document_title: United States one hundred-dollar bill

question_text: when did they start putting security strips in money

root

text: United States one hundred-dollar bill

text: Large size note history[edit]

text: (approximately 7.4218 × 3.125 in ≅ 189 × 79 mm)

tag: p

text:
1861: Three-year 100-dollar Interest Bearing Notes were issued that paid 7.3% interest per year. These notes were not primarily designed to circulate and were payable to the original purchaser of the dollar bill. The obverse of the note featured a portrait of General Winfield Scott.
1862: The first $100 United States Note was issued. Variations of this note were issued that resulted in slightly different wording (obligations) on the reverse; the note was issued again in Series of 1863.
1863: Both one and two and one half year Interest Bearing Notes were issued that paid 5% interest. The one-year Interest Bearing Notes featured a vignette of George Washington in the center, and allegorical figures representing "The Guardian" to the right and "Justice" to the left. The two-year notes featured a vignette of the U.S. treasury building in the center, a farmer and mechanic to the left, and sailors firing a cannon to the right.
1863: The first $100 Gold Certificates were issued with a bald eagle to the left and large green 100 in the middle of the obverse. The reverse was distinctly printed in orange instead of green like all other U.S. federal government issued notes of the time.
1864: Compound Interest Treasury Notes were issued that were intended to circulate for three years and paid 6% interest compounded semi-annually. The obverse is similar to the 1863 one-year Interest Bearing Note.
1869: A new $100 United States Note was issued with a portrait of Abraham Lincoln on the left of the obverse and an allegorical figure representing architecture on the right. Although this note is technically a United States Note, TREASURY NOTE appeared on it instead of UNITED STATES NOTE.
1870: A new $100 Gold Certificate with a portrait of Thomas Hart Benton on the left side of the obverse was issued. The note was one-sided.
1870: One hundred dollar National Gold Bank Notes were issued specifically for payment in gold coin by participating national gold banks. The obverse featured vignettes of Perry leaving the USS St. Lawrence and an allegorical figure to the right; the reverse featured a vignette of U.S. gold coins.
1875: The reverse of the Series of 1869 United States Note was redesigned. Also, TREASURY NOTE was changed to UNITED STATES NOTE on the obverse. This note was issued again in Series of 1878 and Series of 1880.
1878: The first $100 silver certificate was issued with a portrait of James Monroe on the left side of the obverse. The reverse was printed in black ink, unlike any other U.S. Federal Government issued bill.
1882: A new and revised $100 Gold Certificate was issued. The obverse was partially the same as the Series 1870 gold certificate; the border design, portrait of Thomas H. Benton, and large word GOLD, and gold-colored ink behind the serial numbers were all retained. The reverse featured a perched bald eagle and the Roman numeral for 100, C.
1890: One hundred dollar Treasury or "Coin Notes" were issued for government purchases of silver bullion from the silver mining industry. The note featured a portrait of Admiral David G. Farragut. The note was also nicknamed a "watermelon note" because of the watermelon-shaped 0's in the large numeral 100 on the reverse; the large numeral 100 was surrounded by an ornate design that occupied almost the entire note.
1891: The reverse of the Series of 1890 Treasury Note was redesigned because the Treasury felt that it was too "busy" which would make it too easy to counterfeit. More open space was incorporated into the new design.
1891: The obverse of the $100 Silver Certificate was slightly revised with some aspects of the design changed. The reverse was completely redesigned and also began to be printed in green ink.
1914: The first $100 Federal Reserve Note was issued with a portrait of Benjamin Franklin on the obverse and allegorical figures representing labor, plenty, America, peace, and commerce on the reverse.
1922: The Series of 1880 Gold Certificate was re-issued with an obligation to the right of the bottom-left serial number on the obverse.

tag: ul

text: Small size note history[edit]

text: (6.14 × 2.61 in ≅ 157 × 66 mm)

text:
1929: Under the Series of 1928, all U.S. currency was changed to its current size and began to carry a standardized design. All variations of the $100 bill would carry the same portrait of Benjamin Franklin, same border design on the obverse, and the same reverse with a vignette of Independence Hall. The $100 bill was issued as a Federal Reserve Note with a green seal and serial numbers and as a Gold Certificate with a golden seal and serial numbers.
1933: As an emergency response to the Great Depression, additional money was pumped into the American economy through Federal Reserve Bank Notes issued under Series of 1929. This was the only small-sized $100 bill that had a slightly different border design on the obverse. The serial numbers and seal on it were brown.
1934: The redeemable in gold clause was removed from Federal Reserve Notes due to the U.S. withdrawing from the gold standard.
1934: Special $100 Gold Certificates were issued for non-public, Federal Reserve bank-to-bank transactions. These notes featured a reverse printed in orange instead of green like all other small-sized notes. The wording on the obverse was also changed to ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS IN GOLD PAYABLE TO THE BEARER ON DEMAND AS AUTHORIZED BY LAW.
1950: Many minor aspects on the obverse of the $100 Federal Reserve Note were changed. Most noticeably, the treasury seal, gray numeral 100, and the Federal Reserve Seal were made smaller; also, the Federal Reserve Seal had spikes added around it.
1963: Because dollar bills were no longer redeemable in silver, beginning with Series 1963A, WILL PAY TO THE BEARER ON DEMAND was removed from the obverse of the $100 Federal Reserve Note and the obligation was shortened to its current wording, THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE. Also, IN GOD WE TRUST was added to the reverse.
1966: The first and only small-sized $100 United States Note was issued with a red seal and serial numbers. It was the first of all United States currency to use the new U.S. treasury seal with wording in English instead of Latin. Like the Series 1963 $2 and $5 United States Notes, it lacked WILL PAY TO THE BEARER ON DEMAND on the obverse and featured the motto IN GOD WE TRUST on the reverse. The $100 United States Note was issued due to legislation that specified a certain dollar amount of United States Notes that were to remain in circulation. Because the $2 and $5 United States Notes were soon to be discontinued, the dollar amount of United States Notes would drop, thus warranting the issuing of this note.
1990: The first new-age anti-counterfeiting measures were introduced under Series 1990 with microscopic printing around Franklin's portrait and a metallic security strip on the left side of the bill.
March 25, 1996: The first major design change since 1929 took place with the adoption of a contemporary style layout. The main intent of the new design was to deter counterfeiting. New security features included a watermark of Franklin to the right side of the bill, optically variable ink (OVI) that changed from green to black when viewed at different angles, a higher quality and enlarged portrait of Franklin, and hard-to-reproduce fine line printing around Franklin's portrait and Independence Hall. Older security features such as interwoven red and blue silk fibers, microprinting, and a plastic security thread (which now glows pink [nominally red] under a black light) were kept. The individual Federal Reserve Bank Seal was changed to a unified Federal Reserve Seal along with an additional prefix letter being added to the serial number, w. The first of the Series 1996 bills were produced in October 1995.[7]
February 2007: The first $100 bills (a shipment of 128,000 star notes from the San Francisco FRB) from the Western Currency Facility in Fort Worth, Texas are produced, almost 16 years after the first notes from the facility were produced. The shipment makes the $100 bill the most recently added production to the facility's lineup. 4.6 billion notes were produced at the facility with series 2006 and Cabral and Paulson signatures, including about 4.15 million star notes.[8]
October 8, 2013: The newest $100 bill was announced on April 21, 2010, and entered circulation on October 8, 2013.[4] In addition to design changes introduced in 1996, the obverse features the brown quill that was used to sign the Declaration of Independence; faint phrases from the Declaration of Independence; a bell in the inkwell that appears and disappears depending on the angle at which the bill is viewed; teal background color; a borderless portrait of Benjamin Franklin; a blue "3D security ribbon" (trademarked "Motion" by Crane Currency[9]) on which images of Liberty Bells shift into numerical designations of "100" as the note is tilted; and to the left of Franklin, small yellow 100s whose zeros form the EURion constellation. The reverse features small yellow EURion 100s and has the fine lines removed from around the vignette of Independence Hall. These notes were issued as Series 2009A with Rios-Geithner signatures. Many of these changes are intended not only to thwart counterfeiting but to also make it easier to quickly check authenticity and help vision impaired people.[10]

text:
Both views (obverse and reverse) of the Series 1934 $100 Gold Certificate.

Front of a Series 1966 $100 United States note.

Obverse of a Series 2006A $100 note.

Joseph-Siffred Duplessis portrait of Benjamin Franklin used on the $100 bill from 1929 until 1996.

H.B.Hall engraving of Joseph-Siffred Duplessis portrait of an older Benjamin Franklin used on the $100 bill 1996 onward.

