texts that we have are in Eastern Aramaic (i.e. Syriac); those people are crackpots. AnonMoos (talk) 01:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Aramaic was the common language and there is no record of greek being spoken by Jesus or the Apostles. In Syria even today, the liturgy is delivered in Aramaic. 174.87.86.116 (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Did you read what you replied to?? Jesus spoke WESTERN Aramaic, while Syriac is EASTERN Aramaic. AnonMoos (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Of all the references in the New Testament of writing letters how many of the apostles spoke Greek? None I know of except maybe Paul. 174.87.86.116 (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

That's nice... AnonMoos (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The logical conclusion is that the apostles who were chosen by Jesus did not write the New Testament. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe so, even though many of them could write. There is however valid reason to assert the New Testament was written in Aramaic, the lingua franca of those days. 71.80.252.136 (talk) 02:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

You may think it's "valid", but the vast majority of scholars do not accept it, as Tgeorgescu said two months ago. And Aramaic was certainly the SPOKEN lingua franca among the majority of the inhabitants of the area (though Greek was a more widely-used international language), but Aramaic had a limited use in writing until later centuries. Syriac was originally the language of the city of Edessa in present-day Turkey. It was not the same as the Western Aramaic spoken in Galilee and Judea during the lifetime of Jesus, and did not become important there until later centuries. Anyone from Galilee or Judea writing in the 1st century AD or early 2nd century AD would certainly not have written in Syriac, yet the Aramaic New Testament texts that we have have are in Syriac. AnonMoos (talk) 09:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Multiple instances of the followers of Jesus stating they will write, have written to others. Syriac, Aramaic, culturally very different than Greek. Please document the evidence that they spoke or wrote in Greek. And as for The logical conclusion that the apostles did not write the New Testament, whose logic is that? There is no logical evidence they could not have written in their common language. John 21-24: "This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things and we know that his testimony is true." Do you want more instances similar to this one? 71.80.252.136 (talk) 03:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

What you write here is irrelevant to our article. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

The article is "Trinity". I'm not convinced that a discussion "Aramaic and the New Testament" is particularly relevant to the article. The discussion so far doesn't mention the topic "Trinity". Feline Hymnic (talk) 13:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I came to this article as someone outside the trinitarian tradition in Christianity, hoping for an explanation of the key concepts and perhaps some historical context behind the development of the idea and its incorporation into mainstream Christianity. (For example, was the idea of a trinity instead of a duality influenced by tripartite goddesses? Hindu trimurti?)

The first section starts well with a general definition of "trinity," a note that the concept first arises a few centuries into Christianity, and acknowledgment that not all Christian traditions hold this as a key belief. Much of the rest is a series of quotes from biblical texts and biblical scholars without context or explanation, even in later sections where the history is summarized. (For contrast, I find the WP page on String Theory easier to follow and more helpful, and that's a notoriously obscure topic.)

I infer that early Christians, surrounded by monotheistic Jews on the one hand and polytheistic Greeks and Romans on the other found themselves trying to explain worshiping the usual sort of invisible, non corporeal deity at the same time as declaring the divinity of the historical person Jesus. I still don't quite understand why the Holy Ghost is important or what led to the idea of a trinity instead of a duality. I know we aren't doing original research here, but isn't there some historian who could be cited on the wider context around this development?

I didn't find the Britannica article much more helpful (though it was easier to read). So far the most helpful reference I have found is https://www.worldhistory.org/Trinity/ which is much more what I would have expected here at Wikipedia, though it would benefit from more in-line references. If nothing else, maybe this could be added as an "External Reference." Edalton (talk) 03:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately it was decided a while ago that this article is written from a Christian apologist perspective in which "the Trinity is in the Bible" and "the Bible preceded the development of Christian ideas" rather than an academic orientation which knows those things aren't true and explains the historical development of the concept. Unless a Wikipedia admin or someone else with some juice takes an interest, it's not really possible to fundamentally change a page that's been around as long as this one. Predestiprestidigitation (talk) 04:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

There's no valid historical evidence that I'm aware of for any deep or meaningful pagan influences. Furthermore, this article is not "written from a Christian apologist perspective". Rather, see my comment of 14:02, 22 September 2022 above -- "for the purposes of this article, almost everything which is not directly explaining traditional `mainstream' accepted Christian theology will be criticisms of traditional `mainstream' accepted Christian theology, alternative doctrines which are contrasted with traditional `mainstream' accepted Christian theology, etc. etc., so therefore the only reasonable procedure is to start the article with a concise description of traditional "mainstream' accepted Christian theology, so that people reading the article from the top down will know what it's talking about. That does not mean that Wikipedia should endorse traditional `mainstream" accepted Christian theology, of course (it shouldn't)." AnonMoos (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth here - I don't find it "the only reasonable procedure" to frame the article in terms of what "Christian theology" believes and relegate the mainstream view of scholarly researchers in academic religious studies departments to a "rebuttal" section. The fact that you believe this - to the point of regarding any other approach as "unreasonable!" - is not only incorrect, but at odds with your contention that there is no Christian apologism in the fundamental decisions made about article structure.

