PUNThepun, also calledparonomasia, is a form ofword playwhich suggests two or more meanings, by exploiting multiple meanings of words, or of similar-sounding words, for an intendedhumorousorrhetoricaleffect.These ambiguities can arise from the intentional use and abuse ofhomophonic,homographic,metonymic, ormetaphoricallanguage. A pun differs from amalapropismin that a malapropism uses an incorrect expression that alludes to another (usually correct) expression, but a pun uses a correct expression that alludes to another (sometimes correct but more often absurdly humorous) expression.Henri Bergsondefined a pun as a sentence or utterance in which "two different sets of ideas are expressed, and we are confronted with only one series of words".Puns may be regarded asin-jokesoridiomaticconstructions, given that their usage and meaning are entirely local to a particular language and its culture. For example, camping is intense (in tents).Puns are used to createhumorand sometimes require a large vocabulary to understand. Puns have long been used by comedy writers, such asWilliam Shakespeare,Oscar Wilde, andGeorge Carlin. The Roman playwrightPlautusis famous for his tendency to make up and change the meaning of words to create puns inLatin.

TypologyPuns can be classified in various ways:Thehomophonic pun, a common type, uses word pairs which sound alike (homophones) but are not synonymous. Walter Redfern exemplified this type with his statement "To pun is to treat homonyms assynonyms".For example, inGeorge Carlin's phrase "Atheism is a non-prophet institution", the word "prophet" is put in place of its homophone "profit", altering the common phrase "non-profit institution". Similarly, the joke "Question: Why do we still have troops in Germany? Answer: To keep the Russians inCzech" relies on the aural ambiguity of the homophones "check" and "Czech". Often, puns are not strictly homophonic, but play on words of similar, not identical, sound as in the example from the "Pinky and the Brain" cartoon film series: "I think so, Brain, but if we give peas a chance, won't the lima beans feel left out?" which plays with the similar but not identical sound of "peas" and "peace".Some words are homophones only when spoken in certain accents. Here are some examples of puns that depend on being pronounced in a particular accent:"Caesar salad" (Scissor salad) in an Italian accent:Customer: "I'd like aCaesar salad.Italian waiter: "Sir! Are you sure you want theScissor salad? You'll cut your mouth!""Space" (Spice) in certain Australian accents:Spice...The final frontier. So much flavour! Space, on the other hand, is mostly devoid of flavour and matter.(alternatively...)Q:What was the name of the first group of female astronauts?A:TheSpaceGirls."The Nail River" (The Nile River) in certain Australian accents:Never take your raft down the nail river. It'll pop instantly.

Ahomographic punexploits words which are spelled the same (homographs) but possess different meanings and sounds. Because of their nature, they rely on sight more than hearing, contrary to homophonic puns. They are also known asheteronymic puns. Examples in which the punned words typically exist in two differentparts of speechoften rely on unusual sentence construction, as in the anecdote: "When asked to explain his large number of children, the pig answered simply: 'The wild oats of my sow gave us many piglets.' " An example which combines homophonic and homographic punning isDouglas Adams's line "You can tune a guitar, but you can'ttunafish. Unless of course, you playbass." The phrase uses the homophonic qualities of "tune a" and "tuna", as well as the homographic pun on "bass", in which ambiguity is reached through the identical spellings of/bes/(astring instrument), and/bs/(akind of fish).Homonymicpuns, another common type, arise from the exploitation of words which are both homographs and homophones. The statement "Being inpoliticsis just like playinggolf: you are trapped in one badlieafter another" puns on the two meanings of the wordlieas "a deliberate untruth" and as "the position in which something rests". An adaptation of a joke repeated byIsaac Asimovgives us "Did you hear about the little moron who strained himself while running into the screen door?", playing on 'strained' as "to give much effort" and "to filter".A homonymic pun may also bepolysemic, in which the words must be homonymic and also possess related meanings, a condition which is often subjective. However, lexicographers definepolysemesas listed under a single dictionarylemma(a unique numbered meaning) while homonyms are treated in separate lemmata.Acompound punis a statement that contains two or more puns. For example, a complex statement byRichard Whatelyincludes four puns: "Why can a man never starve in theGreat Desert? Because he can eat the sand which is there. But what brought the sandwiches there? Why,Noahsent Ham, and his descendants mustered and bred."This pun uses "sand which is there/sandwiches there, "Ham/ham", "mustered/mustard", and "bred/bread". Compound puns may also combine two phrases that share a word. For example, "Where domathematiciansgo on weekends? To a Mbius strip club!" puns onMbius stripandstrip club.Arecursive punis one in which the second aspect of a pun relies on the understanding of an element in the first. For example the statement "is only half apie." (radiansis 180degrees, or half a circle, and apieis a completecircle). Another example is "Infinityis notin finity," which means infinity is not infiniterange. Another example is "AFreudian slipis when you say one thing but meanyour mother."[9]Finally, we are given "Immanueldoesn't pun, he Kant" byOscar Wilde.Visual punsare used in many logos, emblems, insignia, and other graphic symbols, in which one or more of the pun aspects are replaced by a picture. In Europeanheraldry, this technique is calledcanting arms. Visual and other puns and word games are also common in Dutchgable stonesas well as in somecartoons, such asLost ConsonantsandThe Far Side.Another type of visual pun exists in languages which use non-phonetic writing. For example, in Chinese, a pun may be based on a similarity in shape of the written character, despite a complete lack of phonetic similarity in the words punned upon. Mark Elvindescribes how this "peculiarly Chinese form of visual punning involved comparing written characters to objects. Richard J. Alexander notes two additional forms which puns may take:graphologicalpuns, such asconcrete poetry; andmorphologicalpuns, such asportmanteaus.

USEComedy and jokesPuns are a common source ofhumourinjokesandcomedy shows. They are often used in thepunch lineof a joke, where they typically give a humorous meaning to a rather perplexing story. These are also known asfeghoots. The following example comes from the movieMaster and Commander: The Far Side of the World, though the punchline stems from far olderVaudevilleroots.The final line puns on the stock phrase "the lesser of two evils".Captain Aubrey: "Do you see those twoweevils, Doctor?...Which would you choose?"Dr. Maturin: "Neither. There's not a scrap of difference between them. They're the same species ofCurculio."Captain Aubrey: "If you had to choose. If you were forced to make a choice. If there were no other option."Dr. Maturin: "Well, then, if you're going to push me. I would choose the right-hand weevil. It has significant advantage in both length and breadth."Captain Aubrey: "There, I have you!...Do you not know that inthe Service, one must always choosethe lesser of two weevils?"Puns often are used in the titles of comedicparodies. A parody of a popular song, movie, etc., may be given a title that hints at the title of the work being parodied, substituting some of the words with ones that sound or look similar. Such a title can immediately communicate both that what follows is a parody and also which work is about to be parodied, making any further "setup" (introductory explanation) unnecessary.LiteratureNon-humorous puns were and are a standard rhetorical and poetic device inEnglishliterature. Puns and other forms of word play have been used by many famous writers, such asAlexander Pope,James Joyce,Vladimir Nabokov,Robert Bloch,Lewis Carroll,John Donne, andWilliam Shakespeare, who is estimated to have used over 3,000 puns inhis plays.[citation needed]Some promoters of the Shakespeare Authorship theory believe that the name Will Shake-spear was itself a pun, chosen to hide the true author's name while revealing it as a mask.Here is an example fromShakespeare'sRichard III:"Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by thissonof York" (Son/sun)Shakespeare was also noted for his frequent play with less serious puns, the "quibbles" of the sort that madeSamuel Johnsoncomplain, "A quibble is to Shakespeare what luminous vapours are to the traveller! He follows it to all adventures; it is sure to lead him out of his way, sure to engulf him in the mire. It has some malignant power over his mind, and its fascinations are irresistible."Elsewhere, Johnson disparagingly referred to punning as "the lowest form of humour".[citation needed]In the poemA Hymn to God the Father,John Donne, married toAnne More, reportedly puns repeatedly: "Son/sun" in the second quoted line, and two compound puns on "Donne/done" and "More/more". All three are homophonic, with the puns on "more" being both homographic andcapitonymic. The ambiguities serve to introduce several possible meanings into the verses."When Thou hastdone, Thou hast notdone/ For I havemore.that at my death ThySon/ Shall shine as he shines now, and heretoforeAnd havingdonethat, Thou hastdone; / I fear nomore."DesignationLike other forms of wordplay, paronomasia is occasionally used for its attention-getting or mnemonic qualities, making it common in titles and the names of places, characters, and organizations, and in advertising and slogans. Many restaurant and shop names use puns:Cane & Ablemobility healthcare, Tiecoon tie shop,Planet of the Grapeswine and spirits,[17]as do books, such asPies and Prejudice, comics (YU+ME: dream) and films (Good Will Hunting). TheJapaneseanimeSpeed Racer'soriginal title,Mach GoGoGo!refers to the English word itself, the Japanese word for five (theMach 5's car number), and the name of the show's main character, Go Mifune.Names of characters also often carry puns, such asAsh KetchumandGoku("kakarot"), the protagonists of the anime seriesPokmonandDragonball, respectively, both franchises which are known for including second meanings in the names of many of their characters. A recurring motif in theAustin Powersfilms repeatedly puns on names which suggest male genitalia. In thescience fictiontelevision seriesStar Trek, "B-4" is used as the name of one of fourandroidsmodels constructed "before" the androidData, a main character.Theparallel sequelThe Lion King 1advertised with the phrase "You haven't seen the 1/2 of it!".Wyborowa Vodkaemployed the slogan "Enjoyed for centuries straight", whileNorthern Telecomused "Technology the world calls on." Confusion and alternate usesThere exist subtle differences between paronomasia and other literary techniques, such as thedouble entendre. While puns are often simple wordplay for comedic or rhetorical effect, a double entendre alludes to a second meaning which is not contained within the statement or phrase itself, often one which purposefully disguises the second meaning. As both exploit the use of intentional double meanings, puns can sometimes be double entendres, and vice versa. Puns also bear similarities withparaprosdokian,syllepsisandeggcorns. In addition, homographic puns are sometimes compared to thestylistic deviceantanaclasis, and homophonic puns topolyptoton.Science and computingScientificpuns rely on the contrast between precise technical and imprecise informal definitions of the same word. Instatisticalcontexts, for example, the wordsignificantis usually assumed to mean "statistically significant", which has a precisely defined technical meaning. Usingsignificantwith the layperson meaning "of practical significance" in such contexts would qualify as punning, such as thewebcomicxkcd's double pun "statisticallysignificant other".In formallinguistics, puns can often be found embedded within the etymological meaning or usage of words, which in turn may be buried over time and unknown to native speakers. Puns may also be found insyntax, wheremorphologicalconstructions have derived from what may have originally been humorousword play, slang,or otherwiseidiosyncraticword usage.Incomputing,esoteric programming languages(EPLs) are based in or contain what may be regarded as conceptual puns, as they typically misuse common programming concepts in ways which are absurd, or functionally useless. Some EPL puns may be obvious, such as in the usage oftext images, while other puns are highly conceptual and understandable to experts only.Incomputer science, the termtype punningrefers to a programming technique that subverts or circumvents thetype systemof aprogramming language, by allowing a value of a certain type to be manipulated as a value of a different type.HistoryPuns were found in ancient Egypt, where they were heavily used in development of myths and interpretation of dreams. In China, Shen Tao (ca. 300 BC) used "shih", meaning "power", and "shih", meaning "position" to say that a king has power because of his position as king.In ancient Iraq, about 2500 BC, punning was used by scribes to represent words incuneiform. The Maya are known for having used puns in their hieroglyphic writing, and for using them in their modern languages. In Japan, "graphomania" was one type of pun.

