Clouseau

Maybe that's according to Satan.

Clouseau

Can you make up your mind?Is it God, or gods?

And you'll have fries with that.

Minimalist

It's their novel, they can write it anyway they like.

BALDUCCI

Its actually a useful question, because it points up the political process that was involved at the time when the faith was being established as the official religion of the Roman Empire and the theologians were editing the texts to make them fit the political imperatives of the time. Much of the interpolation and manipulation of the scriptures should be seen as propaganda, although dressed up as theology.

The idea that Jesus was actually, physically God's son, has no foundation in the Judaism of the time. However, the official Roman faith (which they sort of believed, and which we now call mythology), had gods impregnating human women who would then give birth to their children, usually but not exclusively sons. These would then go off and do miracles and other acts quite similar to Jesus, but without the biblical references and theology. There were also other religions in the Empire in which gods had children by earthly beings.

One of the main preoccupations of the early Christian fathers was to make distinctions between Christianity and the other competing faiths, while at the same time extracting and placing huge dollops of these competing religions within the Christian lexicon to make Christianity more familiar and attractive to those who would be subsequently converted.

So, "only begotten son" is not that different to "Jesus (who is not Hercules, and is quite different to Castor and Pollux)". Its a bit like listening to answers to questions that havent been asked. You intuitively know you are in the presence of propaganda. If, indeed, Jesus was the only son, you wouldnt need to assert it all the time. The fact that you do indicates that there is a strong competing theory. What is so poignant is that what appears to be perfectly sensible grown up adults chant propaganda like this as if it is somehow derived wisdom. It also seems to indicate that people at the time, who were converting from Roman faith to Christianity, were pretty pragmatic and down-to-earth about their religion, and that it was a far simpler affair than the "eyes turned unto heaven" mock gravity that embues so much of the Christian faith today

Roland

To be techincal about it, can one even be said to have a "son" if there is no mother involved and the "son" is as old (i.e. eternal) as the "father"?

I guess this is what is meant by the "mystery" of the Trinity.

:huh:

Clouseau

That really would be a guess, because non-Trinitarians also think that's what is meant.

The mystery of the Trinity is how anyone claims to believe it.

BALDUCCI

There was clearly a time of tension between a polytheistic phase of early Christianity and some imperative to make Christianity distinct from Roman faith, ie monotheistic. So the decision was taken, as in a lot of propaganda, to declare the three gods in charge one and call it a trinity, and was left to the theologians to make up the explanations. "Damn, Cyril, this is a tough one...do we want an understandable explanation or will the gobbledygook version be better. I agree. We will go for the gobbledygook".

And after all that effort, they left Catholicism awash in gods, just sort of demoted gods, like angels, seraphims, saints etc, and the Virgin Mary and Satan were given an indeterminate status. And all of this was declared monotheism. Anyone want to buy a Vatican bridge ?

Clouseau

Great word that, clearly.

BALDUCCI

Yeah, pleased you like it. I got it from Tony Blair. I rather like the word "great"

Clouseau

[QUOTE=BALDUCCI;4520811]I'm sure you are. It's such a sure sign of a con. 'Read no further.'