Comparison between a Series 1990 note with a 2013 note (1996 design not shown).

text: Removal of large denomination bills ($500 and up)[edit]

text: The Federal Reserve announced the removal of large denominations of United States currency from circulation on July 14, 1969. The one-hundred-dollar bill was the largest denomination left in circulation. All the Federal Reserve Notes produced from Series 1928 up to before Series 1969 (i.e. 1928, 1928A, 1934, 1934A, 1934B, 1934C, 1934D, 1950, 1950A, 1950B, 1950C, 1950D, 1950E, 1963, 1966, 1966A) of the $100 denomination added up to $23.1708 billion.[11] Since some banknotes had been destroyed, and the population was 200 million at the time, there was less than one $100 banknote per capita circulating.

text: As of June 30, 1969, the U.S. coins and banknotes in circulation of all denominations were worth $50.936 billion of which $4.929 billion was circulating overseas.[12] So the currency and coin circulating within the United States was $230 per capita. Since 1969, the demand for U.S. currency has greatly increased. The total amount of circulating currency and coin passed one trillion dollars in March 2011.

text: Despite the degradation in the value of the U.S. $100 banknote (which was worth more in 1969 than a U.S. $500 note would be worth today), and despite competition from some more valuable foreign notes (most notably, the 500 euro banknote), there are no plans to re-issue banknotes above $100. The widespread use of electronic means to conduct high-value transactions today has made large-scale physical cash transactions obsolete and therefore, from the government's point of view, unnecessary for the conduct of legitimate business. Quoting T. Allison, Assistant to the Board of the Federal Reserve System in his October 8, 1998 testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Committee on Banking and Financial Services:

text: There are public policies against reissuing the $500 note, mainly because many of those efficiency gains, such as lower shipment and storage costs, would accrue not only to legitimate users of bank notes but also to money launderers, tax evaders and a variety of other lawbreakers who use currency in their criminal activity. While it is not at all clear that the volume of illegal drugs sold or the amount of tax evasion would necessarily increase just as a consequence of the availability of a larger dollar denomination bill, it no doubt is the case that if wrongdoers were provided with an easier mechanism to launder their funds and hide their profits, enforcement authorities could have a harder time detecting certain illicit transactions occurring in cash.[13]


document_title: Jim Halpert

question_text: where does jim go to work in the office

question_tokens: where does jim go to work in the office

text: Jim Halpert

text: Biography[edit]

text: Jim Halpert was born on October 1, 1978, to Gerald and Betsy Halpert. He has two brothers, Pete and Tom, who share his general love of pranks but have come across as unpleasant and somewhat bullying towards their little brother. Jim's parents presumably live in Scranton as well, as his sister Larissa and best friend Alan Murphy are listed as his emergency contact at Dunder Mifflin. While Pete and Tom have been seen on the show a few times, Larissa has not.[4] He has a niece, Vanessa,[5] and a nephew old enough to play T-ball.[6] In "Branch Wars", while he is not specific on which brother he is referring to, he states that his brother's wife just had another baby.[7] Jim enjoys cycling,[8] and, as he reveals in a deleted scene from "Take Your Daughter to Work Day", at times, will babysit Toby Flenderson's daughter, Sasha.[9] He also lists soft-shell crab as his favorite food.[10] Jim has noted that basketball "Was kind of [his] thing" in high school.[11] Although no high school is specifically named by Jim, both Dunmore High School (as evidenced in a deleted scene from "Product Recall" where, during a business visit, he asks a high school student about a former teacher) and West Scranton High School (as evidenced when, during "Email Surveillance", Pam holds up his yearbook displaying their mascot name, Invaders, across the front) are referenced in separate episodes. In the Episode "Dwight's Speech", Jim tells Dwight that he majored in Public Speaking, however, he later denies this.[12] Jim began working at Dunder Mifflin between 1998 and 1999 (as evidenced in "Pilot", and "The Merger", where Jim says that he still loves when Michael says, "Wazzup!" crazily after seven years, and that on his first day at work Michael played an orientation video which parodied The Blair Witch Project).[13]

text: In several episodes, it is stated that Jim is a fan of the Philadelphia Phillies, Philadelphia Eagles and the Philadelphia 76ers. Jim appears to be a fan of hip-hop, specifically Eminem as Pam mentions him listening to the 8 Mile Soundtrack on his iPod in "The Delivery". Apparently, he is of Scottish descent, as in "Niagara", his father can be seen wearing a kilt to his son's wedding to Pam.[14] In the episode "Weight Loss", it is revealed that his screen name for AIM is JIM9334.[6]

text: Though Jim loves to play pranks on Dwight, he is shown to have some things in common with his nemesis, such as a knowledge of comic books and an appreciation for the sci-fi/fantasy genre; as demonstrated in "Take Your Daughter To Work Day" when Jim and Dwight correct Michael on details about Superman and Aquaman.[15] Despite their frequent conflicts, Jim and Dwight are also shown to be an extremely competent sales team in "Traveling Salesmen".[16]

text: He and Pam share a 2010 Subaru Outback. Prior to getting engaged to Pam, Jim previously drove a 2008 Saab 9-3, 2006 Saab 9-2x and 2005 Toyota Corolla.

text: Character history[edit]

text: Seasons 1–3[edit]

text: Jim Halpert is first introduced in the "Pilot". He is adamant throughout the series about his job as a salesman at Dunder Mifflin Paper being a temporary one, saying, "Right now, this is just a job. If I advance any higher, this would be my career. And if this were my career, I'd have to throw myself in front of a train."[3] This outlook is most apparent in the elaborate pranks that he plays on his workmates, primarily Dwight, as well as his sarcastic remarks and facial expressions to the film crew and his provoking comments during often ridiculous employee meetings. However, he succeeds professionally and is consistently one of the best salesmen. This is presumably because, as Pam mentioned later, "everybody likes Jim".

text: A major part of the character Jim Halpert is his relationship with Pam Beesly, which is often the subject of office speculation. This is made worse by the fact that Pam was engaged to Roy Anderson, a Dunder Mifflin warehouse worker. Throughout the first two seasons, incidents such as Pam falling asleep on Jim's shoulder in "Diversity Day" and drunkenly kissing him in "The Dundies" show a possibility of the feelings being mutual; however, Pam never acts on them and she remains engaged to Roy. On one occasion, in "The Fight," his flirting with her goes a little too far, when Meredith looks over to see him play-fighting with her, causing her to shut him down immediately, startling him with her abruptness, though she eventually forgives him. He becomes so upset when he hears Pam discuss wedding details that he calls a travel agency and schedules a trip to Australia, deliberately making himself unable to attend the wedding. Feeling bored by his job, tortured by his situation with Pam, and guilty about a stack of complaints Dwight has filed against him, Jim investigates a transfer to Dunder Mifflin's branch in Stamford, Connecticut. In the season 2 finale, "Casino Night", he confesses his love for Pam in the office. Pam, whose wedding to Roy was planned out and just weeks away, clearly shows her anguish but gently turns him down. Jim tearfully walks away, later kisses her in the office, and the season ends. In the third season premiere "Gay Witch Hunt", it is revealed that he did transfer to Stamford despite the fact that Pam has called off her wedding and he clearly still harbors intense feelings for her. His reason is later stated as "It's just, I kinda put it all on the line. Twice. And she said no. Twice." in "The Convention".

text: Though in later seasons, after Ryan Howard's promotion, the relationship between him and Jim seems to be tense, in earlier seasons the two seem to be friendly. In "Casino Night", they are shown talking, laughing and drinking together.

text: Throughout season 2, Jim dates Katy, who initially appeared in season 1 as the "Purse Girl" in "Hot Girl". After Jim and Katy split up in "Booze Cruise", he leaves a message asking out a fellow Dunder Mifflin employee named Brenda, much to Kelly's disbelief. Jim's misfortunes are assumed to be because he is unable to get over Pam. However, things begin to look up for Jim as he befriends salesperson Karen Filippelli in Stamford, and when the company board of directors decides to close the Scranton branch, Jim is named Assistant Regional Manager of the newly created "Dunder Mifflin Northeast". However the company's plans change when Stamford regional manager Josh Porter accepts a job at Staples. The Stamford branch then closes, with a few employees being offered a transfer to Scranton. The offer to Jim to be Assistant Regional Manager stands, though now at Scranton. Jim is at first unwilling to return to Scranton because of Pam but eventually decides to do so. Karen, who has grown fond of Jim and wishes to pursue a relationship with him, also transfers to Scranton.

text: In "The Merger", Jim's and Pam's reunion is awkward. Pam is overjoyed, but Jim is clearly uncomfortable. He lets Pam know that he is seeing someone, and gradually Karen is introduced as his girlfriend. As Jim settles back in at Scranton, he uses his promotion as an excuse to avoid his old interactions and pranks with Pam, claiming that pulling pranks is not appropriate for his position. However, in time, Jim does return to his old ways, especially targeting Andy Bernard, a Stamford transfer, and Dwight.