Flibbertigibbet & PurreThis is the chronicle of how I started out researching the word "flibbertigibbet" and ended up finding a selcouth pun of Shakespeare's from King Lear that's lain undiscovered by all but one or two people since 1603, amongst other things.TheCastle of Perseverance, a medieval morality play written around 1425, isnotablefor having the first recorded instances of the words flepergebet, flypyrgebet, and flepyrgebet, which were to crystalise later as flibbertigibbet. The OED records this origin as being "apparently an onomatopic representation of unmeaning chatter" and gives its foremost meaning as a chattering or gossiping person. But in 1603, Samuel Harsnett, the forty-two year old then Vicar of Chigwell, used Fliberdigibbet (with a "d") in his hilarious polemicA Declaration of Egregious Popish Imposturesto denote not a gossiping fishwife, but a demon.Entered in the Stationers' Register on the 16th of March, theDeclarationis a retort at the actions of Catholics at the time who were using possession by demons and subsequent exorcisms as methods to frighten the public into Catholicism. Chapter Ten is a deposition of "the trange names of their deuils", and contitutes an extraordinary nomenclature bazaar: Maho, Modu, Pippin, Philpot, Hilco, Smolkin, Hillio, Hiaclito, Lustie huffe-cap, Soforce, Cliton, Bernon, Hilo, Motubizanto, Killico, Hob, Portirichio, Frateretto, Fliberdigibbet, Hoberdidance, Tocobatto, Lustie Jollie Jenkin, Delicat, Puffe, Purre, Lustie Dickie, Cornerd-cappe, Nurre, Molkin, Wilkin, Helcmodion, and Kellicocam.Note that not only Fliberdigibbet is lifted from comic colloquial words of the time, but Hoberdidance too. Michael Quinion, in his treatment of the wordhobbledehoysuggests that "it may well be related to Hoberdidance or Hobbididance, which was the name of a malevolent sprite associated with the Morris dance (and whose name is from Hob, an old name for the Devil; nothing to do with hobbits)." In fact, Tolkien subconsciously took the word hobbit from a list of untoward creatures even more staggering than Harsnett's in a piece inThe Denham Tractsby Michael Aislabie Denham, so "hobbit" and "Hob" are indeed related. Denham himself called his staggering piece "Ghosts Never Appear on Christmas Eve!", which is a reference, of course, to Hamlet.Shakespeare evidentally took to Harsnett's list of demons as he used several of them inKing Lear, in Act III Scenes iv and vi. Specifically, Edgar, feigning the madness of aTom O'Bedlam, mentions Smulkin (Smolkin), Obidicut (Haberdicut), Hobbididence (Hoberdidance), Mahu (Maho), Modo (Modu), Flibbertigibbet (Fliberdigibbet), Frateretto, and Hoppedance (Hoberdidance). In trying to find out more about this list, I came across an apparently unheeded observation by Thomas Alfred Spalding in his 1880 workElizabethan Demonologythat deserved further investigation:In addition to these, Killico has probably been corrupted into Pillicocka much more probable explanation of the word than either of those suggested by Dyce in his glossary; and I have little doubt that the ordinary reading of the line, "Pur! the cat is gray!" in Act III. vi. 47, is incorrect; that Pur is not an interjection, but the repetition of the name of another devil, Purre, who is mentioned by Harsnet. The passage in question occurs only in the quartos, and therefore the fact that there is no stop at all after the word "Pur" cannot be relied upon as helping to prove the correctness of this supposition. On the other hand, there is nothing in the texts to justify the insertion of the note of exclamation.It is also on Spalding's word alone that I take Obidicut to be a derivation of Harsnett's "Haberdicut", since I was unable to find Haberdicut in theDeclarationmyself. But as to the observations of Spalding quoted above, I note firstly that in place of his suggestion that Pillicock is a corruption of Killico, the more likely source is either Kellicocam or a portmanteau of Killico and Kellicocam. In the quartos, Edgar is recorded to say "Pilicock ate on pelicocks hill", even though the First Folio normalises thisor perhaps records this more accuratelyas "Pillicock sat on Pillicock hill". Killico may have the vowels of the First Folio, but only Kellicocam has the "cock" sound. It is most likely too, of course, that the former is an abbreviation of the latter.But the Pur claim is much more fascinating, and I wanted to corroborate Spalding's claim. On a close examination of Harsnett's work, page 50, it seemed to me that the word used couldn't possibly be Purre since the context of its use was "Puffe, and?urre" where the ? denotes an italicised capital letter that's different from the clear P of Puffe, but that is somewhat difficult to make out. If it turned out to be an F, it might have made sense for Pur to be a pun on Puffe and Furre, but in comparing it to both other instances of F and T, it didn't fit. Then it dawned on me thatinitialcapital letters used a different, more lavish, glyph and that for some reason the typographer had used an initial italic P here even though it wasn't initial. This was affirmed by the use of the same glyph earlier on in the work, on page 21, in the name of "SirGeorge Peckham". It's used inconsistently there too.I then went to the trouble of examining each of the five quartos of King Lear that the British Library haspublished online. In each one the phrase is exactly the same, as it occurs in the last line of the following:Ed. Let vs deale iutly, leepet or waket thou iolly hepheard,Thy heepe bee in the corne, and for one blat of thy minikinmouth, thy heepe hall take no harme, Pur the cat is gray.The capitalisation after a comma reinforces Spalding's conjecture to a point where I think the modern interpretation, which every version that I can find uses, of "Pur! the cat is gray" on a new line is entirely erroneous; Pur is the name of the demon, and hence a pun on the sound of the cat-like shape that it's assumed. There's such a long chain of bad editorialisations of Shakespeare from before Warburton and onwards that it's important to remember that we're just at the latest stage of understanding, and not the goal.Incidentally, in the Halliwell-Phillipps (C.34.k.17) quarto of 1608, an annotator has gone through amending some of the errors in the text, and has occasionally underlined a passage. "Pur the cat is gray" is one of those passages which has been underlined, though for what reason it's difficult to tell.It occurred to me that the list of names in theDeclarationmay also help to clear up the strange word of Edgar's which is given first (III.iv) as "Seey" in the First Folio and in quartos one, two, and three as "caese", "cease", and "ceas"; and second (III.vi) as "see" in the First Folio only. It's amended by contemporary editors as "Sessa!", which is an interjection thatsome takeas meaning "be off with you!", and which has its canonical spelling taken from the only other possible use, in I.i of The Taming of the Shrew. On this mysterious word, the OED reports:[perh. var. of SA, SA, or possibly a. F. cessez 'cease!' It is not certain that modern editors are right in inserting the form sessa in all the passages; the word may not be the same in the three places.]1. An exclamation of uncertain meaning.Thecessezidea is from Dr. Johnson in his notes on King Lear. On "Dolphin my Boy, BoySesey" specifically, Dr. Johnsoninsightfully commentsthat "of this passage I can make nothing. I believe it corrupt: for wildness, not nonsense, is the effect of a disordered imagination." The closest match in Harsnett for Sesey is Soforce, and for Dolphin Delicat, but I believe both too far removed to merit too serious a consideration. At best, it is possible that Shakespeare had invented another name as far removed as Obidicut is from Haberdicut, but that it's now lost to us due to the transcription errors for which the scriveners of the time were well known. Compare, for example, how in one of the first quartos (C.34.k.17) Flibbertigibbet isSriberdegibet(orSriberdegibit), inanotherit'sSirberdegibit, and in both Smulkin is the rather wonderful "snulbug".Snulbug could even be a word from Shakespeare own pen, later changed to accord more closely to Harsnett's original. Even though for centuries we have tried, in the words of H.H. Furness, to "comprehend each syllable that is uttered, or strain our ears to catch every measure of the heavenly harmony, or trace the subtle workings of consummate art" from Shakespeare, it's a shame and a relief that we'll always have a long way to go.

