Pope Francis says Atheists Can Be saved..

[PatsFanInVa]

Whatever word you prefer, R.I. I, the benighted non-Catholic, have discovered (from my point of view) that:

- The Catholic church's practices have been influenced by external forces, and that

- Practices of the Catholic church which are upheld by theological reason have been reversed, and that

- Those theologically justified practices that have been overturned have been done so as a result of external forces.

These last two, I have "discovered" (from my point of view) simply by your own words. You held up the gender of altar servers as one aspect of Catholic practice reversed because of external forces. You then said that there were theological justifications the Church publicly proclaimed, which were then held to no longer be important enough, in the argument for altar servers of one gender only.

You're a slippery one, RI. I want to make sure I'm not missing the things that you have so far clearly accepted.

Do you want to quibble with any of these characterizations? Have I put any words in your mouth, or is the understanding above what "all Catholics know" (or more to the point, what you say is the case)?

PFnV

 

[Lifer]

You forgot the eyeball roll

 

[PatsFanInVa]

right, sorry

 

[RI Patriots fan]

Whatever word you prefer, R.I. I, the benighted non-Catholic, have discovered (from my point of view) that:

- The Catholic church's practices have been influenced by external forces, and that

- Practices of the Catholic church which are upheld by theological reason have been reversed, and that

- Those theologically justified practices that have been overturned have been done so as a result of external forces.

These last two, I have "discovered" (from my point of view) simply by your own words. You held up the gender of altar servers as one aspect of Catholic practice reversed because of external forces. You then said that there were theological justifications the Church publicly proclaimed, which were then held to no longer be important enough, in the argument for altar servers of one gender only.

You're a slippery one, RI. I want to make sure I'm not missing the things that you have so far clearly accepted.

Do you want to quibble with any of these characterizations? Have I put any words in your mouth, or is the understanding above what "all Catholics know" (or more to the point, what you say is the case)?

PFnV

If you read the link I gave you, you'll see that pretty much everything the church does within the mass has a "theological " foundation, so there isn't any more significance to altar servers than any other practice within the mass or any other practice within the church. As Allen Iversen once said, "we talking about practice....we ain't talking about the game"


Iverson Practice! - YouTube



I don't see why you call me "slippery". I have been very consistent on what I've said about dogma, doctrine, discipline (pracitice), and devotion.

I've said that many things affect Catholic practice and devotion (heck, I even gave a list). I've always said that to be true. So I guess you can put me down as "accepting" that the practice and devotion of the church is affected by many things.
BTW, while you're at it, put me down for the church having the gift of the Magisterium and having sacraments too.

 

[RI Patriots fan]

You can really feel the warmth, caring and message of Jesus...

The "golden rule" just oozes into every fabric of these posts..

Interesting, because I hear the ignorance of pagans in your posts.....

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Thanks. We now know -- or perhaps Catholics always knew, but I now know, that the theology of Catholic practice can be changed by external developments, per your admission above.

As to doctrine, let's begin with the Trinity.

Jesus never claimed his own divinity, although he used the phrase "the Son" and "The Son of Man"(!) to talk about himself. He never referred to himself as the "only begotten son."

While the figure "the son of Man" appears in Judaism, the man-God concept does not, in the sense that one particular man can embody God on Earth. So while Jewish text uses the figure of a father to represent God, with his children being humanity, Judaism does not go over the line into the identification of a "Son" (capital "S") as part and parcel of the godhead, and there is no evidence of a trinity in Judaism.

Similarly, Jesus never talked of a trinity. Such notions are especially lacking in the material in the synoptic gospels. Since we're concerned here with the historical Jesus, that's significant: If Jesus did not actually speak of a trinity, those sayings most conclusively attributed to him should be our springboard. Regardless, even the Gospel of John is utterly devoid of trinitarian musings.

Conversely, the trinity had become a well-worn trope in the Pagan world. The Egyptians had one -- actually, they had two, counting Isis/Osiris/Horus. The Romans, it could be said, had one (Jupiter/Juno/Minerva.) The Etruscans had one. The Babylonians, and those cultures which adopted their pantheon in whole or in part, had one (Anu the "father," Enlil (god of the earth,) and Enki, god of Wisdom.) The three are treated often as triune, or "three in one," in the pagan world.

Here's a quick read on the subject:

The Origin of the Trinity: From Paganism to Constantine

Will Durant and others on the triune Egyptian trinity:

Egypt’s history is similar to Sumeria’s in antiquity. In his Egyptian Myths, George Hart, lecturer for the British Museum and professor of ancient Egyptian heiroglyphics at the University of London, shows how Egypt also believed in a ‘transcendental, above creation, and preexisting’ one, the god Amun. Amun was really three gods in one. Re was his face, Ptah his body, and Amun his hidden identity (24). The well-known historian Will Durant concurs that Ra, Amon, and Ptah were ‘combined as three embodiments or aspects of one supreme and triune deity’ (Oriental Heritage 201). Additionally, a hymn to Amun written in the 14th century BC defines the Egyptian trinity: ‘All Gods are three: Amun, Re, Ptah; they have no equal. His name is hidden as Amun, he is Re... before [men], and his body is Ptah’ (Hornung 219).