text: Toward the middle of the season, it becomes clear that Jim's unresolved feelings toward Pam are affecting his relationship with Karen. In "The Return", Jim decides to pull a prank on Andy; however, Karen is unable and Ryan unwilling to aid him, so he turns to Pam, who readily agrees. Their interaction during the prank causes Karen to feel threatened. She confronts Jim, and he finally admits to still having feelings for Pam. Despite this fact, their relationship continues.

text: In "Cocktails", Roy trashes the bar when Pam tells him she kissed Jim during "Casino Night". Roy then attempts to attack Jim at work in "The Negotiation", but Dwight sprays Roy with pepper spray. Roy is fired, but when Pam assures Jim that it is over between her and Roy for good, Jim doesn't believe it and tells her so.

text: In "Beach Games", during a company outing at the beach, Pam confesses to Jim in front of everyone that he was the reason she broke off her wedding to Roy. She also states that she has missed their friendship since he left Scranton for Stamford. Later that night, Jim tells Pam that he feels as if he never really came back from Stamford, tacitly admitting that he has actively been fighting his feelings for her all year. However, Jim's relationship with Karen and pending interview for a corporate position which would require his relocation to New York City, still obstruct a potential romance.

text: In "The Job", Jim, Karen, and Michael each interview for the corporate position. During the interview, he notices a caring note from Pam in his briefcase. After the interview he drives back to Scranton, leaving Karen without a ride. Back at the Scranton office, Pam is describing her lack of satisfaction with the current state of her relationship with Jim. Jim then suddenly interrupts the session to ask her to dinner, much to her surprise. She becomes flustered and overjoyed, and accepts the invitation. Jim replies "All right. Then... it's a date," and leaves abruptly. Pam turns back to the camera, smiling, only to ask, "What was the question?" In a webisode titled "Office Summer Vacation", found on NBC's website, Karen states that Jim "dumped my ass" and left her crying at a fountain.

text: Seasons 4–6[edit]

text: In the season premiere, "Fun Run", Pam and Jim reveal to the camera crew that they have been dating for a few months and are very happy. In the episode "Chair Model", Jim reveals his plan to propose to Pam, showing the camera crew a diamond ring, explaining that "[he] got it a week after [they] started dating".

text: In "Local Ad", Jim develops an avatar of himself for Dwight's game Second Life. Pam notes that his online alter-ego plays guitar and is a Philadelphia sports writer, implicitly revealing Jim's lesser known aspirations, and a callback to "Email Surveillance" from Season 2, in which he has a guitar in his bedroom.

text: In the episodes "Survivor Man" and "Night Out", Jim takes on his role as manager while Michael is out of the office. Both times, however, his attempts at making the office better go awry. Ryan, annoyed by Jim's popularity with his boss David Wallace, gives Jim a performance warning in "Did I Stutter?", citing "goofing off with Dwight" and "spending time at reception" as productivity problems, despite his high sale numbers.

text: Though early on in the series Jim drives a Toyota Corolla, he, during this time, drives late model Saabs, including the Saab 9-2x and top line Saab 9-3 Aero then a Subaru Outback. He mentions in "Niagara" that he has been able to drive a standard transmission since high school.

text: In "Goodbye, Toby", Jim shows his happiness and support for Pam getting into the Pratt Institute, where she will be for the next three months. He plans to propose at Toby's going away party, until Andy proposes in front of everybody to Angela, who accepts. Jim puts his ring back in his pocket and postpones the engagement. Instead, he proposes during the season 5 premiere, "Weight Loss", during a rainy last minute lunch date at an Interstate rest stop between Scranton and New York City, where Pam is attending Pratt.

text: Jim and Pam keep in touch during her time at art school via webcam, instant messaging and frequent phone calls. Jim eagerly awaits Pam's return in "Business Trip". He is sad but supportive when Pam calls, saying she has failed a class and can't come home yet. That afternoon he finds Pam waiting in the parking lot, claiming that she hated art school anyway. He purchases his parents' house and begins to take his career more seriously than in previous episodes. When new Vice President Charles Miner (Idris Elba) arrives at the office to oversee Michael, he and Jim immediately clash as Charles condescends to, and dismisses Jim as an underachiever and a smartass with a "made up position". Charles scoffs when Jim is invited to sit in on a meeting with David Wallace about the Michael Scott Paper Company. However, Jim comes off as intelligent and professional, and persuades Michael to be bought out. In the process, he finally stands up to Charles after Charles kisses up to their boss, prompting Jim to make a snide remark to his face. Upon realizing Dwight's incompetence during the meeting, Charles encourages Jim to speak to Michael. As a new receptionist has already been hired, Pam is re-hired in sales alongside Jim.

text: During "Company Picnic", Pam injures her ankle during a volleyball game and Jim takes her to the hospital. The camera crew is stationed outside an exam room while a doctor updates Jim and Pam on her condition. There is no audio as the camera shows Jim and Pam suddenly embracing, looking shocked and ecstatic, before Jim emerges to call Dwight and inform him they won't be returning to the game. It is heavily implied that Pam is pregnant, and the pregnancy is confirmed in the Season 6 premiere, "Gossip".

text: Jim is promoted to Regional Co-Manager, alongside Michael, in "The Meeting." His promotion causes problems in the office as the staff doesn't take him seriously and he is often in a power struggle with Michael. When Dunder Mifflin files for bankruptcy and is taken over by Sabre, a company that sells printers, Jim chooses to become a salesman again (largely because Sabre's uncapped commission means a huge pay increase).

text: Jim and Pam marry in the highly anticipated, hour-long episode, "Niagara". When their guests' craziness threatens to ruin the wedding day, they run off and are privately married on the "Maid of the Mist" before returning to take part in their planned church wedding. Their daughter, Cecelia Marie Halpert (named after Jenna Fischer's niece who was born the day they shot "The Delivery") is born in another hour-long episode several months later, in "The Delivery".

text: Season 7[edit]

text: In season 7, some of Jim's vulnerabilities are displayed. Jim displays some mild jealousy when he meets Danny Cordray, a superior paper salesman who went on a few dates with Pam while he was in Stamford. In "Costume Contest", after hearing that Danny never called Pam back because she was too "dorky" for him, Jim is inspired to dress up in his Popeye costume for her (who is dressed as Olive Oyl), which he was initially reluctant to do, marking the first time he is seen dressed up in an actual costume. In "Classy Christmas", Jim falls victim to numerous snowball-themed pranks devised by Dwight. Jim is humiliated by being forced to feed Dwight a pizza and a beer in "Viewing Party" in order to get him to get Cece to sleep for the night.

text: His sales skills remain strong, when in "WUPHF.com" it is revealed that he has already maxed out his sales cap for the year and cannot make any more commissions, leading him to seek goofy respite in the office until Gabe Lewis chides him to stop bothering everyone. Since Gabe was unsympathetic to Jim's situation, Jim then sets up a prank that ends with Gabe being forced to listen to Jo Bennett's entire boring autobiography. In "The Seminar" it is revealed he has had the highest sales out of the entire Scranton branch for at least three months running.

text: In "Todd Packer", when Todd comes to Dunder Mifflin looking for a desk job in the office and gets hired, Dwight and Jim pull off a joint scheme to get him to leave the office.

text: In "Goodbye, Michael", Jim is the only one to figure out that Michael is leaving earlier than he said and opts to stay quiet to let Michael leave, but he tells Pam so she can get to him at the airport before he leaves. He also emotionally tells Michael he's been the best boss he's ever had, and they part on good terms.

text: In "Training Day", Jim and Pam try to make a good first impression on their new boss Deangelo Vickers. They believe they have started off well by showing him pictures of their baby, but Deangelo soon gets annoyed with them. In "The Inner Circle", Jim is shown to be one of Deangelo's favorites among the staff. He is temporarily banned from Deangelo's inner circle when he speaks up for the women after they object to Deangelo's sexist attitude. Jim later calls Deangelo out after the boss brags about a Michael Jordan jump shot he can perform, which causes a traumatic brain injury and leaves Deangelo in a coma.

text: In "Dwight K. Schrute, (Acting) Manager", Jo Bennett offers Jim the position of interim manager after Deangelo is gone, which Jim rejects. Jo later calls Jim as "the only man who turned me down".

text: In "Search Committee", Jim is one of three people scouting for Michael (and Deangelo)'s replacement. Creed is the interim regional manager, so this speeds up the process (since Creed is incompetent).[17]

text: Season 8–9[edit]

text: Early in season 8, it is revealed that Jim will be a father for the second time as Pam is expecting a son (where Pam jokingly calls him "Little Michael Scott"). Pam and Jim were blessed with the off-camera delivery of Philip Halpert around the midseason mark, and Jim brought Philip into the office to try and mend relations with his angry co-workers (he had lied about spending a full week on jury duty, having actually been dismissed on the first morning, and ended up spending the week helping an overwhelmed Pam take care of their two young children). Jim also had to deal with a crush from co-worker Cathy Simms, who unsuccessfully tried to seduce him while they were part of the Sabre Store team in Tallahassee.