Trinity

Part of a series on

Christianity

Christians hold Jesus to be Christ

JesusChrist[hide]Virgin birth

Crucifixion

Resurrection

EasterJesus in Christianity

Bible / Foundations[hide]Old Testament

New Testament

GospelBooks

Canon(Christian canons)

Apocrypha

Apostles

Church

Creeds

KingdomNew Covenant

Theology[hide]Apologetics

Baptism

Christology

FatherSon

Holy Spirit

History of theology

Salvation

Trinity

Ten Commandments

Historyandtraditions[hide]Timeline

Mary

Peter

Paul

Fathers

EarlyConstantine the Great

Ecumenical councilsMissions

EastWest Schism

CrusadesProtestant Reformation

General topics[hide]Art

Criticism

Ecumenism

Liturgical yearLiturgy

Music

Other religions

PrayerSermon

Symbolism

Denominations[show]

Christianity portal

v

t

e

TheChristiandoctrineof theTrinitydefinesGodas three divinepersons(Greek:):[1]theFather, theSon(Jesus Christ), and theHoly Spirit. The three persons are distinct yet coexist in unity, and are co-equal, co-eternal andconsubstantial(Greek:). Put another way, the three persons of the Trinity are of onebeing(Greek:).[2]The Trinity is considered to be amysteryofChristian faith.[3]According to this doctrine, there is only one God in three persons. Each person is God, whole and entire. They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: as theFourth Lateran Councildeclared, "it is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds". While distinct in their relations with one another, they are one in all else. The whole work of creation and grace is a single operation common to all three divine persons, who at the same time operate according to their unique properties, so that all things are from the Father, through the Son and in the Holy Spirit.[4]Trinitarianism (one deity/three persons) contrasts with Christiannon-Trinitarianpositions which includeBinitarianism(one deity/two persons),Unitarianism(one deity/one person), theOnenessorModalismbelief, andThe Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' view that theGodheadis a council of three deities, perfectly united in purpose and will, but nevertheless separate and distinct individuals.[5]EtymologyPart of a series on the

AttributesofGod

AseityEternityGraciousnessHolinessImmanenceImmutabilityImpassibilityImpeccabilityIncorporealityLoveMissionOmnibenevolenceOmnipotenceOmnipresenceOmniscienceOnenessProvidenceRighteousnessSimplicityTranscendenceTrinityVeracityWrath

vte

The"Shield of the Trinity" or "Scutum Fidei" diagramof traditional Western Christian symbolism.The English wordTrinityis derived fromLatinTrinitas, meaning "the number three, a triad".[6]This abstract noun is formed from the adjectivetrinus(three each, threefold, triple),[7]as the wordunitasis the abstract noun formed fromunus(one).The corresponding word inGreekis, meaning "a set of three" or "the number three".[8]The first recorded use of this Greek word in Christian theology (though not about the Divine Trinity) was byTheophilus of Antiochin about 170. He wrote:[9][10]"In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, aretypesof the Trinity [], of God, andHis Word, andHis wisdom. And the fourth is the type of man, who needs light, that so there may be God, the Word, wisdom, man."[11]Tertullian, a Latin theologian who wrote in the early 3rd century, is credited with using the words "Trinity",[12]"person" and "substance"[13]to explain that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are "one in essencenot one in Person".[14]About a century later, in 325, theFirst Council of Nicaeaestablished the doctrine of the Trinity asorthodoxyand adopted theNicene Creed, which described Christ as "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (homoousios) with the Father".PersonhoodIn the Trinity doctrine, eachpersonis understood as having the identical essence or nature, not merely similar natures.[15]The being of Christ can be said to have dominated theological discussions and councils of the church until the 7th century, and resulted in the Nicene and Constantinopolitan creeds, the Ephesine Formula of 431, the Christological statement of the Epistola Dogmatica of Leo I to Flavianus, and the condemnation of Monothelism in theSixth Ecumenical Council(680-681). From these councils, the following christological doctrines were condemned as heresies:Ebionism,Docetism,Basilidianism,AlogismorArtemonism,Patripassianism,Sabellianism,Arianism,Apollinarianism,Nestorianism,Eutychianism,Monophysitism, andMonothelitism.[16]Since the beginning of the3rd century[17]the doctrine of the Trinity has been stated as "the one God exists in three Persons andone substance, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."[18]Trinitarianism, belief in the Trinity, is a mark ofRoman Catholicism,EasternandOriental Orthodoxyas well as of the "mainstream traditions" arising from theProtestant Reformation, such asAnglicanism,Baptist,Methodism,LutheranismandPresbyterianism.The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Churchdescribes the Trinity as "the central dogma ofChristian theology".[18]References used from Scripture

God the Father(top), and theHoly Spirit(represented by a dove) depicted aboveJesus, painting byFrancesco AlbaniAlthough theNew Testamentdoes not use the word "" (Trinity) nor explicitly teach it, it provided the material upon which the doctrine of the Trinity was formulated.[19]Reflection by early Christians on passages such as theGreat Commission: "Go therefore and makedisciplesof all nations,baptizingthem in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"[Matt28:19]andPaul the Apostle's blessing: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and thelove of Godand the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all,"[2 Cor. 13:13]while at the same time the JewishShema Yisrael: "Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one."[Deuteronomy6:4][20]led the early Christians to question which way the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are in unity. Later, the diverse references to God, Jesus, and the Spirit found in the New Testament were systematized into a Trinityone God subsisting in three persons and one substanceto combat heretical tendencies of how the three are related and to defend the church against charges of worshiping two or three gods.[21]In addition, theOld Testamenthas also been interpreted as foreshadowing the Trinity,[22]by referring to God's word,[Ps33:6]his spirit,[Isa61:1]and Wisdom,[Prov9:1]as well as narratives such as the appearance of the three men toAbraham.[Gen18][18]However, it is generally agreed that it would go beyond the intention and spirit of the Old Testament to correlate these notions directly with later Trinitarian doctrine.[23][24]Some Church Fathers believed that a knowledge of the mystery was granted to the prophets and saints of the "OldDispensation", and that they identified the divine messenger ofGenesis16:7,21:17,31:11,Exodus3:2and Wisdom of the sapiential books with the Son, and "the spirit of the Lord" with the Holy Spirit.[23]Other Church Fathers, such asGregory Nazianzen, argued in hisOrationsthat the revelation was gradual:The Old Testament proclaimed the Father openly, and the Son more obscurely. The New manifested the Son, and suggested the deity of the Spirit. Now the Spirit himself dwells among us, and supplies us with a clearer demonstration of himself. For it was not safe, when the Godhead of the Father was not yet acknowledged, plainly to proclaim the Son; nor when that of the Son was not yet received to burden us further.[25]Some scholars dispute the authenticity of the Trinity and argue that the doctrine is the result of "later theological interpretations of Christ's nature and function."[26][27]The concept was expressed in early writings from the beginning of the 2nd century forward, and other scholars hold that the way the New Testament repeatedly speaks of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is such as to "compel a trinitarian understanding of God".[28][edit]References to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