The thing about true bias is you don't know you have it. You think the way to eliminate bias in the article is to allow for "rebuttal." The bias isn't in whether 100% of the article claims that "traditional Christian theology" is true. The bias is in the article's naive acceptance of untruths that people who don't understand the history of religion aren't even aware enough to challenge as biases, like the idea that "early Christians read the Bible and developed their theology from it."

The structural question to consider is the following: Is there any chance that this article would look like it does, were it created in 2022 instead of in 2001? There's no rational basis for the structure, but Wikipedia has a huge problem with inertia on long-tenured articles. It is, for all practical purposes, impossible for anyone to make the case that there is something wrong with the basic approach of a longstanding page on argument alone - you *have* to be someone connected to the administrative structure to fix a problem on a page like this, no matter how obvious a problem it is. I submit that there's no way whatsoever that an open discussion in 2022 would have resulted in the page being as it is, and the "arguments" for it are just motivated reasoning for the reluctance to make large-scale changes to old pages without being an elite on the website. Predestiprestidigitation (talk) 04:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

That's nice -- you don't know enough about me to validly deduce what my religious views are, which are in any case not relevant to the current discussion. Radical historical skepticism can have a place on the article, but like most other trends and developments relevant to this article, it's a reaction or reply to, or modification of, or development from, traditional "mainstream" accepted Christian theology, and therefore will be hard to understand unless traditional "mainstream" accepted Christian theology is discussed first. Therefore the reason for this ordering is EXPOSITORY CONVENIENCE, not "Christian apologetics". Saying that A should go early in the article, because it's hard to understand B, C, D, E, or F unless you already know a little bit about A, doesn't mean that A is unquestionably beyond criticism, or that Wikipedia should endorse the truth of A (it shouldn't). I'm sorry if you have a personal dislike of A, but that doesn't change the narrative logic involved. AnonMoos (talk) 08:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

P.S. My reply is to the text of this section as it existed when I started writing the reply (additional material has been added since then). AnonMoos (talk) 08:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The following ideas are not in any way "radical historical skepticism:"

• The Bible as know it was compiled by a small group of the most educated, high-ranking church leaders in a gradual process that was not complete until the mid 4th century.
• The choices about the content of the Bible were, in part, made by people with stakes in pre-existing theological disputes in order to advance their causes in those disputes.
• No one had ever heard of any such concept as "trinitarianism" until at least two centuries after the emergence of Christianity.
• There is no reference to any concept resembling trinitarianism in the Old Testament.
• The idea that "the New Testament predates the development of Christian theology and early Christians learned their doctrine from the New Testament" is false both chronologically (the Gospels did not even begin to be written until the third generation of Christianity and the NT canon was not standardized until the 4th century) and as a basic understanding of how the ancient world and, particularly, the audience for early Christianity functioned (mostly illiterate people who had no concept of a "religious canon" and would not have placed any particular value on the Gospels as opposed to person-to-person oral transmission of diverse beliefs).

These are notions that literally anyone who works in the normal mainstream of the field of religious studies understands to be true. They aren't radical. They have nothing to do with "skepticism" of history and not a whole lot to do with "skepticism" of religion or Christianity per se. You keep insisting that because these ideas differ from the layman's understanding of Christian doctrine, they are somehow a fringe perspective that should be shunted to a "rebuttal" section. This is incorrect no matter how many times you say it, and the issue with the article is that it is written from the same perspective that you are using here. Predestiprestidigitation (talk) 11:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Could you provide any evidence of 'the article's naive acceptance of untruths that people who don't understand the history of religion aren't even aware enough to challenge as biases'? 'Early Christians read the Bible and developed their theology from it' is not a quote from the article nor is 'the Trinity is in the Bible or 'the Bible preceded the development of Christian ideas' from your earlier comment. I believe this constitutes a misrepresentation of the article which is very effectively NPOV.