text: In "New Guys", Jim reveals that he was given an offer to help his friend start a sports marketing company in Philadelphia called Athlead. At first he turns it down, but later reveals that he accepted the offer. Pam doesn't find out until "Andy's Ancestry", and although she is supportive, she is later concerned about Jim not having told her sooner and about how much money he has put into it. Jim gets permission from David Wallace to take up the second job, and in "The Target" he convinces Stanley and Phyllis to agree to cover his duties on the days that he is away.

text: In "Suit Warehouse", Jim offers Darryl a chance to join him at the new job and although Darryl has a disastrous interview, he does get the position thanks to Jim's recommendation. Later, Jim and Darryl become roommates although in "Vandalism" Darryl is annoyed at Jim's messy and sloppy living habits.

text: Jim's weekly commute to Philadelphia causes increasing strain on his marriage until in "Customer Loyalty", it comes to a head when he misses Cece's dance recital and then angrily blames Pam for not videotaping it. Tearfully, Pam breaks down and confides in Brian, the boom mic operator of the documentary crew.

text: In "Moving On", Pam interviews for a job in Philadelphia, but then reveals to Jim that she doesn't really want to move there after all.

text: In "Finale", Darryl reveals that Jim's sports marketing company is now located in Austin, Texas and has changed its name to Athleap. Pam sells the couple's home, unbeknownst to Jim, to show her support to Jim and allow the family to move to Austin so Jim can continue with Athleap.

text: Appearances[edit]

text: Jim has appeared in every episode of The Office with the exception of "Mafia", in which only his voice is heard. The clip show episode "The Banker" features Jim in flashbacks of previous episodes, and Jim only appears in new footage momentarily, and without any lines. Additionally, in the season seven episode "Ultimatum", Jim only appears in the cold open, and is absent without explanation for the rest of the episode. The cold open was actually filmed the previous season and recycled for the episode because John Krasinski was on location shooting a movie.

text: Reception[edit]

text: In the media, Jim is sometimes called an Everyguy.[18] In her article "Breaking Out of the First-Job Trap" for U.S. News and World Report, Liz Wolgemuth used Jim's character as a template for an essay on under-motivated, young, college grads.[3] In an article on stereotypical office worker profiles, Jim was identified as the worker who is "drifting along in a job, [while] you put off asking yourself hard questions about career plans."[19]


document_title: The Polar Express (film)

question_text: who did the voice of hero boy in polar express

text: The Polar Express (film)

text: Plot[edit]

text: On the night of Christmas Eve, a Grand Rapids, Michigan boy is growing bitterly skeptical of the existence of Santa Claus. As he struggles to sleep, he is roused by the arrival of a steam locomotive on the street outside his home, and dons his robe to investigate, tearing the robe's pocket as he retrieves it. Outside, the train's conductor (Tom Hanks) introduces the train as the Polar Express, bound for the North Pole. The boy initially declines to board, but jumps aboard the train as it pulls away.

text: In a passenger car, he befriends a spirited and amicable girl, and a condescending know-it-all. The train stops to pick up an impoverished child, Billy, who also declines to board; Billy changes his mind, and the boy applies the emergency brake to allow him to catch up to the train, much to the conductor's chagrin. As Billy sits alone in the train's rear dining car, hot chocolate is served in the passenger car, and the girl saves her hot chocolate for Billy. As she and the conductor cross to the dining car, the boy notices she left her ticket behind unpunched, but loses hold of the ticket between the cars when he attempts to return it. The ticket reenters the passenger car, but not before the conductor notices its absence and escorts the girl back to the rear car.

text: The know-it-all claims that the conductor will jettison the girl from the back of the train; the boy recovers the ticket and dashes to the dining car in search of the conductor, climbing onto the roof from the rear platform. He meets a hobo camping on the roof, who offers him coffee and discusses the existence of Santa Claus and belief in ghosts. The hobo skis with the boy along the tops of the cars towards the train's coal tender, where the hobo disappears. Here, the boy discovers that the girl has been made to supervise the locomotive while engineers Steamer and Smokey replace the train's headlight. The train is forced to stop while the conductor disperses a herd of caribou, whereupon the engineers return to the cabin and the boy, girl and conductor remain on the catwalk on the front of the locomotive. The throttle's split pin sheers off, causing the train to accelerate uncontrollably down a 179-degree grade and onto a frozen lake, where the engineers repair the throttle with a hairpin and drift the train to realign it with the tracks. The boy returns the girl's ticket, and as the three return to the passenger car, the boy is accosted by an Ebenezer Scrooge marionette (controlled by the hobo), taunting him and calling him a doubter.

text: The train finally arrives at the North Pole, where the conductor announces that one of the passengers will be chosen to receive the first gift of Christmas, from Santa himself. The girl discovers Billy still alone in the rear car, and she and the boy persuade him to come along; however, the boy accidentally unhitches the car, sending it back along the line to a railway turntable in Santa's workshop. The children sneak through an elf command center and a gift sorting office before accidentally being dumped into Santa's sack, where they discover that the know-it-all stowed away along with them, hoping to open his Christmas presents early. The elves rescue them as Santa arrives, and the boy grows frustrated, unable to see Santa through the crowd. A jingle bell flies loose from the galloping reindeers' reins; the boy initially cannot hear it ring, until he finds it within himself to believe. He returns the bell to Santa as he passes, and Santa selects the boy to receive the first gift of Christmas. The boy asks to keep the jingle bell, and places it in his robe pocket.

text: Four of the elves use a handcar to trundle the wayward passenger car back to the train as the children all board the Polar Express to return home, but the then boy discovers that the pocket was torn and that the bell had fallen out. He returns home and awakens Christmas morning to find a present containing the bell. He holds it to his ear and shakes it; his parents, not believing in Santa, lament how the bell is "broken".

text: Cast[edit]

text:
Tom Hanks as the Hero Boy (motion-capture only), the Hero Boy's father, the Conductor, the Hobo, Santa Claus, and the Narrator

Daryl Sabara as the Hero Boy (voice)
Josh Hutcherson as the Hero Boy (additional motion-capture)

Leslie Zemeckis as Sister Sarah (motion-capture only) and the Hero Boy's mother

Isabella Peregrina as Sister Sarah (voice)
Ashly Holloway as Sister Sarah (additional motion-capture)

Eddie Deezen as Know-It-All

Jimmy 'Jax' Pinchak as Know-It-All (additional motion-capture)

Nona Gaye as the Hero Girl

Chantel Valdivieso as the Hero Girl (additional motion-capture)
Meagan Moore as the Hero Girl (singing voice)
Tinashe as the Hero Girl (motion-capture modeling)

Peter Scolari as Billy the Lonely Boy (motion-capture only)

Hayden McFarland as Billy the Lonely Boy (additional motion-capture)
Jimmy Bennett as Billy the Lonely Boy (voice)
Matthew Hall as Billy the Lonely Boy (singing voice)

Dylan Cash as Boy on Train (voice)
Brendan King and Andy Pellick as the Pastry Chefs
Josh Eli, Rolandas Hendricks, Jon Scott, Sean Scott, Mark Mendonca, Mark Goodman, Gregory Gast, and Gordon Hart as the Waiters
Andre Sogliuzzo as Smokey and Steamer (voice)

Michael Jeter as Smokey and Steamer (motion-capture only)

Chris Coppola as Gus the Toothless Boy and an Elf

Connor Matheus as the Toothless Boy (additional motion-capture)

Julene Renee as the Red Head Girl and an Elf
Phil Fondacaro, Debbie Lee Carrington, Mark Povinelli, and Ed Gale as Elves
Charles Fleischer as the Elf General
Steven Tyler as the Elf Lieutenant and the Elf Singer
Dante Pastula as the Little Boy
Eric Newton, Aidan O'Shea, Aaron Hendry, Kevin C. Carr, Bee Jay Joyer, Jena Carpenter, Karine Mauffrey, Beth Carpenter, Bill Forchion, Devin Henderson, and Sagiv Ben-Binyamin as Acrobatic Elves
Evan Sabara as a Young Boy (additional motion-capture)

text: Production[edit]

text: Architecture[edit]

text: The buildings at the North Pole refer to a number of buildings related to American railroading history. The buildings in the square at the city's center are loosely based on the Pullman Factory in Chicago's Pullman neighborhood.[5]

text: Polar Express Locomotive[edit]

text: The locomotive featured in the film is an American 2-8-4 Berkshire type steam locomotive, with a cowcatcher, modeled after the Pere Marquette 1225, which had spent many years on static display near Spartan Stadium in East Lansing, Michigan on the campus of Michigan State University, where Chris Van Allsburg recalled playing on the engine when attending football games as a child.[6]

text: In July 2002, Warner Bros. approached the engine's owner, the Steam Railroading Institute, to study the engine.[7] The engine in the film is modeled from the PM #1225's drawings and the sounds from recordings made of the 1225 operating under steam.[8] The whistle, however, was taken from Sierra Railway #3.

