Bible Humper

But their faith was already there!

We've seen what happens, time and again, when their religious convictions are challenged by reality, they start rationalising!

We have this guru who has convinced his little cult that he is the avatar of Yahweh being hauled to the cross and executed, while the faithful were expecting lightning bolts from the sky to rescue him from this fate. The inclusion of the "Oh father, why have you forsaken me?" cry seems to suggest that the guru wasn't exactly handling the ordeal the way you would expect a deity to, it's no surprise that they don't record the sordid details of the "deity" weeping and cursing, so this is the clearest look we get at the fact that he was physically suffering.

The religious mind doesn't allow for the possibility that this guy was a fraud, it instead tries to rationalise a convulted explanation that explains why the avatar could be slain by mere men, and suffered exactly how we would.

The only palatable idea that they can invent is that the deity wanted the execution to occur, what possible alternative do they have? To qualify as a brilliant invention, there would have to be a more natural and likely way to rationalise this chain of events to be in line with their faith. What would that be?

The theistic practice of rationalisation has left them with a solipsistic religion, it was not "brilliant" that they imagined this explanation, it was inevitable.

[ November 15, 2002: Message edited by: Bible Humper ]</p>

Ernest Sparks

It is likely that the idea became important when it was necessary to deal with the conjunctions of apparently distinct entities in the NT-

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

2nd Corinthians 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, [be] with you all. Amen.

1st John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

The term 'trinity' (TRIAS) seems to have arisen in the second century about the time that it became necessary to start choosing what scriptures of the christian age were GOOD and what BOGUS. Christians in Rome had to deal with the renegade priest Marcion, who rejected all of the Old Testament and accepted only a doctored Gospel of Luke and some Pauline epistles. The symbols of faith (creeds) produced at Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381) were intended to determine what is required orthodox teaching. Note that these creeds don't use the word 'trinity'.

[ November 15, 2002: Message edited by: Ernest Sparks ]</p>

Amos

I agree 100% and built upon this myth to create the greatest civilization ever! Never will we equal their achievements not even if we go to the moon a thousand times. In fact, it is so great that after 500 years we have just barely began to take it down.

Sojourner553

I'm afraid atonement was around with the pagan mystery religions long before Jesus was born.


taken from:

<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/GREEK.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/GREEK.TXT</a>


The only thing I have found that was original to early Christianity was its insistence that ALL other religions were from demons and only it belonged to the pure true religion.

The miracles and even many of the events (the virgin birth, the temptation, the resurrection after 3 days, etc) all have earlier precedents in earlier religions: be it Judaism, the Greek mystery religion, or even a little Buddhism (via the Greeks).

Here is a site on the subject of miracles:

<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/MIRACLE.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/MIRACLE.TXT</a>

Sojourner

[ November 16, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]

[ November 16, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Sojourner553

If you disagree with the evidence presented that the Xian Trinity is borrowed from earlier pagan religions, at least try to tell us what makes you reject this evidence -- rather than pretend there was no evidence presented at all.


Sojourner

lpetrich

How do their attributes and interrelationships compare? I don't see how they compare. To see what I consider a convincing case, consider the question of the Virgin Birth.

There is no Old-Testament precedent for it; the main "evidence" cited is a certain famous mistranslation in Isaiah.

However, there is an abundance of pagan precedent for it, not only in mythology, but also what was believed about certain historical figures, like Pythagoras, Plato, and Alexander the Great.

Sojourner, I challenge you to make a similar case for the borrowing of the Xian Trinity. Merely citing threesomes is not enough.

Sojourner553

(1) There is an abundance of pagan precedent for it:

*Zeus, Dionysos and the ghost of Dionysos mother, the blessed virgin Semele. Dionysos descended into Hades and redeemed her ghost, brought her to Heaven where she became a Goddess.

*The Babylonians had a powerful Trinity comprised of a father, mother and messiah child.

*In Brahmaism, the highest God Brahm is conceived of as a Trinity consisting of Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva.

*Gnostics perceived God in the form of a Trinity. As gnostics began to convert into Christianity, their earliest views of a Trinity consisted of a father, mother, and child. The gospel of the Egyptians found at Nag Hammadi speaks of a Trinity composed of a Father, Mother, and Son. One reference prays to both a divine Father and Mother couple: "From Thee, Father, and through Thee, Mother, the two immortal names, Parents of the divine being, and thou, dweller in heaven, humanity, of the mighty name." (Elaine Pagels, GNOSTIC GOSPELS, p 59)

*(from Fiach): “Tertullian in North Africa was a student of African antiquities especially Egyptian. He lived in the early 3rd Century. He would have been well aware of the wall murals at the Holy of Holies in the Temple at Luxor, Egypt. The murals showed the Father God Atum sending the messenger god, Kneph (called the Holy Spirit) to a virgin girl telling her that she would bear the high god's son. The next mural shows the Virgin bearing a son, Aten (or Horus), in a manger attended by Kneph, shepherds, and visited by three kings. This ancient Trinity comprised the Father (Atum), Son (Aten, the Sun), and Kneph (Holy Spirit), was proposed by Tertullian to the Christians as God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit. “

So why does it take a “giant leap” for someone to argue a historical person could be held out to be not only divine-- but also a member of the Trinity? (Note: I am among those on this board who consider Jesus historical—although not divine).

You might argue that no other religion put all the ingredients together exactly like they did in Christianity. But I would reply that ALL the ingredients pre-existed for someone to put them together to produce a new variation on an existing theme.

Sojourner

P.S. I assume you have seen the analyses that the synoptic gospel writers probably did not believe Jesus was a member of a Trinity -- especially Mark.

None of the synoptic gospels even mention the "Trinity" with one exception: Matthew 28:19, quotes Jesus as saying:

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

Many scholars believe the difference in tone and style of this passage makes this also to be a possible interpolation by a later Christian editor. According to Acts 2:38, the early Christian baptismal formula was "in the
name of Jesus the Messiah". Also, when Eusebius (third century C.E.), quoted this verse by Matthew, he wrote "make disciples of all nations in my name."

[ November 16, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

hinduwoman

Sojourner533 wrote:
One gnostic writing, the GREAT ANNOUNCEMENT, (as quoted by Hippolytus in his REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES), describes the universe in dual male/
female terms. From the depths of silence appeared:

"a great power, the Mind of the Universe, which manages all things,
and is a male...the other...a great Intelligence...is a female which
produces all things." (Ibid, p 60.)

very very interesting! That is exactly how it is described in Hindu cosmology --- the male principle is passively sustaining, while the female principle shakti actively creates.

Amos

Don't be silly. The male/female is true but the mind creates and the female conceives.

The male actively creates while the female passively conceives.

lpetrich

Not quite the Xian Trinity; I'm not aware that Dionysus had had any special relationship with Zeus that Zeus's numerous other offspring had had. The idea of a Father-Mother-Son Trinity does fit in with what's below, however.

Details, please?

Whose attributes do not match the attributes of the Three Persons of the Xian Trinity.

Father, Mother, and Son -- that might fit a Trinity of God the Father, the Virgin Mary, and Jesus Christ (the Son). Which some Xian sects had believed, if we are to believe some Islamic traditions.

(a lot of supposed matching from Egyptian mythology...)

I'd have to see the original for that. It seems too good a match to be true; it could be the imagination of some later comparatist. I call it that because it leaves out Egyptian female deities; the ancient Egyptians had worshipped female as well as male ones.