The earliest known depiction of the Trinity,Dogmatic Sarcophagus, 350 AD[29]Vatican Museums.Some biblical verses specifically reference the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as distinct entities in a single narrative. While trinitarians interpret these passages as support for the notion of a Trinity, because these verses speak of distinct entities mentioned by name, and not of a Trinity, non-trinitarians also appeal to these verses in support of their argument that a Trinity was not envisioned at the time of their authorship."As soon as Jesus Christ was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and landing on him. And a voice from heaven said, 'This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.'"[Mt3:1617][Mk1:1011][Luke3:22][John1:32]"The angel answered and said to her, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called theSon of God.'"[Luke1:35]"How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!"[Heb9:14]"But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God."[Acts7:55]The eighth chapter of Paul's letter to the Romans, which contains many complex formulations of the relationship between God, Christ, and Spirit, including "the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead,"[Rom8:11]"all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God,"[8:14-17]and "the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God."[8:26-27]Some verses also reference the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as part of a single formula, which trinitarians view as support of a Trinity, though not explicitly stated. Non-trinitarians argue that because these verses are conclusions to their respective books, they may be later trinitarian formulaic additions to the original works, which were added after the doctrine of the Trinity had begun to be debated and accepted as dogmatic.[30]"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"[Mt28:19](seeTrinitarian formula). It has been claimed that writings ofEusebiusshow the mention of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to have displaced a request by Jesus that his disciples baptize people in his name.[31]However, all extant manuscripts of the Gospel of Matthew unanimously contain the trinitarian baptismal formula without variation at 28:19.[32]"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with all of you."[2 Cor. 13:14]Comma JohanneumMain article:Comma JohanneumIn addition to these,1 John 5:7, which is found in theKing James Versionbut not in modern English translations, states: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." However, thisComma Johanneumis not considered to be part of the genuine text.[33]It is not included in the official Latin text of the Roman Catholic Church,[34]nor inVulgatemanuscripts earlier than about AD 800.[35][36]Jerome, the author of the Vulgate, seems not to have known the text.[37]The earliest undoubted reference to it is by 4th-centuryPriscillian,[36]but some hold that it was referred to by 3rd-centuryCyprian.[37][38]It is commonly found in Latin manuscripts other than the earliest, but is absent from the Greek manuscripts except for a few late examples, where the passage appears to have been back-translated from the Latin.Erasmus, the compiler of theTextus Receptus, on which the King James Version was based, noticed that the passage was not found in any of the Greek manuscripts at his disposal and refused to include it until presented with a manuscript containing it, while still suspecting, as is now agreed, that the phrase was agloss.[39][edit]Jesus as God

God the Father (top), the Holy Spirit (represented by a dove), and child Jesus, painting byBartolom Esteban MurilloAs opposed to theSynoptic Gospels, theGospel of Johnhas been seen as aimed at emphasizing Jesus' divinity, presenting Jesus as theLogos, pre-existent and divine, from its first words, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."[John1:1][40]John also portrays Jesus as thecreator of the universe, such that "without him was not any thing made that was made."[John1:3]Some render John 1:1 as "the Word was a god", "the word was godlike", "the word was divine", denying that the doctrine of the Trinity is supported by the verse.The Gospel of John ends with Thomas's apparent confession of faith to Jesus, "My Lord and my God!"[John20:28][21]There is no significant tendency among modern scholars to deny that John 1:1 and John 20:28 identify Jesus with God.[41]Other passages of John's Gospel interpreted in this sense include, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.",[8:58]"I and the Father are one.",[10:30]"....the Father is in me and I am in the Father.",[10:38][42]and "....he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God."[John5:18]John is also seen to identify Jesus as the Lord whom Isaiah saw,[John12:34-45][Isa6:1-10]while other texts[Heb1:1-12]are also understood as referring to Jesus as God.[43][44][45]There are also a few possible biblical supports for the Trinity found in theSynoptic Gospels. The Gospel of Matthew, for example, quotes Jesus as saying, "all things have been handed over to me by my Father".[Mt11:27]This is similar to John, who wrote that Jesus said, "All that the Father has is mine".[John16:15]These verses have been quoted to defend the omnipotence of Christ, having all power, as well as the omniscience of Christ, having all wisdom.Expressions also in thePauline epistleshave been interpreted as attributing divinity to Jesus. They include: "For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him"[Colossians1:16]and "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form",[Colossians2:9]and inPaul the Apostle's claim to have been "sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father".[Galatians1:1][46]InDaniel7the prophet records his vision of "one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven", who "was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him" (v. 14). Christians believe that worship is only properly given to God, and that considering other Bible passages this "son of man" can be identified as the second person of the Trinity. Parallels may be drawn between Daniel's vision and Jesus' words to the Jewish high priest that in the future those assembled would see "the son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."[Mt26:64-65]Jesus was immediately accused of blasphemy, as at other times when he had identified his unity with the Father.[John10:33]Christians also believe that John saw the resurrected, glorified Jesus and described him as "One like theSon of Man."[Rev1:13]

God in the person of the Son confrontsAdam and EveSome believe the Trinity was also introduced in the Old Testament book ofIsaiahwritten around 700 years before Jesus, copies of which were preserved from 300 years before Jesus in theDead Sea Scrolls.Isaiah9:6prophesies "For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." Thus a son who will be born at a particular point in history who is called "Mighty God". Some non-Trinitarians argue that this passage would also imply that Jesus is the Father, the first person in the Trinity. However, Trinitarians contend that Jesus is the second person in the Trinity, and he is called "Everlasting Father" because of his role as Creator of men.Another possible biblical demonstration of the deity of Jesus comes from the biblical scholar[47]Granville Sharpwho noted the construction of a particular Greek idiom, which is now called Granville Sharp's rule.[48]According to the rule, when two nouns that are personal, singular, and not proper names are connected in a TSKS pattern (TheSubstantiveKaiSubstantive, where 'kai' is Greek for 'and') then the two nouns refer to the same person.[49]Passages likeTitus2:13and2Peter1:1fit this pattern. Therefore, when Paul says:[Titus2:13]"The great God and savior, Jesus Christ" he is grammatically identifying Jesus Christ as the great God. Proper nouns are not used in this phrase.[50]In his review of over 1,000 years of Greek literature, Christopher Wordsworth confirmed that early church Fathers had this same understanding of the text.[51]An opposing view of the Granville Sharp rule, however, argues that in Matthew 21:12 Jesus cast out all those that were selling and buying in the temple, ( ). So, too, in Mark 11:15, the two classes are made distinct by the insertion of before . Because of this, they argue that no one can reasonably suppose that the same persons are here described as both selling and buying, yet they fit within the Granville Sharp rule's construction. Therefore, according to this view, there is biblical evidence to distinguish between "the great God" and "our Saviour, Jesus Christ" in Titus 2:13, and by extension, 2 Peter 1:1.[52]However, unlike 2 Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13, Matthew 21:12 and Mark 11:15 do not fit Sharp's rule, since they use pluralparticiples, not singular personal nouns.Some have suggested that John presents a hierarchy when he quotes Jesus as saying, "The Father is greater than I",[14:28]a statement which was appealed to by non-trinitarian groups such asArianism.[53]However, Church Fathers such asAugustine of Hippoargued this statement was to be understood as Jesus speaking in the form of a man.[54]Others have suggested that passages in the Synoptic Gospels contradict the Trinity. For example, theAgnoetaesect argued that Jesus himself denied omniscience, when he said "but of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father".[Mark13:32][Matthew24:36]However, the Church Fathers reasoned that, in the Bible, "to know" can sometimes mean "to reveal". For example, Augustine of Hippo argued that when Deuteronomy 13:3 said "the LORD your God is testing you, to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart", "to know" here meant "to reveal".[55]So too, Mark 13:32 could be saying that the Father alonerevealsthat day, but Jesus himself could know the day as well. This is supported by passages that seem to argue that Jesus did know all things, such as, "He said to him the third time, 'Simon, son of John, do you love me?' Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, 'Do you love me?' and he said to him, 'Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.' Jesus said to him, 'Feed my sheep.'"[John21:17][edit]Holy Spirit as GodAs the Arian controversy was dwindling down, the debate moved from the deity of Jesus Christ to the equality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and Son. On one hand, thePneumatomachisect declared that the Holy Spirit was an inferior person to the Father and Son. On the other hand, theCappadocian Fathersargued that the Holy Spirit was an equal person to the Father and Son.Although the main text used in defense of the deity of the Holy Spirit was Matthew 28:19, Cappadocian Fathers such asBasil the Greatargued from other verses such as "But Peter said, 'Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.'"[Acts5:3-4][56]Another passage the Cappadocian Fathers quoted from was "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host."[Psalm33:6]According to their understanding, because "breath" and "spirit" in Hebrew are both "" ("ruach"), Psalm 33:6 is revealing the roles of the Son and Holy Spirit as co-creators. And since, according to them,[56]because the holy God can only create holy beings such as the angels, the Son and Holy Spirit must be God.Yet another argument from the Cappadocian Fathers to prove that the Holy Spirit is of the same nature as the Father and Son comes from "For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God."[1Cor.2:11]They reasoned that this passage proves that the Holy Spirit has the same relationship to God as the spirit within us has to us.[56]The Cappadocian Fathers also quoted, "Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you?"[1Cor.3:16]and reasoned that it would be blasphemous for an inferior being to take up residence in a temple of God, thus proving that the Holy Spirit is equal with the Father and the Son.[57]They also combined "the servant does not know what his master is doing"[John15:15]with 1 Corinthians 2:11 in an attempt to show that the Holy Spirit is not the slave of God, and therefore his equal.[58]The Pneumatomachi contradicted the Cappadocian Fathers by quoting, "Are they not all ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?",[Hebrews1:14]in effect arguing that the Holy Spirit is no different than other created angelic spirits.[59]The Church Fathers disagreed, saying that the Holy Spirit is greater than the angels, since the Holy Spirit is the one who grants the foreknowledge for prophecy[1Cor.12:8-10]so that the angels could announce events to come.[56]Claims of Old Testament prefigurations