text: IMAX 3D version[edit]

text: In addition to standard theatrical 35mm format, a 3-D version for IMAX was also released, generated from the same 3-D digital models used for the standard version.[9]

text: Home media release[edit]

text: The film was released on DVD as separated widescreen and full-screen versions in single and two-disc special editions (with bonus features) and on VHS on November 22, 2005, one year after the film came out.[10] It was released on Blu-ray with bonus features and presented in the original widescreen aspect ratio on October 30, 2007.

text: Soundtrack[edit]

text:
Performer(s)
Title
Length

Tom Hanks
"The Polar Express"
3:25

Matthew Hall & Meagan Moore
"When Christmas Comes to Town"
4:07

Steven Tyler
"Rockin' on the Top of the World"
2:35

Josh Groban
"Believe"
4:18

Tom Hanks
"Hot Chocolate"
2:33

Alan Silvestri
"Spirit of the Season"
2:34

Frank Sinatra
"Santa Claus Is Comin' to Town"
2:35

Alan Silvestri
"Seeing Is Believing"
3:47

Bing Crosby
"White Christmas"
3:05

The Andrews Sisters
"Winter Wonderland"
2:43

Perry Como &The Fontane Sisters
"It's Beginning to Look a Lot Like Christmas"
2:40

Kate Smith
"Silver Bells"
2:39

Bing Crosby & The Andrews Sisters
"Here Comes Santa Claus (Right Down Santa Claus Lane)"
3:04

Alan Silvestri
"Suite from the Polar Express"
6:02

tag: table

text: Reception[edit]

text: Critical response[edit]

text: On Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating to reviews, the film has a weighted average score of 61 out of 100 based on 36 critics, indicating "generally favorable reviews".[11] On review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an approval rating of 55% based on 202 reviews, with an average rating of 6.4/10. The site's critical consensus reads, "Though the movie is visually stunning overall, the animation for the human characters isn't lifelike enough, and the story is padded."[12] Despite the polarized reception from critics, The Polar Express has been popular among audiences. The Independent reported in 2011 that the film "is now seen by many as a classic".[13] CinemaScore reported that audiences gave the film a rare "A+" grade.[14]

text: Roger Ebert gave the film his highest rating of four stars, saying, "There's a deeper, shivery tone, instead of the mindless jolliness of the usual Christmas movie." And "It has a haunting, magical quality ..." Acknowledging comments by other reviewers, Ebert said, "It's a little creepy. Not creepy in an unpleasant way, but in that sneaky, teasing way that lets you know eerie things could happen."[15] Richard Roeper gave a glowing review to the film as well, saying that it "remains true to the book, right down to the bittersweet final image."[quote without source] James Berardinelli gave it a 3.5/4, stating that it is "a delightful tale guaranteed to enthrall viewers of all ages", and ranked it as the 10th best film of 2004.[16]

text: The character design and animation were criticized for dipping into the uncanny valley.[17] Peter Travers of Rolling Stone gave the film a 1 out of 4 stars, and called it "a failed and lifeless experiment in which everything goes wrong".[18] Stephanie Zacharek of Salon gave the film 1.5 stars out of 5 and said, "I could probably have tolerated the incessant jitteriness of The Polar Express if the look of it didn't give me the creeps."[19] Geoff Pevere of the Toronto Star stated, "If I were a child, I'd have nightmares. Come to think of it, I did anyway."[20] Paul Clinton from CNN called it "at best disconcerting, and at worst, a wee bit horrifying".[21]

text: Box office[edit]

text: The film opened at #2 and earned $23,323,463 from approximately 7,000 screens at 3,650 theaters, for a per-theater average of $6,390 and a per-screen average of $3,332 in its opening weekend. It also brought in a total of $30,629,146 since its Wednesday launch. The weekend total also included $2,100,000 from 59 IMAX theaters, for an IMAX theater average of $35,593, and had a $3,000,000 take since Wednesday. In its second weekend, it grossed another $15,668,101, averaging $4,293 from 3,650 venues and boosting the 12-day cumulative to $51,463,282 and over Thanksgiving weekend made another $19,389,927, averaging $5,312 from 3,650 venues and raising the 19-day cumulative to $81,479,861.[citation needed] The film has made $185,618,322 domestically (including IMAX re-releases), and $124,140,582 overseas for a total worldwide gross of $309,758,904.[2]

text: The film had its network TV premiere on ABC, December 1, 2006. The airing brought in 13.2 million viewers, winning its timeslot and ranking 20th in the Nielsen ratings that week, according to TVTango.com.

text: Awards and honors[edit]

text: The film was nominated for three Academy Awards:

text:
Best Sound Editing (Randy Thom and Dennis Leonard)
Best Sound Mixing (Randy Thom, Tom Johnson, Dennis S. Sands and William B. Kaplan)
Best Original Song for "Believe."[22]

text: The film was nominated at the 3rd Visual Effects Society Awards in the category of "Outstanding Performance by an Animated Character in an Animated Motion Picture."[23]

text: In 2008, the American Film Institute nominated The Polar Express for its Top 10 Animated Films list.[24]

text: The "Polar Express Experience"[edit]

text: In November 2007, SeaWorld Orlando debuted the Polar Express Experience, a Motion Simulator ride based on the film. The attraction is a temporary replacement for the Wild Arctic attraction. The building housing the attraction was also temporarily re-themed to a railroad station and ride vehicles painted to resemble Polar Express passenger cars. The plot for the ride revolves around a trip to the North Pole on Christmas Eve. Guests feel the motion of the locomotive as well as the swinging of the train on ice and feeling of ice crumbling beneath them. The attraction was available until January 1, 2008,[25] and is now open annually during the Christmas season.

text: The 4D film, distributed by SimEx-Iwerks, has been shown at other amusement parks around the world including Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden, Dollywood (during the annual Smoky Mountain Christmas event), Vancouver Aquarium (2009 — 2010),[26] and Warner Bros. Movie World (during the White Christmas events in 2010 and 2011).

text: Video game[edit]

text: A video game based on the film was released on November 26, 2004 for GameCube, Game Boy Advance, PlayStation 2 and Windows, developed by Blue Tongue Entertainment and published by THQ.[27][28] The plot of the game is more different than the film version. Within this time, the Ebenezer Scrooge puppet who is set as the main antagonist of the game, attempts to prevent the children from believing in Santa Claus by stealing their tickets and trying to stop the children for reaching the North Pole.[29][30]


document_title: Trinity

question_text: when did the term trinity come into use

question_tokens: when did the term trinity come into use

text: Trinity

text: Etymology[edit]

text: The word "trinity" is derived from Latin trinitas, meaning "the number three, a triad, tri". This abstract noun is formed from the adjective trinus (three each, threefold, triple),[21] as the word unitas is the abstract noun formed from unus (one).

text: The corresponding word in Greek is tριάς, meaning "a set of three" or "the number three".[22] The first recorded use of this Greek word in Christian theology was by Theophilus of Antioch in about the year of 170. He wrote:[23][24]

text: In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity [Τριάδος], of God, and His Word, and His wisdom. And the fourth is the type of man, who needs light, that so there may be God, the Word, wisdom, man.[25]

text: Tertullian, a Latin theologian who wrote in the early 3rd century, is credited as being the first to use the Latin words "Trinity",[26] "person" and "substance"[27] to explain that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are "tres personae, una substantia".[28]

text: History[edit]

text: The Ante-Nicene Fathers asserted Christ's deity and spoke of "Father, Son and Holy Spirit", even though their language is not that of the traditional doctrine as formalised in the fourth century. Trinitarians view these as elements of the codified doctrine.[30] Ignatius of Antioch provides early support for the Trinity around 110,[31] exhorting obedience to "Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit".[32] Justin Martyr (AD 100–c. 165) also writes, "in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit".[33] The first of the early church fathers to be recorded using the word "Trinity" was Theophilus of Antioch writing in the late 2nd century. He defines the Trinity as God, His Word (Logos) and His Wisdom (Sophia)[34] 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 3rd century by the early church father Tertullian. He explicitly defined the Trinity as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and defended his theology against "Praxeas",[35] though he noted that the majority of the believers in his day found issue with his doctrine.[26] St. Justin and Clement of Alexandra used the Trinity in their doxologies and St. Basil likewise, in the evening lighting of lamps.[36] Origen of Alexandria (AD 185-c. 253) has often been interpreted as Subordinationist, but some modern researchers have argued that Origen might have actually been anti-Subordinationist.[37][38]

text: Another early, and already more philosophic, formulation of the Trinity (again without usage of that term) is attributed to the Gnostic teacher Valentinus (lived c.100 – c.160), who according to the fourth century theologian Marcellus of Ancyra, was “the first to devise the notion of three subsistent entities (hypostases), in a work that he entitled On the Three Natures.” The highly allegorical exegesis of the Valentinian school inclined it to interpret the relevant scriptural passages as affirming a Divinity that, in some manner, is threefold. The Valentinian Gospel of Philip, which dates to approximately the time of Tertullian, upholds the Trinitarian formula. Whatever his influence on the later fully formed doctrine may have been, however, Valentinus's school is rejected as heretical by orthodox Christians.