That being said, I think an 'Origin' section, prior to 'Old Testament', which gives arguments and criticisms for the various theories of the origin and development of this doctrine would be reasonable. There is something similar in 'Genesis creation narrative' which I believe is an excellent article. The dot points you listed might be majority views but are by no means uncontroversial. Thus this 'Origins' section would be an opportunity for multiple views to be neutrally presented. What do you think User:AnonMoos? Violoncello10104 (talk) 13:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Predestiprestidigitation -- You use the word "compile" and the date of the 4th century A.D. to make the New Testament seem more uncertain than it was. There were certainly disagreements about what to include and exclude as late as the 4th century A.D., but the writings themselves dated from long before the 4th century A.D., and at that time the decisions to canonize or not canonize involved only a relatively few works, such as The Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle to the Hebrews, which don't have any great implications for the Trinity as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong). Furthermore, the objection that no word meaning "Trinity" is found in the text of the New Testament itself, which you seem to be approaching in some of your arguments, has been discussed at length above on this page (possibly some discussions have been moved to the page archives by now). The Jews of Judea simply did not have a tradition of analytically contrasting and comparing different philosophies or religions and coining abstract terminology accordingly (as the Greeks did) -- there are no words meaning "religion", "Judaism", or "monotheism" in the text of the Old Testament, making the lack of a word for "Trinity" in the New Testament rather unsurprising. AnonMoos (talk) 06:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

"The Old Testament totally predicts the coming of Jesus and endorses specific points about 4th-century Christian doctrinal disputes, it's just that the Jews didn't have the ability to coin words for things" is a 20th-century religious belief, not any kind of serious academic theory about the historical origins of trinitarianism as a doctrine. No one believes this except Christians engaging in religious apologetics. That's the point. It's also totally unresponsive to what I'm trying to get you to understand - nothing in my argument has anything to do with what specific words are or are not used in the Bible. The IDEA of trinitarianism is not in the Old Testament, under any language formulation, and nobody except people engaged in apologetics thinks it is. Predestiprestidigitation (talk) 00:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

How would you explain "majestic plural" of Elohim or "let Us make man in Our Image"? It implies there's at least more than one... ViolanteMD 01:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

More to the point: the article does not say that the apologetic view is true. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean exactly. When defining a belief system, the only true source should be the adherents themselves. Otherwise it's just conjecture about a group of people that one disagrees with. If this article is about the trinity in the Christian sense and doesn't state what that truly means in that context, it's not a very good article. ViolanteMD 01:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

See emic and etic. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the distinction between the two approaches, but in this case, we're attempting to describe a religious belief like the Trinity, so the primary goal should be accuracy in representing the belief itself. Without a clear, accurate description of the belief from the believer's perspective, any subsequent analysis or comparisons lack a solid foundation. Beginning with an outside analysis risks misrepresenting or misinterpreting the core belief. Most people coming to this article are probably seeking to understand what the concept means, not the history and analysis of the idea itself. The main focus should be on truthfully representing what Christians actually believe. They're the ones who believe it.

While academic and comparative perspectives can add value, they should come after, not before or instead of, a clear and accurate representation of the belief itself. ViolanteMD 01:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with what you are proposing, but at least you are honest about it and seem to be making a consistent argument about how the article should look that isn't self-contradictory. The article very much does conform to what you are saying it should do - present a long, apologetics-driven argument for why the doctrine of the trinity is theologically true, then group all evidence-based secular scholarship to a few perfunctory "rebuttal" sentences. My issue is not just this decision itself, but the idea that doing so isn't bias-laden, as well as the fact that other people simultaneously seem to be arguing that the decision to structure the article like this is a good thing and that the article isn't actually structured this way. Predestiprestidigitation (talk) 02:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia can describe a view without calling it true or false. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

When it comes to representing beliefs, especially religious ones, the concepts of "true" and "false" aren't really applicable or helpful in an encyclopedic context. We should be concerned with accuracy in representation and being descriptive. ViolanteMD 02:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining further. I can see how it would be frustrating. You raise good points about making the content more accessible and informative for readers who may be approaching this topic without extensive background knowledge. Maybe we could work on adding a clear, concise introduction that explains the basic concept of the Trinity in simple terms, or we could a section comparing the Trinity with other religious concepts like the ones you mentioned? That could help highlight the unique aspects of both the Trinity and other beliefs. I'm very new though so I'm not sure of the actual feasibility of aligning on making these kinds of edits. ViolanteMD 02:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@SandraKJB1611: The Trinity is a pagan Catholic concept, not biblical.. I agree that the Trinity is not biblical. But it does not follow that it isn't Christian. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Catholicism denies the deity of Jesus and has supplementary text to the Bible (e.g. Catechism). Catholicism specifically goes against biblical teachings: Call no man on earth father. (Matt. 23:9). Jesus is the only way (John 14:6). Jesus is the high priest and intercessor for mankind to the Father in heaven.(Rom. 8:34) Do not add or subtract words to the word of God. (Rev. 22:18-19) Mary has nothing to do with the salvation of man. 2603:7081:7E3F:217B:F5F3:CEC6:CD55:5847 (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

This is not the place to argue this, you two, as we are getting away from improving the article. The WP:Teahouse might be more useful. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I am planning on nominating this article for a "good article" title. However, before I can do that, I need to resolve the issue with the whole "other religious views" section.

Currently, the section is marked as "this section may contain material not related to the topic of the article". In other words, it is marked as off-topic.