The Holy Trinity, c. 13001350. English or Spanish.Alabaster.National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.Genesis 1819 have been interpreted by Christians as a Trinitarian text.[60]The narrative has the Lord appearing to Abraham, who was visited by three men.[Gen18:1-2]Then inGenesis19, "the two angels" visitedLotat Sodom. The interplay between Abraham on the one hand, and the Lord/three men/the two angels on the other was an intriguing text for those who believed in a single God in three persons.Justin Martyr, andJohn Calvinsimilarly, interpreted it such that Abraham was visited by God, who was accompanied by two angels.[61]Justin supposed that the god who visited Abraham was distinguishable from the god who remains in the heavens, but was nevertheless identified as the (monotheistic) god. Justin appropriated the god who visited Abraham to Jesus, the second person of the Trinity.Augustine, in contrast, held that the three visitors to Abraham were the three persons of the Trinity.[61]He saw no indication that the visitors were unequal, as would be the case in Justin's reading. Then inGenesis19, two of the visitors were addressed by Lot in the singular: "Lot said to them, 'Not so, my lord.'"[Gen 19:18 KJV][61]Augustine saw that Lot could address them as one because they had a single substance, despite the plurality of persons.[62]Some Christians see indications in the Old Testament of a plurality and unity in God, an idea that is rejected by Judaism.Some Christians interpret thetheophaniesor appearances of theAngel of the Lordas revelations of a person distinct from God, who is nonetheless called God.[63]This interpretation is found in Christianity as early asJustin MartyrandMelito of Sardis, and reflects ideas that were already present inPhilo.[64]The Old Testament theophanies were thus seen asChristophanies, each a "preincarnate appearance of the Messiah".[65]Theophanies:Genesis12:7andGenesis18:1God appeared to AbrahamGenesis26:2andGenesis26:24God appeared to IsaacGenesis35:1,Genesis35:9andGenesis48:3God appeared to JacobExodus3:16andExodus4:5God appeared to MosesExodus6:3God appeared to Abraham, Isaac, JacobLeviticus9:4andLeviticus6:2God appeared to AaronDeuteronomy31:15God appeared to Moses and Joshua1 Samuel 3:21God appeared to Samuel1 Kings 3:5,1 Kings 9:2and1 Kings 11:9God appeared to Solomon2 Chronicles 1God appeared to David2 Chronicles 7:12God appeared to SolomonThe angel (messenger) of the Lord:Genesis16:714Genesis22:914Exodus3:2Exodus23:20,21Numbers22:2135Judges2:15Judges6:1122Judges13:3Possible references in the Deuterocanonical booksInWisdom,Sirach, andBaruch, the personifications of wisdom have been seen in the Christian traditions as prefigures for Christ. The most explicit reference to the Trinity is in Wisdom of Solomon:Who has learned your counsel, unless you have given wisdom and sent your holy spirit from on high? And thus the paths of those on earth were set right, and people were taught what pleases you, and were saved by wisdom.Wisdom of Solomon 9:17-18

History

PopeClement Iprays to the Trinity, in a typical post-Renaissance depiction byGianbattista Tiepolo.Main article:Trinity of the Church FathersThe first of the early church fathers recorded as using the word Trinity wasTheophilus of Antiochwriting in the late second century. He defines the Trinity as God, His Word (Logos) and His Wisdom (Sophia)[66]in the context of a discussion of the first three days of creation. The first defence of the doctrine of the Trinity was in the early third century by the early church fatherTertullian. He explicitly defined the Trinity as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and defended the Trinitarian theology against the "Praxean" heresy.[67]Although there is much debate as to whether the beliefs of theApostleswere merely articulated and explained in the Trinitarian Creeds,[68]or were corrupted and replaced with new beliefs,[69][70]all scholars recognize that the Creeds themselves were created in reaction to disagreements over the nature of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These controversies, however, were great and many, and took some centuries to be resolved.Of these controversies, the most significant developments were articulated in the first four centuries by theChurch Fathers[68]in reaction toAdoptionism,Sabellianism, andArianism. Adoptionism was the belief that Jesus was an ordinary man, born of Joseph and Mary, who became the Christ and Son of God at his baptism. In 269, theSynods of AntiochcondemnedPaul of Samosatafor his Adoptionist theology, and also condemned the term "homoousios" in the sense he used it.[71]Sabellianism taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost areaspectsof how humanity has interacted with or experienced God. In the role of the Father, God is the provider and creator of all. In the role of the Son, God is manifested in the flesh as a human to bring about the salvation of mankind. In the role of the Holy Spirit, God manifests himself from heaven through his actions on the earth and within the lives of Christians. This view was rejected asheresyby the Ecumenical Councils.[which?]Arianism, which was coming into prominence during the 4th century along with Trinitarianism, taught that the Father came before the Son, and that the Son was a distinct being from the Holy Spirit. In 325, theCouncil of Nicaeaadopted a term for the relationship between the Father and the Son that from then on was seen as the hallmark of orthodoxy; it declared that the Son is "of the same being" () as the Father. This was further developed into the formula "three persons, one being".SaintAthanasius, who was a participant in the Council, stated that the bishops were forced to use this terminology, which is not found in Scripture, because the Biblical phrases that they would have preferred to use were claimed by theAriansto be capable of being interpreted in what the bishops considered to be a heretical sense.[72]They therefore "commandeered the non-scriptural[73]termhomoousios('of the same being') to safeguard the essential relation of the Son to the Father that had been denied byArius."[74]Moreover, the meanings of "ousia" and "hypostasis" overlapped then, so that the latter term for some meantessenceand for othersperson.Athanasius of Alexandria(293373) helped to clarify the terms.[75]The Confession of the Council of Nicaea said little about the Holy Spirit.[76]The doctrine of the divinity and personality of the Holy Spirit was developed by Athanasius in the last decades of his life.[77]He defended and refined the Nicene formula.[76]By the end of the 4th century, under the leadership ofBasil of Caesarea,Gregory of Nyssa, andGregory of Nazianzus(theCappadocian Fathers), the doctrine had reached substantially its current form.[76]The Ante-Nicene Fathers, although likely foreign to the specifics of Trinitarian theology because they were not defined until the 4th century, nevertheless affirmed Christ's deity and referenced "Father, Son and Holy Spirit". Trinitarians view these as elements of the codified doctrine.[78]By the end of the4th century, as a result of controversies concerning the proper sense in which to apply to God,Christand the Holy Spirit terms such as "person", "nature", "essence", and "substance", the doctrine of the Trinity took the form that has since been maintained in all the historic confessions of Christianity.[20][18][79][80]TheologyBaptism as the beginning lesson