text: Although there is much debate as to whether the beliefs of the Apostles were merely articulated and explained in the Trinitarian Creeds,[39] or were corrupted and replaced with new beliefs,[40][41] 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 took some centuries to be resolved.

text: Of these controversies, the most significant developments were articulated in the first four centuries by the Church Fathers[39] in reaction to Adoptionism, Sabellianism, and Arianism. 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, the Synods of Antioch condemned Paul of Samosata for his Adoptionist theology, and also condemned the term homoousios (ὁμοούσιος, "of the same being") in the sense he used it.[42]

text: Sabellianism taught that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are essentially one and the same, the difference being simply verbal, describing different aspects or roles of a single being.[43] For this view Sabellius was excommunicated for heresy in Rome c. 220.

text: In the fourth century, Arius, as traditionally understood,[note 1] taught that the Father existed prior to the Son who was not, by nature, God but rather a changeable creature who was granted the dignity of becoming "Son of God".[44] In 325, the Council of Nicaea adopted the Nicene Creed which described Christ as "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father".[45][46] The creed used the term homoousios (of one substance) to define the relationship between the Father and the Son. After more than fifty years of debate, homoousios was recognised as the hallmark of orthodoxy, and was further developed into the formula of "three persons, one being".

text: The third Council of Sirmium, in 357, was the high point of Arianism. The Seventh Arian Confession (Second Sirmium Confession) held that both homoousios (of one substance) and homoiousios (of similar substance) were unbiblical and that the Father is greater than the Son. (This confession was later known as the Blasphemy of Sirmium)

text: But since many persons are disturbed by questions concerning what is called in Latin substantia, but in Greek ousia, that is, to make it understood more exactly, as to 'coessential,' or what is called, 'like-in-essence,' there ought to be no mention of any of these at all, nor exposition of them in the Church, for this reason and for this consideration, that in divine Scripture nothing is written about them, and that they are above men's knowledge and above men's understanding;[47]

text: Athanasius (293–373), who was present at the Council as one of the Bishop of Alexandria's assistants, stated that the bishops were forced to use this terminology,[48] which is not found in Scripture, because the biblical phrases that they would have preferred to use were claimed by the Arians to be capable of being interpreted in what the bishops considered to be a heretical sense.[49] Moreover, the meanings of "ousia" and "hypostasis" overlapped then, so that "hypostasis" for some meant "essence" and for others "person".

text: The Confession of the Council of Nicaea said little about the Holy Spirit.[50] The doctrine of the divinity and personality of the Holy Spirit was developed by Athanasius in the last decades of his life.[51] He defended and refined the Nicene formula.[50] By the end of the 4th century, under the leadership of Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus (the Cappadocian Fathers), the doctrine had reached substantially its current form.[50]

text: Gregory of Nazianzus would say of the Trinity, "No sooner do I conceive of the One than I am illumined by the splendour of the Three; no sooner do I distinguish Three than I am carried back into the One. When I think of any of the Three, I think of Him as the Whole, and my eyes are filled, and the greater part of what I am thinking escapes me. I cannot grasp the greatness of that One so as to attribute a greater greatness to the rest. When I contemplate the Three together, I see but one torch, and cannot divide or measure out the undivided light."[52]

text: Devotion to the Trinity centered in the French monasteries at Tours and Aniane where Saint Benedict dedicated the abbey church to the Trinity in 872.[53] Feast Days were not instituted until 1091 at Cluny and 1162 at Canterbury and papal resistance continued until 1331.[54]

text: Theology[edit]

text: Trinitarian baptismal formula[edit]

text: In the synoptic Gospels the baptism of Jesus is 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.'"[Mt 3:16–17] Baptism is generally conferred with the Trinitarian formula, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit".[Mt 28:19] Trinitarians identify this name with the Christian faith into which baptism is an initiation, as seen for example in the statement of Basil the Great (330–379): "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." The First Council of Constantinople (381) also says, "This is the Faith of our baptism 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." Matthew 28:19 may be taken to indicate that baptism was associated with this formula from the earliest decades of the Church's existence.

text: Oneness Pentecostals demur from the Trinitarian view of baptism and emphasize baptism ‘in the name of Jesus Christ’ as the original apostolic formula.[55] For this reason, they often focus on the baptisms in Acts. Those who place great emphasis on the baptisms in Acts often likewise question the authenticity of Matthew 28:19 in its present form. Most scholars of New Testament textual criticism accept the authenticity of the passage, since there are no variant manuscripts regarding the formula, and the extant form of the passage is attested in the Didache[56] and other patristic works of the 1st and 2nd centuries: Ignatius,[57] Tertullian,[58] Hippolytus,[59] Cyprian,[60] and Gregory Thaumaturgus.[61]

text: Commenting on Matthew 28:19, Gerhard Kittel states:

text: This threefold relation [of Father, Son and Spirit] soon found fixed expression in the triadic formulae in 2 Cor. 13:14 and in 1 Cor. 12:4–6. The form is first found in the baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19; Did., 7. 1 and 3....[I]t is self-evident that Father, Son and Spirit are here linked in an indissoluble threefold relationship.[62]

text: Fundamental monotheism[edit]

text: Christianity, having emerged from Judaism, is a monotheistic religion. Never in the New Testament does the Trinitarian concept become a "tritheism" (three Gods) nor even two.[63] God is one, and that God is a single being is strongly declared in the Bible:

text:
The Shema of the Hebrew Scriptures: "Hear, O Israel: the LORD our Gods, the LORD is one."[Deut 6:4]
The first of the Ten Commandments—"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."[5:7]
And "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel and his redeemer the LORD of hosts: I am the first and I am the last; and beside me there is no God."[Isa 44:6]
In the New Testament: "The LORD our God is one."[Mk 12:29]

text: In the Trinitarian view, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit 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 the polytheistic view, which see divine power as shared by several beings, beings which can and do disagree and have conflicts with each other.

text: One God as Three Persons[edit]

text:
The
Father
Son
Holy
Spirit

The "Shield of the Trinity" or Scutum Fidei diagram of traditional medieval Western Christian symbolism

text: In Trinitarian doctrine, God exists as three persons or hypostases, but is one being, having a single divine nature.[64] The members of the Trinity are co-equal and co-eternal, one in essence, nature, power, action, and will. As stated in the Athanasian Creed, the Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, and the Holy Spirit is uncreated, and all three are eternal without beginning.[65] "The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" are not names for different parts of God, but one name for God[66] because three persons exist in God as one entity.[67] They cannot be separate from one another. Each person is understood as having the identical essence or nature, not merely similar natures.[68]

text: 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 in Eve's creation later in the next chapter.[2:22]

text: Perichoresis[edit]

text: Perichoresis (from Greek, "going around", "envelopment") is a term used by some theologians to describe the relationship among the members of the Trinity. The Latin equivalent for this term is circumincessio. This concept refers for its basis to John 14–17, 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 Trinity 3:1).[69]

text: Perichoresis effectively excludes the idea that God has parts, but rather is a simple being. It also 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 the Apostle Paul's words, "all the fullness of deity" and not a part. (See also: Divinization (Christian)). 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."[John 14:18]

text: According to the words of Jesus, married persons are in some sense no longer two but are joined into one. Therefore, Orthodox theologians also see the marriage relationship between a man and a woman to be an example of this sacred union. "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." Gen. 2:24. "Wherefore they are no more twain but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder." Matt. 19: 6.[image or "icon" 17:22]

text: Eternal generation and procession[edit]

text: Trinitarianism 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 the Great Schism, in this case concerning the Western addition of the Filioque clause to the Nicene Creed. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that, in the sense of the Latin verb procedere (which does not have to indicate ultimate origin and is therefore compatible with proceeding through), but not in that of the Greek verb ἐκπορεύεσθαι (which implies ultimate origin),[70] the Spirit "proceeds" from the Father and the Son, 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". The Eastern Orthodox Churches object to the Filioque clause on ecclesiological and theological grounds, holding that "from the Father" means "from the Father alone".

text: 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 Hippo explains, "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.'"[Ps 2:7]

text: Most Protestant groups that use the creed also include the Filioque clause. Its controversial use is addressed in several confessions: the Westminster Confession 2:3, the London Baptist Confession 2:3, and the Lutheran Augsburg Confession 1:1–6.

text: Economic and immanent Trinity[edit]

text: The neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (June 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: The term "immanent Trinity" focuses on who God is; the term “economic Trinity” focuses on what God does.