I see 2 possible ways to resolve this issue here:

1) If this section is related to the topic of the article, then I can just remove the "off-topic" tag.

2) If this section is indeed off-topic, and if the tag is justified, then I can just entirely remove the section itself.

Personally, I am currently leaning towards option #2. However, I'd like to hear some input from other people. Brent Silby (talk) 11:25, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I think comparative religion is always useful and would remove the tags. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Alright, I will remove the tags. Brent Silby (talk) 15:20, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Does anyone understand this? and if it needs to be in the article:

Robert Magliola explains that most theologians have taken relationis oppositio in the "Thomist" sense, namely, the "opposition of relationship" [in English we would say "oppositional relationship"] is one of contrariety rather than contradiction. The only "functions" that are applied uniquely to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit respectively in Scripture are the following: "Paternity" to the Father, "Filiation" (Sonship) to the Son, and "Passive Spiration" or that which is "breathed out", to the Holy Spirit. Magliola goes on to explain:

Because such is the case (among other reasons), Karl Rahner rejects the "psychological" theories of Trinity which define the Father as Knower, for example, and the Son as the Known (i.e., Truth). Scripture in one place or another identifies Knowing with each of the three Persons all told. Which is to say, according to the relationis oppositio, Knowing (in our example) does not define the Persons [qua individual Persons] at all, but the Unity of God instead. (Scripture's attribution of Knowing to any one Person at any one time is said to be just "appropriated" to the Person: it does not really belong to that unique Person).[148]

Magliola, continuing the Rahnerian stance, goes on to explain that the Divine Persons necessarily relate to each other in terms of "pure negative reference", that is, the three "Is Not" relations represented in the Scutum Fidei diagram are in each case a pure or absolute "Is Not". This is the case because the relationis oppositio clause disallows the Persons to "share", qua Persons, the unique role that defines each of them. Lest he be misunderstood, Magliola, in a subsequent publication, makes sure to specify that each of the three Persons, while unique as a Person, is nonetheless—because of the Divine "consubstantiality" and "simplicity"—the one Reality that is God.[149] JasterOmega (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Yup, it seems irrational, because the very subject is irrational (namely theologians claim that the Trinity cannot be comprehended by the human mind). tgeorgescu (talk) 01:43, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

@Brent Silby: Pinging the GA nominator, he probably has something to say about it. MediaKyle (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

@MediaKyle I did leave this section intact, because I believe that if we are to remove unnecessary section, we should probably start with a different section Brent Silby (talk) 14:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Didn't want to rush it in any case. Brent Silby (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

The lead image of this article is rectangular, which means that it gets cropped on the thumbnail (and this is a bad thing). Does anyone know how to turn it into a square? I am going to tag the original author of the image (@AnonMoos). Brent Silby (talk) 09:32, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

@Brent Silby I'm not seeing what you mean, which image? It doesn't look like any of them are displaying incorrectly. MediaKyle (talk) 10:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

@MediaKyle what I mean is that if you type "Trinity" into Wikipedia search bar, then the thumbnail that will display there will be poorly cropped. Brent Silby (talk) 10:21, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I do have an idea of how to fix it, though. Brent Silby (talk) 10:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I've never thought about that before, but I'm typing different things into the search bar and I get the idea that there probably isn't really a way to change that other than uploading a larger image. I wouldn't say it's that pressing, anyways, readers can still find the page easily even if the thumbnail isn't very well visible. MediaKyle (talk) 10:26, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

@MediaKyle Yeah, that's basically my idea. Thankfully, the person who uploaded this image allowed unrestricted free use, so I will try to upload a larger image. Brent Silby (talk) 10:28, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

@MediaKyle I have uploaded my own image and it certainly looks better on the thumbnail. What do you think? Brent Silby (talk) 10:47, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I went ahead and added the derivative tag to the file you uploaded, if you ever want to upload any other cropped/edited images in the future you can use that same template. Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 10:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks for adding it! Brent Silby (talk) 11:08, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

"While the developed doctrine of the Trinity is not explicit in the books that constitute the New Testament, it is implicit in John". --- How can "implicit" be in the article as a fact? This should say "defenders of the Trinity argue that it is implicit in John" given the source linked. But even that isn't true, and should only be "many", since there are Trinitarians who do not claim that is "implicit" in John. As it stands it is a blatantly POV statement. Does the sentence even need to be there at all? In ictu oculi (talk)

I understand that "holy" is an emotionally charged word that doesn't follow Wikipedia's tone guidelines, but isn't it still relevant to say that it's also called the holy trinity? I'm hesitant to add this edit because someone clearly had a reason for putting that there, so I'm curious if they were just saying not to refer to it as the holy trinity, or not to even specify that it's also called the holy trinity. Tickbeat (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2026 (UTC)