Baptism of Christ, byPiero della Francesca, 15th centuryBaptism is generally conferred with theTrinitarian formula, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."[Mt28:19]Trinitarians identify this name with the Christian faith into which baptism is an initiation, as seen for example in the statement ofBasil the Great(330379): "We are bound to be baptized in the terms we have received, and to profess faith in the terms in which we have been baptized." "This is the Faith of our baptism", theFirst Council of Constantinoplealso says (382), "that teaches us to believe in the Name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. According to this Faith there is one Godhead, Power, and Being of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."Matthew28:19may be taken to indicate that baptism was associated with this formula from the earliest decades of the Church's existence.Some groups, such asOneness Pentecostals, demur from the Trinitarian view on baptism. For them, the omission of the formula in Acts outweighs all other considerations, and is a liturgical guide for their own practice. For this reason, they often focus on the baptisms in Acts, citing many authoritative theological works. For example, Kittel is cited where he is speaking of the phrase "in the name" (Greek: ) as used in the baptisms recorded in Acts:The distinctive feature of Christian baptism is that it is administered in Christ ( ), or in the name of Christ ( ). (Gerhard Kittel,Theological Dictionary of the New Testament(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 1:539.)The formula ( ) seems to have been a tech. term in Hellenistic commerce ("to the account"). In both cases the use of the phrase is understandable, since the account bears the name of the one who owns it, and in baptism the name of Christ is pronounced, invoked and confessed by the one who baptises or the one baptised[Acts22:16]or both. (Kittel, 1:540.)Those who place great emphasis on the baptisms in Acts often likewise question the authenticity ofMatthew28:19in its present form. A. Ploughman, apparently followingF. C. Conybeare, has questioned the authenticity ofMatthew28:19, but most scholars of New Testamenttextual criticismaccept the authenticity of the passage, since there are no variant manuscripts regarding the formula, and the extant form of the passage is attested in theDidache[81]and otherpatristicworks of the 1st and 2nd centuries:Ignatius,[82]Tertullian,[83]Hippolytus,[84]Cyprian,[85]andGregory Thaumaturgus.[86]TheActs of the Apostlesonly mentions believers being baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ"[Acts2:38][10:48]and "in the name of the Lord Jesus."[8:16][19:5]There are no biblical references to baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit outside ofMatthew28:19, nor references, biblical or patristic, to baptism in the name of (the Lord) Jesus (Christ) outside the Acts of the Apostles.[87]Commenting onMatthew28:19, Gerhard Kittel states:This threefold relation [of Father, Son and Spirit] soon found fixed expression in the triadic formulae in2 Cor. 13:14and in1 Cor. 12:4-6. The form is first found in the baptismal formula inMatthew28:19; Did., 7. 1 and 3....[I]t is self-evident that Father, Son and Spirit are here linked in an indissoluble threefold relationship.[88]In thesynoptic Gospelsthebaptism of Jesusis often interpreted as a manifestation of all three persons of the Trinity: "And when Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him; and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, 'This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.'"[Mt3:1617]One GodMain article:MonotheismChristianity, having emerged fromJudaism, is a monotheistic religion. Never in the New Testament does the trinitarian concept become a "tritheism" (three Gods) nor even two.[28]God is one, and that the Godhead is a single being is strongly declared in the Bible:TheShemaof the Hebrew Scriptures: "Hear, O Israel:the LORDour God, the LORDis one."[Deut6:4]The first of theTen Commandments"Thou shalt have no other gods before me"[5:7].and "Thus saith the LORDthe King of Israel and his redeemer the LORDof hosts: I am the first and I am the last; and beside me there is no God."[Isa44:6]In the New Testament: "The Lord our God is one."[Mk12:29]In the Trinitarian view, the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost share the one essence, substance or being. The central and crucial affirmation of Christian faith is that there is one savior, God, and one salvation, manifest in Jesus Christ, to which there is access only because of the Holy Spirit. The God of the Old Testament is still the same as the God of the New. In Christianity, statements about a single God are intended to distinguish the Hebraic understanding from thepolytheisticview, which see divine power as shared by several beings, beings which can and do disagree and have conflicts with each other.God in three personsAccording to the Trinity doctrine, God exists as threepersons, orhypostases, but is one being, that is, has but a single divine nature.[89]ChalcedoniansRoman Catholics,Orthodox Christians, andProtestantshold that, in addition, the second person of the TrinityGod the Son, Jesusassumed human nature, so that he has two natures (and hence two wills), and is really and fully both true God and true human.In theOriental Orthodoxtheology, the Chalcedonian formulation is rejected in favor of the position of the 3rd ecumenical council that the union of the two natures, though unconfused, births a third nature: redeemed humanity, the new creation, following Christology of St Cyril of Alexandria and the formula " " - Jesus Christ being really and fully both true God and true human. This doctrine is not to be confused with monophysitism which is condemned by the Oriental Orthodox churches.The members of the Trinity are said to be co-equal and co-eternal, one in essence, nature, power, action, and will. As stated in theAthanasian Creed, the Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, and the Holy Spirit is uncreated, and all three are eternal with no beginning.[90]It has been stated that because three persons exist in God as one unity,[91]"The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" are not three different names for different parts of God but one name for God,[92]because the Father can not be divided from the Son or the Holy Spirit from the Son. 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 to havesomeone to talk toorto love: God "already" enjoyed personal communion; being perfect, he did not create man because of a lack or inadequacy he had. Another consequence, according to Rev. Fr. Thomas Hopko, an Eastern Orthodox theologian, is that if God were not a Trinity, he could not have loved prior to creating other beings on whom to bestow his love. Thus God says, "Letusmake man inourimage, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."[Gen1:26-27]For Trinitarians, emphasis in Genesis 1:26 is on the plurality in the Deity, and in 1:27 on the unity of the divine Essence. A possible interpretation of Genesis 1:26 is that God's relationships in the Trinity are mirrored in man by the ideal relationship between husband and wife, two persons becoming one flesh, as described inEve's creation later in the next chapter.[2:22]Mutually indwellingA useful explanation of the relationship of the distinct divine persons is called "perichoresis", fromGreekgoing around,envelopment. This concept refers for its basis toJohn1417, where Jesus is instructing the disciples concerning the meaning of his departure. His going to the Father, he says, is for their sake; so that he might come to them when the "other comforter" is given to them. Then, he says, his disciples will dwell in him, as he dwells in the Father, and the Father dwells in him, and the Father will dwell in them. This is so, according to the theory of perichoresis, because the persons of the Trinity "reciprocally contain one another, so that one permanently envelopes and is permanently enveloped by, the other whom he yet envelopes". (Hilary of Poitiers,Concerning the Trinity3:1).[93]This co-indwelling may also be helpful in illustrating the Trinitarian conception of salvation. The first doctrinal benefit is that it effectively excludes the idea that God has parts. Trinitarians assert thatGod is a simple, not an aggregate, being. The second doctrinal benefit is that it harmonizes well with the doctrine that the Christian's union with the Son in his humanity brings him into union with one who contains in himself, in St. Paul's words, "all the fullness of deity" and not a part. (See also:Theosis). Perichoresis provides an intuitive figure of what this might mean. The Son, the eternal Word, is from all eternity the dwelling place of God; he is the "Father's house", just as the Son dwells in the Father and the Spirit; so that, when the Spirit is "given", then it happens as Jesus said, "I will not leave you as orphans; for I will come to you."[John14:18]Some forms of human union are considered to be not identical but analogous to the Trinitarian concept, as found for example in Jesus' words about marriage: "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh."[Mark10:78]According to the words of Jesus, married persons are in some sense no longer two, but joined into one. Therefore, Orthodox theologians also see the marriage relationship as an image, or "icon" of the Trinity, relationships of communion in which, in the words of St. Paul, participants are "members one of another". As with marriage, the unity of the church with Christ is similarly considered in some sense analogous to the unity of the Trinity, following the prayer of Jesus to the Father, for the church, that "they may be one, even as we are one".[John17:22][edit]Eternal generation and processionTrinitarianism affirms that the Son is "begotten" (or "generated") of the Father and that the Spirit "proceeds" from the Father, but the Father is "neither begotten nor proceeds". The argument over whether the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, or from the Father and the Son, was one of the catalysts of theGreat Schism, in this case concerning the Western addition of theFilioque clauseto theNicene Creed. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that, in the sense of theLatinverbprocedere(which does not have to indicate ultimate origin and is therefore compatible with proceedingthrough), but not in that of the Greek verb (which implies ultimate origin),[94]the Spirit "proceeds" from the Father and the Son (seeFilioque), and the Eastern Orthodox Church, which teaches that the Spirit "proceeds" from the Father alone, has made no statement on the claim of a difference in meaning between the two words, one Greek and one Latin, both of which are translated as "proceeds".This language is often considered difficult because, if used regarding humans or other created things, it would imply time and change; when used here, no beginning, change in being, or process within time is intended and is excluded. The Son is generated ("born" or "begotten"), and the Spirit proceeds, eternally.Augustine of Hippoexplains, "Thy years are one day, and Thy day is not daily, but today; because Thy today yields not to tomorrow, for neither does it follow yesterday. Thy today is eternity; therefore Thou begat the Co-eternal, to whom Thou saidst, 'This day have I begotten Thee."[Ps2:7][edit]Son begotten, not createdBecause the Son is begotten, not made, the substance of his person is that of the deity. The creation is brought into being through the Son, but the Son himself is not part of it except through his incarnation.The church fathers used severalanalogiesto express this thought. St.Irenaeus of Lyonswas the final major theologian of the 2nd century. He writes, "the Father is God, and the Son is God, for whatever is begotten of God is God." (CompareSpinoza's philosophy of God.)Extending the analogy, it might be said, similarly, that whatever is generated (procreated) of humans is human. Thus, given that humanity is, in the words of the Bible, "created in the image and likeness of God", an analogy can be drawn between the Divine Essence and human nature, between the Divine Persons and human persons. However, given the fall, this analogy is far from perfect, even though, like the Divine Persons, human persons are characterized by being "loci of relationship". For Trinitarian Christians, this analogy is important with regard to the Church, which St. Paul calls "the body of Christ" and whose members are, because they are "members of Christ", also "members one of another".However, an attempt to explain the mystery to some extent must break down, and has limited usefulness, being designed, not so much to fully explain the Trinity, but to point to the experience of communion with the Triune God within the church as the Body of Christ. The difference between those who believe in the Trinity and those who do not, is not an issue of understanding the mystery. The difference is primarily one of belief concerning the personal identity of Christ. It is a difference in conception of the salvation connected with Christ that drives all reactions, either favorable or unfavorable, to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. As it is, the doctrine of the Trinity is directly tied up withChristology.