text: According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church,

text: The Fathers of the Church distinguish between theology (theologia) and economy (oikonomia). "Theology" refers to the mystery of God's inmost life within the Blessed Trinity and "economy" to all the works by which God reveals himself and communicates his life. Through the oikonomia the theologia is revealed to us; but conversely, the theologia illuminates the whole oikonomia. God's works reveal who he is in himself; the mystery of his inmost being enlightens our understanding of all his works. So it is, analogously, among human persons. A person discloses himself in his actions, and the better we know a person, the better we understand his actions.[71]

text: The ancient Nicene theologians argued that everything the Trinity does is done by Father, Son, and Spirit working in unity with one will. The three persons of the Trinity always work inseparably, for their work is always the work of the one God. 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. According to Phillip Cary, 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.[72] 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."[73]

text: Athanasius of Alexandria explained that the Son is eternally one in being with the Father, temporally and voluntarily subordinate in his incarnate ministry.[74] Such human traits, he argued, were not to be read back into the eternal Trinity. Likewise, 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."[75]

text: The traditional theory of "appropriation" consists in attributing certain names, qualities, or operations to one of the Persons of the Trinity, not, however, to the exclusion of the others, but in preference to the others. This theory was established by the Latin Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries, especially by Hilary of Poitiers, Augustine, and Leo the Great. In the Middle Ages, the theory was systematically taught by the Schoolmen such as Bonaventure.[76]

text: Roger E. Olson says that a number of evangelical theologians hold the view that there is a hierarchy of authority in the Trinity with the Son being subordinate to the Father. "The Gospel of John makes this clear as Jesus repeatedly mentions that he came to do the Father's will."[77] Olsen cautions, however, that the hierarchy in the "economic Trinity" should be distinguished from the "immanent Trinity". He cites the Cappadocian Fathers, "the Father is the source or “fount” of divinity within the Godhead; the Son and the Spirit derive their deity from the Father eternally (so there is no question of inequality of being). Their favorite analogy was the sun and its light and heat. There is no imagining the sun without its light and heat and yet it is the source of them."[77]

text: Benjamin B. Warfield saw a principle of subordination in the "modes of operation" of the Trinity, but was also hesitant to ascribe the same to the "modes of subsistence" in relation of one to another. While noting that it is natural to see a subordination in function as reflecting a similar subordination in substance, he suggests that this might be the result of "...an agreement by Persons of the Trinity – a "Covenant" as it is technically called – by virtue of which a distinct function in the work of redemption is assumed by each".[78]

text: Political aspect[edit]

text: Richard E. Rubenstein says that Emperor Constantine and his advisor Hosius of Corduba were aware of the usefulness of having a divinely ordained church in which the church authority, and not the individual, was able to determine individual salvation, and threw their support toward the homoousion Nicene formula.[79] According to Eusebius, Constantine suggested the term homoousios at the Council of Nicaea, though most scholars have doubted that Constantine had such knowledge and have thought that most likely Hosius had suggested the term to him.[80] Constantine later changed his view about the Arians, who opposed the Nicene formula, and supported the bishops who rejected the formula,[81] as did several of his successors, the first emperor to be baptized in the Nicene faith being Theodosius the Great, emperor from 379 to 395.[82]

text: Biblical background[edit]

text: From the Old Testament, the early church retained the conviction that God is one.[83] The New Testament does not use the word Τριάς (Trinity)[84] nor explicitly teach the Nicene Trinitarian doctrine, but it contains several passages that use twofold and threefold patterns to speak of God. Binitarian passages include Rom. 8:11, 2 Cor. 4:14, Galatians 1:1, Eph. 1:20, 1 Tim. 1:2, 1 Pet. 1:21, and 2 John 1:13. Passages which refer to the Godhead with a threefold pattern include Matt. 28:19, 1 Cor. 6:11 and 12:4ff., Gal. 3:11–14, Heb. 10:29, 1 Pet. 1:2 and 1 John 5:7. These passages provided the material with which Christians would develop doctrines of the Trinity.[83] Reflection by early Christians on passages such as the Great Commission: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"[Matt 28:19] and Paul the Apostle's blessing: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all",[2 Cor. 13:14] while at the same time the Jewish Shema Yisrael: "Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God, the Lord alone."[Deuteronomy 6:4][85] has led some Christians to question how the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are "one". Later, the diverse references to God, Jesus, and the Spirit found in the New Testament were systematized into a Trinity—one God subsisting in three persons and one substance—to combat heretical tendencies of how the three are related and to defend the church against charges of worshiping two or three gods.[86]

text: Some scholars dispute the idea that support for the Trinity can be found in the Bible, and argue that the doctrine is the result of theological interpretations rather than sound exegesis of scripture.[87][88] 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 require one to accept a Trinitarian understanding.[63]

text: The Comma Johanneum, 1 John 5:7, is a disputed text which states: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." However, this passage is not considered to be part of the genuine text,[89] and most scholars agree that the phrase was a gloss.[90]

text: Jesus as God[edit]

text: The Gospel of John has been seen as especially aimed at emphasizing Jesus' divinity, presenting Jesus as the Logos, 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."[John 1:1][91] The Gospel of John ends with Thomas's declaration that he believed Jesus was God, "My Lord and my God!"[John 20:28][86] There is no significant tendency among modern scholars to deny that John 1:1 and John 20:28 identify Jesus with God.[92] John also portrays Jesus as the agent of creation of the universe.[93]

text: There are also a few possible biblical supports for the divinity of Jesus found in the Synoptic Gospels. The Gospel of Matthew, for example, quotes Jesus as saying, "All things have been handed over to me by my Father."[Mt 11:27] This is similar to John, who wrote that Jesus said, "All that the Father has is mine."[John 16:15] These verses have been quoted to defend the omnipotence of Christ, having all power, as well as the omniscience of Christ, having all wisdom.

text: Expressions also in the Pauline epistles have 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"[Colossians 1:16] and "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form",[Colossians 2:9] and in Paul the Apostle's claim to have been "sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father".[Galatians 1:1][94]

text: 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 nontrinitarian groups such as Arianism.[95] However, Church Fathers such as Augustine of Hippo argued this statement was to be understood as Jesus speaking in as to his human nature.[96]

text: Holy Spirit as God[edit]

text: As the Arian controversy was dissipating, the debate moved from the deity of Jesus Christ to the equality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and Son. On one hand, the Pneumatomachi sect declared that the Holy Spirit was an inferior person to the Father and Son. On the other hand, the Cappadocian Fathers argued that the Holy Spirit was an equal person to the Father and Son.

text: Although the main text used in defense of the deity of the Holy Spirit was Matthew 28:19, Cappadocian Fathers such as Basil the Great argued 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.'"[Acts 5:3–4][97]

text: 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."[Psalm 33:6] According to their understanding, because "breath" and "spirit" in Hebrew are both "רוּחַ" ("ruach"), Psalm 33:6 is revealing the roles of the Son and Holy Spirit as co-creators. And since, according to them,[97] because only the holy God can create holy beings such as the angels, the Son and Holy Spirit must be God.

text: 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.[97]

text: 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.[98]

text: They also combined "the servant does not know what his master is doing"[John 15:15] with 1 Corinthians 2:11 in an attempt to show that the Holy Spirit is not the slave of God, and therefore his equal.[99]

text: 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?"[Hebrews 1:14] in effect arguing that the Holy Spirit is no different from other created angelic spirits.[100] 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.[97]

text: The usage of the word "paraclete" (Greek: parakletos) for the Holy Spirit in John 14:16, which can be translated as advocate, intercessor, counsellor or protector,[101] and the Holy Spirit's essence and action characterized by truth, as all three persons of the Trinity are linked with truth (see v. 17),[102] are seen as arguments that he is a divine person; especially that Jesus calls him another counsellor, in this way expressing that the Holy Spirit is similar to himself in regard to our counsel.[103]

text: Old Testament parallels[edit]

text: In addition, the Old Testament has also been interpreted as foreshadowing the Trinity,[104] by referring to God's word,[Ps 33:6] his spirit,[Isa 61:1] and Wisdom,[Prov 9:1] as well as narratives such as the appearance of the three men to Abraham.[Gen 18][105] However, it is generally agreed among Trinitarian Christian scholars that it would go beyond the intention and spirit of the Old Testament to correlate these notions directly with later Trinitarian doctrine.[106][107]

text: Some Church Fathers believed that a knowledge of the mystery was granted to the prophets and saints of the Old Testament, and that they identified the divine messenger of Genesis 16:7,21:17, 31:11, Exodus 3:2 and Wisdom of the sapiential books with the Son, and "the spirit of the Lord" with the Holy Spirit.[106] Other Church Fathers, such as Gregory Nazianzen, argued in his Orations that the revelation was gradual, claiming that the Father was proclaimed in the Old Testament openly, but the Son only obscurely, because "it was not safe, when the Godhead of the Father was not yet acknowledged, plainly to proclaim the Son".[108]

text: Genesis 18–19 has been interpreted by Christians as a Trinitarian text.[109] The narrative has the Lord appearing to Abraham, who was visited by three men.[Gen 18:1–2] Then in Genesis 19, "the two angels" visited Lot at 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, and John Calvin similarly, interpreted it such that Abraham was visited by God, who was accompanied by two angels.[110] 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.

text: Augustine, in contrast, held that the three visitors to Abraham were the three persons of the Trinity.[110] He saw no indication that the visitors were unequal, as would be the case in Justin's reading. Then in Genesis 19, two of the visitors were addressed by Lot in the singular: "Lot said to them, 'Not so, my lord.'"[Gen 19:18 KJV][110] Augustine saw that Lot could address them as one because they had a single substance, despite the plurality of persons.[note 2]

text: According to Swedenborg, the three angels which appeared to Abraham do represent the Trinity, but a Trinity of one being: the Divine Itself, the Divine Human and the Divine Proceeding. That one being is represented is indicated by the fact that they are referred to in the singular as Jehovah and Lord.[111] The reason why only two of the angels went to visit Sodom and Gomorrah is that they represent the Divine Human and the Divine Proceeding, and to those aspects of the Divine belongs judgment, as Jesus declared that all judgment was entrusted by the Father to the Son.[John 5:22][112] The three angels did indeed appear to Abraham as three men, but they are only a symbolic representation of the Trinity, which should not be taken literally as three distinct persons. In the Old Testament, Swedenborg finds the earliest direct reference to a Trine in the Divinity in the account of Moses' encounter with the Lord in Exodus which states, "And Jehovah passed by upon his face, and called, Jehovah, Jehovah, a God merciful and gracious."[Exodus 34:6][113]

text: Some Christians interpret the theophanies or appearances of the Angel of the Lord as revelations of a person distinct from God, who is nonetheless called God.[114] This interpretation is found in Christianity as early as Justin Martyr and Melito of Sardis, and reflects ideas that were already present in Philo.[115] The Old Testament theophanies were thus seen as Christophanies, each a "preincarnate appearance of the Messiah".[116]

text: Impact of Stoic philosophy[edit]

text: In the introduction to his 1964 translation of Meditations, the Anglican priest Maxwell Staniforth discussed the profound influence of Stoic philosophy on Christianity. In particular:

text: Again in the doctrine of the Trinity, the ecclesiastical conception of Father, Word, and Spirit finds its germ in the different Stoic names of the Divine Unity. Thus Seneca, writing of the supreme Power which shapes the universe, states, 'This Power we sometimes call the All-ruling God, sometimes the incorporeal Wisdom, sometimes the holy Spirit, sometimes Destiny.' The Church had only to reject the last of these terms to arrive at its own acceptable definition of the Divine Nature; while the further assertion 'these three are One', which the modern mind finds paradoxical, was no more than commonplace to those familiar with Stoic notions.[117]

text: Artistic depictions[edit]

text: The Trinity is most commonly seen in Christian art with the Spirit represented by a dove, as specified in the Gospel accounts of the Baptism of Christ; he is nearly always shown with wings outspread. However depictions using three human figures appear occasionally in most periods of art.[118]

text: 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 biblical Ancient of Days, which is often cited in defense of this sometimes controversial representation. However, in Eastern Orthodoxy the Ancient of Days is usually understood to be God the Son, not God the Father (see below)—early Byzantine images show Christ as the Ancient of Days,[119] but this iconography became rare. When the Father is depicted in art, he is sometimes shown with a halo shaped like an equilateral triangle, instead of a circle. The Son is often shown at the Father's right hand.[Acts 7:56] He may be represented by a symbol—typically the Lamb (agnus dei) or a cross—or on a crucifix, 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 the Baptism of Christ. Later, in the West, the Throne of Mercy (or "Throne of Grace") became a common depiction. In this style, the Father (sometimes seated on a throne) is shown supporting either a crucifix[120] or, later, a slumped crucified Son, similar to the Pietà (this type is distinguished in German as the Not Gottes)[121] 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.

text: 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 a papal tiara.

text: In the later part of the Christian Era, in Renaissance European iconography, the Eye of Providence began to be used as an explicit image of the Christian Trinity and associated with the concept of Divine Providence. Seventeenth-century depictions of the Eye of Providence sometimes show it surrounded by clouds or sunbursts.[122]

text: Image gallery[edit]

text:
Depiction of Trinity from Saint Denis Basilica in Paris (12th century)

Father, The Holy Spirit, and Christ Crucified, depicted in a Welsh manuscript. c. 1390–1400

God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit as a dove, by Lucas Cranach the Elder (d. 1553)

God the Father (top), and the Holy Spirit (represented by a dove) depicted above Jesus. Painting by Francesco Albani (d. 1660)

God the Father (top), the Holy Spirit (a dove), and child Jesus, painting by Bartolomé Esteban Murillo (d. 1682)

Pope Clement I prays to the Trinity, in a typical post-Renaissance depiction by Gianbattista Tiepolo (d. 1770)

Atypical depiction. The Son is identified by a lamb, the Father an Eye of Providence, and the Spirit a dove, painting by Fridolin Leiber (d. 1912)

13th Century depiction of the Trinity from a Roman de la Rose manuscript

A Christian version of the Eye of Providence, emphasizing the triangle representing the Trinity

text: Nontrinitarianism[edit]

text: Nontrinitarianism (or antitrinitarianism) refers to Christian belief systems that reject the doctrine of the Trinity as found in the Nicene Creed as not having a scriptural origin. Nontrinitarian views differ widely on the nature of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Various nontrinitarian views, such as Adoptionism, Monarchianism and Arianism existed prior to the formal definition of the Trinity doctrine in AD 325, 360, and 431, at the Councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus, respectively.[123] Following the final victory of orthodoxy at Constantinople in 381, Arianism was driven from the Empire, retaining a foothold amongst the Teutonic tribes. When the Franks converted to Catholicism in 496, however, it gradually faded out.[124] Nontrinitarianism was later renewed in the Gnosticism of the Cathars in the 11th through 13th centuries, in the Age of Enlightenment of the 18th century, and in some groups arising during the Second Great Awakening of the 19th century.

text: Modern nontrinitarian groups or denominations include Christadelphians, Christian Scientists, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Dawn Bible Students, Friends General Conference, Iglesia ni Cristo, Jehovah's Witnesses, Living Church of God, Oneness Pentecostals, the Seventh Day Church of God, Unitarian Universalist Christians, United Church of God, The Shepherd's Chapel and Spiritism.

text: Islamic views[edit]

text: Islam considers Jesus to be a prophet, but not divine,[125] and Allah to be absolutely indivisible (a concept known as tawhid).[126] Several verses of the Qur'an state that the doctrine of the Trinity is blasphemous.[127][128]

text: "Say: He is God, the One and Only; God, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him.

text: Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah is the third (person) of the three; and there is no god but the one Allah, and if they desist not from what they say, a painful chastisement shall befall those among them who disbelieve.

text: And when Allah will say: O Isa son of Marium! did you say to men, Take me and my mother for two gods besides Allah he will say: Glory be to Thee, it did not befit me that I should say what I had no right to (say); if I had said it, Thou wouldst indeed have known it; Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I do not know what is in Thy mind, surely Thou art the great Knower of the unseen things.

text: Interpretation of these verses by modern scholars has been varied.[132][133] Verse 5:73 has been interpreted as a potential criticism of Syriac literature that references Jesus as "the third of three" and thus an attack on the view that Christ was divine.[134]

text: Edward Hulmes writes:

text: "The Qur'anic interpretation of trinitarian orthodoxy as belief in the Father, the Son, and the Virgin Mary, may owe less to a misunderstanding of the New Testament itself than to a recognition of the role accorded by local Christians (see Choloridians) to Mary as mother in a special sense."[135]

text: There is also debate about whether this verse should be taken literally.[136] For example, Thomas states that verse 5:116 need not be seen as describing actually professed beliefs, but rather, giving examples of shirk (claiming divinity for beings other than God) and a "warning against excessive devotion to Jesus and extravagant veneration of Mary, a reminder linked to the central theme of the Qur'an that there is only one God and He alone is to be worshipped."[132] When read in this light, it can be understood as an admonition, "Against the divinization of Jesus that is given elsewhere in the Qur'an and a warning against the virtual divinization of Mary in the declaration of the fifth-century church councils that she is 'God-bearer'."[132]

text: Judaism[edit]

text: Judaism traditionally maintains a tradition of monotheism to the exclusion of the possibility of a Trinity.[125] In Judaism, God is understood to be the absolute one, indivisible, and incomparable being who is the ultimate cause of all existence. The idea of God as a duality or trinity is heretical — it is even considered by some polytheistic.[137]