Economic and ontological Trinity

Depiction of Trinity fromSaint Denis Basilicain Paris.Economic Trinity: This refers to the acts of the triune God with respect to the creation, history, salvation, the formation of the Church, the daily lives of believers, etc. and describes how the Trinity operates within history in terms of the roles or functions performed by each Person of the TrinityGod's relationship with creation.Ontological (or essential or immanent) Trinity: This speaks of the interior life of the Trinity[John1:12]the reciprocal relationships of Father, Son, and Spirit to each other without reference to God's relationship with creation.The ancient Nicene theologians argued that everything the Trinity does is done by Father, Son, and Spirit working together with one will. The three persons of the Trinity always work inseparably, for their work is always the work of the one God. Because of this unity of will, the Trinity cannot involve the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father. Eternal subordination can only exist if the Son's will is at least conceivably different from the Father's. But Nicene orthodoxy says it is not. The Son's will cannot be different from the Father's because it is the Father's. They have but one will as they have but one being. Otherwise they would not be one God. If there were relations of command and obedience between the Father and the Son, there would be no Trinity at all but rather three gods.[95]On this point St. Basil observes "When then He says, 'I have not spoken of myself,' and again, 'As the Father said unto me, so I speak,' and 'The word which ye hear is not mine, but [the Father's] which sent me,' and in another place, 'As the Father gave me commandment, even so I do,' it is not because He lacks deliberate purpose or power of initiation, nor yet because He has to wait for the preconcerted key-note, that he employs language of this kind. His object is to make it plain that His own will is connected in indissoluble union with the Father. Do not then let us understand by what is called a 'commandment' a peremptory mandate delivered by organs of speech, and giving orders to the Son, as to a subordinate, concerning what He ought to do. Let us rather, in a sense befitting the Godhead, perceive a transmission of will, like the reflexion of an object in a mirror, passing without note of time from Father to Son.."[96]In explaining why the Bible speaks of the Son as being subordinate to the Father, the great theologian Athanasius argued that scripture gives a "double account" of the son of Godone of his temporal and voluntary subordination in the incarnation, and the other of his eternal divine status.[97]For Athanasius, the Son is eternally one in being with the Father, temporally and voluntarily subordinate in his incarnate ministry. Such human traits, he argued, were not to be read back into the eternal Trinity.Like Athanasius, the Cappadocian Fathers also insisted there was no economic inequality present within the Trinity. As Basil wrote: "We perceive the operation of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be one and the same, in no respect showing differences or variation; from this identity of operation we necessarily infer the unity of nature."[98]Augustine also rejected an economic hierarchy within the Trinity. He claimed that the three persons of the Trinity "share the inseparable equality one substance present in divine unity".[99]Because the three persons are one in their inner life, this means that for Augustine their works in the world are one. For this reason, it is an impossibility for Augustine to speak of the Father commanding and the Son obeying as if there could be a conflict of wills within the eternal Trinity.John Calvinalso spoke at length about the doctrine of the Trinity. Like Athanasius and Augustine before him, he concluded thatPhilippians2:4-11prescribed how scripture was to be read correctly. For him the Son's obedience is limited to the incarnation and is indicative of his true humanity assumed for human salvation.[100]Much of this work is summed up in the Athanasian Creed. This creed stresses the unity of the Trinity and the equality of the persons. It ascribes equal divinity, majesty, and authority to all three persons. All three are said to be "almighty" and "Lord" (no subordination in authority; "none is before or after another" (no hierarchical ordering); and "none is greater, or less than another" (no subordination in being or nature). Thus, since the divine persons of the Trinity act with one will, there is no possibility of hierarchy-inequality in the Trinity.Catholic theologianKarl Rahnerwent so far as to say:"The 'economic' Trinity is the 'immanent' Trinity and the 'immanent' Trinity is the 'economic' Trinity."[101]Since the 1980s, some evangelical theologians have come to the conclusion that the members of the Trinity may be economically unequal while remaining ontologically equal. This theory was put forward by George W. Knight III in his 1977 book The New Testament Teaching on the Role Relationship of Men and Women, states that the Son of God is eternally subordinated in authority to God the Father.[102]This conclusion was used to support the main thesis of his book: that women are permanently subordinated in authority to their husbands in the home and to male leaders in the church, despite being ontologically equal. Subscribers to this theory insist that the Father has the role of giving commands and the Son has the role of obeying them.[edit]Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Protestant distinctionsThe Western (Roman Catholic) tradition is more prone to make positive statements concerning the relationship of persons in the Trinity. Explanations of the Trinity are not the same thing as the doctrine; nevertheless, the Augustinian West is inclined to think in philosophical terms concerning the rationality of God's being, and is prone on this basis to be more open than theEastto seek philosophical formulations which make the doctrine more intelligible, while recognizing that these formulations are onlyanalogies.Eastern Christianity, for its part, correlatesecclesiologyand Trinitarian doctrine, and seeks to understand the doctrine of the Trinity via the experience of the Church, which it understands to be "aniconof the Trinity". Therefore, when St. Paul writes concerning Christians that all are "members one of another", Eastern Christians in turn understand this as also applying to the Divine Persons.The principal disagreement between Western and Eastern Christianity on the Trinity has been the relationship of the Holy Spirit with the other two hypostases. The originalcredal formulationof theCouncil of Constantinoplewas that the Holy Spirit proceeds "from the Father". While this phrase is still used unaltered both in the Eastern Churches, including theEastern Catholic Churches, and, when the Nicene Creed is recited inGreek, in theLatin Church, it became customary in theLatin-speaking Church, beginning with the provincialThird Council of Toledoin 589, to add "and the Son" (LatinFilioque). Although this insertion into the Creed was explicitly vetoed byPope Leo III,[103]it was finally used in aPapal MassbyPope Benedict VIIIin 1014, thus completing its spread throughoutWestern Christianity. TheEastern Orthodox Churchesobject to it on ecclesiological and theological grounds, holding that "from the Father" means "from the Father alone", while in the West belief that the Holy Spirit "proceeds", in the Latin (and English) meaning of this word, "from the Father and the Son" had already been dogmatically declared to be orthodox faith in 447 byPope Leo I, the Pope whoseTomewas approved at theCouncil of Chalcedon,[104]and Pope Leo III, who opposed insertion of the phrase into the Nicene Creed, "affirmed the orthodoxy of the termFilioque, and approved its use in catechesis and personal professions of faith".[103]The 1978AnglicanLambeth Conferencerequested:that all member Churches of the Anglican Communion should consider omitting the Filioque from the Nicene Creed, and that the Anglican-Orthodox Joint Doctrinal Commission through the Anglican Consultative Council should assist them in presenting the theological issues to their appropriate synodical bodies and should be responsible for any necessary consultation with other Churches of the Western tradition.[105]None of the member Churches has implemented this request; but theChurch of England, while keeping the phrase in the Creed recited in its own services, presents in itsCommon Worshipseries of service books a text of the creed without it for use "on suitable ecumenical occasions".[106]Most Protestant groups that use the creed also include the Filioque clause. However, the issue is usually not controversial among them because their conception is often less exact than is discussed above (exceptions being the PresbyterianWestminster Confession2:3, theLondon Baptist Confession2:3, and the LutheranAugsburg Confession1:16, which specifically address those issues). The clause is often understood by Protestants to mean that the Spirit is sent from the Father, by the Son,[citation needed]a conception which is not controversial in either Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. A representative view of Protestant Trinitarian theology is more difficult to provide, given the diverse and decentralized nature of the various Protestant churches.Questions of logical coherencyIn contrast toJoachim of Fiore's historicization of the Trinity, there have been recent philosophical attempts to defend the logical coherency of Trinity by men such asPeter Geach. Regarding the formulation suggested by Geach, not all philosophers would agree with its logical coherency. Geach suggested that "a coherent statement of the doctrine is possible on the assumption that identity is "always relative to a sortal term".[107]The Canadian philosopher-theologian,Bernard Lonergan, has demonstrated by analogy with the operations of the human subject (the psychological analogy) the logical coherency of the Trinity. It is chiefly in his work "The Triune God: Systematics" that he draws on his abstract phenomenology to show this logical inner coherency in the Trinity doctrine. He sees himself as doing nothing more than standing in the tradition of Augustine and Aquinas on this issue and not based on the Bible.Most Christians, and probably the wide ecumenical consensus, foremost uphold the belief that God is One. "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one" (Deuteronomy 6:4). But how to reconcile the Trinity with a monotheistic faith? The wider ecumenical consensus has viewed God's unity "not as a unity of separable parts, but of distinguishable persons."[108]The Trinity is formed by three distinct persons, yet of one and the sameessence. Three persons, one God. To distinguish in what way God is One, and in what way God is Three, helps remove the logical contradiction. This has been upheld as the correct interpretation of the Apostolic teachings since the writings ofAthanasiusand theCouncil of Nicaeain AD 325.ArtSee also:God the Father in Western art

Holy Trinity,frescoby Luca Rossetti da Orta, 1738-9 (St. Gaudenzio Church atIvrea).The Trinity is most commonly seen in Christian art with the Spirit represented by a dove, as specified in the Gospel accounts of theBaptism of Christ; he is nearly always shown with wings outspread. However depictions using three human figures appear occasionally in most periods of art.[109]The Father and the Son are usually differentiated by age, and later by dress, but this too is not always the case. The usual depiction of the Father as an older man with a white beard may derive from the biblicalAncient of Days, which is often cited in defense of this sometimes controversial representation. However, inEastern Orthodoxythe Ancient of Days is usually understood to be God the Son, not God the Father (see below)earlyByzantineimages show Christ as the Ancient of Days,[110]but thisiconographybecame rare. When the Father is depicted in art, he is sometimes shown with ahaloshaped like anequilateral triangle, instead of a circle. The Son is often shown at the Father's right hand.[Acts7:56]He may be represented by a symboltypically the Lamb or a crossor on acrucifix, so that the Father is the only human figure shown at full size. In early medieval art, the Father may be represented by a hand appearing from a cloud in a blessing gesture, for example in scenes of theBaptism of Christ. Later, in the West, theThrone of Mercy(or "Throne of Grace") became a common depiction. In this style, the Father (sometimes seated on athrone) is shown supporting either acrucifix[111]or, later, a slumped crucified Son, similar to thePiet(this type is distinguished in German as theNot Gottes)[112]in his outstretched arms, while the Dove hovers above or in between them. This subject continued to be popular until the 18th century at least.By the end of the 15th century, larger representations, other than the Throne of Mercy, became effectively standardised, showing an older figure in plain robes for the Father, Christ with his torso partly bare to display the wounds of his Passion, and the dove above or around them. In earlier representations both Father, especially, and Son often wear elaborate robes and crowns. Sometimes the Father alone wears a crown, or even apapal tiara.

Eastern Orthodox tradition

Old Testament TrinityiconbyAndrey Rublev, c. 1400 (Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow)Direct representations of the Trinity are much rarer inEastern Orthodoxart of any periodreservations about depicting the Father remain fairly strong, as they were in the West until the high Middle Ages. TheSecond Council of Niceain 787 confirmed that the depiction of Christ was allowed because he became man; the situation regarding the Father was less clear. The usualOrthodox representationof the Trinity was through the "Old Testament Trinity" of the three angels visiting Abrahamsaid in the text to be "the Lord"[Genesis18:1-15]. However scholars generally agree that the direct representation of the Trinity began in Greek works from the 11th century onwards, where Christ is shown as an infant sitting on the Father's lap, with the Dove of the Holy Spirit also present. Such depictions spread to the West and became the standard type there, though with an adult Christ, as described above. This type later spread back to the Orthodox world wherepost-Byzantinerepresentations similar to those in the West are not uncommon outside Russia.[113]The subject long remained sensitive, and theRussian Orthodox Churchat the Great Synod of Moscow in 1667 finally forbade depictions of the Father in human form. The canon is quoted in full here because it explains the Russian Orthodox theology on the subject:Chapter 2, 44:It is most absurd and improper to depict iniconstheLord Sabaoth(that is to say,God the Father) with a grey beard and the Only-Begotten Son in His bosom with a dove between them, because no-one has seen the Father according to His Divinity, and the Father has no flesh, nor was the Son born in the flesh from the Father before the ages. And thoughDavidtheprophetsays, "From the womb before the morning star have I begotten Thee"[Psalm109:3], that birth was not fleshly, but unspeakable and incomprehensible. For Christ Himself says in the holy Gospel, "No man hath seen the Father, save the Son".cf.[John6:46]AndIsaiahthe prophet says in his fortieth chapter: "To whom have ye likened the Lord? and with what likeness have ye made a similitude of Him? Has not the artificier of wood made an image, or the goldsmiths, having melted gold, gilt it over, and made it a similitude?"[Isa40:18-19]In like manner theApostle Paulsays in Acts[Acts17:29]"Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold or silver or stone, graven by art of man's imagination." AndJohn Damascenesays: "But furthermore, who can make a similitude of the invisible, incorporeal, uncircumscribed and undepictable God? It is, then, uttermost insanity and impiety to give a form to the Godhead" (Orthodox Faith, 4:16). In like manner St.Gregory the Dialogistprohibits this. For this reason we should only form an understanding in the mind of Sabaoth, which is the Godhead, and of that birth before the ages of the Only-Begotten-Son from the Father, but we should never, in any wise depict these in icons, for this, indeed, is impossible. And the Holy Spirit is not in essence a dove, but in essence he is God, and "No man hath seen God", asJohn the TheologianandEvangelistbears witness[John1:18]and this is so even though, at theJordanatChrist's holy Baptismthe Holy Spirit appeared in the likeness of a dove. For this reason, it is fitting on this occasion only to depict the Holy Spirit in the likeness of a dove. But in any other place those who have intelligence will not depict the Holy Spirit in the likeness of a dove. For onMount Tabor, He appeared as a cloud and, at another time, in other ways. Furthermore, Sabaoth is the name not only of the Father, but of the Holy Trinity. According toDionysios the Areopagite, Lord Sabaoth, translated from the Jewish tongue, means "Lord of Hosts". This Lord of Hosts is the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And althoughDanielthe prophet says that he beheld theAncient of Dayssitting on a throne, this should not be understood to refer to the Father, but to the Son, Who at His second coming will judge every nation at the dreadful Judgment.[114]Oriental Orthodox traditionsTheCoptic Orthodox Churchnever depicts God the Father in art although he may be identified by an area of brightness within art such as the heavenly glow at the top of some icons of the baptism of the Lord Jesus Christ. TheSyrian,Armenian,IndianandBritishOrthodox Churchesappear to follow the same practice[citation needed].In contrast, theEthiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Churchhas many ancient icons depicting the Holy Trinity as three distinct Persons.[115][116]These icons often depict all Three Persons sitting upon a single throne to signify unity. TheEritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Churchfollows the same practice.Scenes

Trefoilandtriangleinterlaced.Only a few of the standard scenes in Christian art normally included a representation of the Trinity. The accounts in the Gospels of the Baptism of Christ were considered to show all three persons as present with a separate role. Sometimes the other two persons are shown at the top of a crucifixion. TheCoronation of the Virgin, a popular subject in the West, often included the whole Trinity. But many subjects, such asChrist in Majestyor theLast Judgement, which might be thought to require depiction of the deity in the most amplified form, only show Christ. There is a rare subject where the persons of the Trinity make the decision to incarnate Christ, orGod sending out the Son. Even more rarely, the Angel of the Annunciation is shown being given the mission.[117]Less common types of depictionEspecially in the 15th century, and in the less public form ofilluminated manuscripts, there was experimentation with many solutions to the issues of depicting the three persons of the Trinity. The depiction of the Trinity as threeidenticalpersons is rare, because each Person of the Trinity is considered to have distinct attributes. Nonetheless, the earliest known depiction ofGod the Fatheras a human figure, on the 4th centuryDogmatic Sarcophagus, shows the Trinity as three similar bearded men creatingEvefromAdam, probably with the intention of affirming theconsubstantialityrecently madedogmain theNicene Creed. There are many similar sarcophagi, and occasional images at intervals until a revival of the iconography in the 15th century.[118]Even rarer is the depiction of the Trinity as a single anthropoid figure with three faces (Latin "Vultus Trifrons"), because the Trinity is defined as three persons in one Godhead, not one Person with three attributes (this would implyModalism, which is defined asheresyin traditionalChristian orthodoxy). Such "Cerberus" depictions of the Trinity as three faces on one head were mainly made among Catholics during the 15th to 17th centuries, but were condemned after the CatholicCouncil of Trent, and again by Pope Urban VIII in 1628,[119]and many existing images were destroyed.The Trinity may also be represented abstractly bysymbols, such as thetriangle(or three triangles joined together),trefoilor thetriquetraor a combination of these. Sometimes a halo is incorporated into these symbols. The use of such symbols are often found not only in painting but also inneedleworkontapestries,vestmentsandantependia, inmetalworkand inarchitecturaldetails.GalleryDifferent depictionsFour 15th century depictions of theCoronation of the Virginshow the main ways of depicting the persons of the Trinity.

The conventional depiction, with older Father, dove, and Christ showing the wounds of his Passion

Enguerrand Quartonwith Christ and God the Father as identical figures, and a dove, as specified by the cleric who commissioned the work

Page fromBook of Hours, with three differentiated human figures for the Trinity

Jean Fouquet, also with three human figures, but identical.Depictions using two different human figures and a dove

"Throne of Mercy", Gothic, Sweden

Not Gottes,Bernt Notkec. 1483 (St.-Annen-Kloster,Lbeck)

"Throne of Mercy",Albrecht Drer, 1511

"Gottes Not", Jan Polack (Polish artist working Germany), 1491

"Gottes Not",Jusepe de Ribera, ca. 1635

Icon of the Holy Trinity atVatopediMonastery,Mount Athos

Michael DamaskenosIcon of theHoly Liturgy, from the 16th centuryCretan school, showing Western stylistic influence.

Baroque Trinity,Hendrick van Balen, 1620, (Sint-Jacobskerk,Antwerp)

Wall Painting inGeorgia's ancient Monastery, Shio-MghvimeOther depictions

Holy Trinityby Fridolin Leiber (18531912)

Allegory of the Holy Trinity, painted as three faces fused in one, medievalfrescoinPerugia

Trinity, XV century fresco, Castelletto Cervo (Vercelli,Italy), St Peter and St. Paul Church

Holy TrinitybyM.Presnyakov (inspired by Andrei Rublev's famous icon)

Holy Trinity Image, Quasi-Parish of Santissima Trinidad,Malolos City,Philippines[1].

MysticismThe Catholic nunAnne Catherine Emmerichsaid that as a child she had had visions, in which she had seen the core of the Holy Trinity in the form of three concentric interpenetrating spheres - the biggest but less lit sphere represented the Father core, the medium sphere the Son core, and the smallest and brightest sphere as the Holy Spirit.Non-orthodoxyNon-orthodox views of the Christian trinitarian God have also been suggested byprocess theologianslike Lewis S. Ford, who endorse the entitative view of God as timeless and eternalconcrescence, but interpret theWhiteheadiannatures of God (primordial nature, consequent nature, and superjective nature) in a trinitarian way. Other process theologians likeJoseph A. Brackenconsider the three divines persons, each understood in the Neo-Whiteheadian societal view of God sensuCharles HartshorneandDavid Ray Griffin, as constituting a primordial field of divine activity.NontrinitarianismMain article:NontrinitarianismSome Christian traditions either reject the doctrine of the Trinity or consider it unimportant. Persons and groups espousing this position generally do not refer to themselves as "Nontrinitarians". They can vary in both their reasons for rejecting traditional teaching on the Trinity, and in the way they describe God.GroupsHistorySince Trinitarianism is central to so much of Catholic and Orthodox church doctrine, Christian nontrinitarians were mostly groups that exist