On some early Christian adoption of pagan authority:

Dr. Jaroslav Pelikan, a Catholic scholar and professor at Yale, confirms the Church’s respect for pagan ideas when he states that the Apologists and other early church fathers used and cited the [pagan] Roman Sibylline Oracles so much that they were called ‘Sibyllists’ by the 2nd century critic, Celsus. There was even a medieval hymn, ‘Dies irae,’ which foretold the ‘coming of the day of wrath’ based on the ‘dual authority of ‘David and the Sibyl”(Emergence 64-65).

Now then: How did the holy universal and apostolic blah blah blah Roman Catholic church come upon the idea of the trinity?

It was not from Jewish sources.

It was not from Jesus.

Contemporary pagan cultures had a trinity. Jewish sources did not.

When a certain kind of innovation in religion is begun in one place, and is adopted elsewhere, there are few other than "Defenders of the Faith" who tie themselves in knots to deny the influence.

For example, I do not treat it as coincidental that a faith resembling monotheism was practiced in the Egypt of Akhenaten, and that perhaps a century later, historical (as opposed to mythic, anecdotal) Jewish monotheism was born, in the same place.

I do know that the Jews embraced Monotheism, while Egypt so strenuously rejected its proto-Monotheism, that later pharaohs went to great lengths to deface any depiction of Akhenaten. I also know that his worship of only the sun-disk as representative of the Godhead would not be at home in Judaism, and that the moral character of Egyptian and Jewish religions are dissimilar, moreso, for example, than the characters of Judaism and Christianity.

However, I do say that it is very likely that Egyptian proto-monotheism found its way into the ideas of Moses at the time of the Exodus.

Similarly, the ideas of the pagan world manifestly found their way into Christian trinitarian doctrine.

Can you prove that the Christian doctrine of a trinity arose ex nihilo, when its authors from the very beginning were surrounded by pagan cultures steeped in trinitarian doctrines?

In the study of history, such a development ex nihilo is exceptional, and is indeed confined by and large to cultures physically isolated from surrounding cultures. I have just demonstrated Jewish awareness at the outset of the proto-monotheism of Egypt, and pointed to a great likelihood that it is a sine qua non for the historical origin of Judaism. Within Jewish scripture there is constant reference to (and battle against) the encroachments of paganism; it is also an indisputable fact that Elohim, one of the names of God characterizing a component strand of early Judaism/Hebraism (for want of a better word), is a plural construction, probably derived from the name El, which appears throughout contemporaneous canaanite paganism, often preceded by a second description (e.g., "bull-El"). Do I believe that the significance of the Jewish God is the same as the significance of the surrounding religions around the time of the conquest? No. Do I accept that there was adoption of symbology, vocabulary, and even ideas? Of course.

You make the novel claim here that those who set the doctrine for a polyglot religious movement, early Christianity, had no influences other than internal Christian debate.

Unless we accord early Christianity a special place in the history of religions, the claim is unsupportable.

But thanks for playing

 

[Lifer]

Interesting, because I hear the ignorance of pagans in your posts.....

You dont often hear that said in normal conversation. Do you talk like that around the house or at work? Or at a ballgame. "Hey, you pagans, sit down at once so that i can see" lol

 

[RI Patriots fan]

Thanks. We now know -- or perhaps Catholics always knew, but I now know, that the theology of Catholic practice can be changed by external developments, per your admission above.

As to doctrine, let's begin with the Trinity.

Jesus never claimed his own divinity, although he used the phrase "the Son" and "The Son of Man"(!) to talk about himself. He never referred to himself as the "only begotten son."

While the figure "the son of Man" appears in Judaism, the man-God concept does not, in the sense that one particular man can embody God on Earth. So while Jewish text uses the figure of a father to represent God, with his children being humanity, Judaism does not go over the line into the identification of a "Son" (capital "S") as part and parcel of the godhead, and there is no evidence of a trinity in Judaism.

Similarly, Jesus never talked of a trinity. Such notions are especially lacking in the material in the synoptic gospels. Since we're concerned here with the historical Jesus, that's significant: If Jesus did not actually speak of a trinity, those sayings most conclusively attributed to him should be our springboard. Regardless, even the Gospel of John is utterly devoid of trinitarian musings.

Conversely, the trinity had become a well-worn trope in the Pagan world. The Egyptians had one -- actually, they had two, counting Isis/Osiris/Horus. The Romans, it could be said, had one (Jupiter/Juno/Minerva.) The Etruscans had one. The Babylonians, and those cultures which adopted their pantheon in whole or in part, had one (Anu the "father," Enlil (god of the earth,) and Enki, god of Wisdom.) The three are treated often as triune, or "three in one," in the pagan world.

Here's a quick read on the subject:

The Origin of the Trinity: From Paganism to Constantine

Will Durant and others on the triune Egyptian trinity:



On some early Christian adoption of pagan authority:



Now then: How did the holy universal and apostolic blah blah blah Roman Catholic church come upon the idea of the trinity?

It was not from Jewish sources.

It was not from Jesus.

Contemporary pagan cultures had a trinity. Jewish sources did not.

When a certain kind of innovation in religion is begun in one place, and is adopted elsewhere, there are few other than "Defenders of the Faith" who tie themselves in knots to deny the influence.

For example, I do not treat it as coincidental that a faith resembling monotheism was practiced in the Egypt of Akhenaten, and that perhaps a century later, historical (as opposed to mythic, anecdotal) Jewish monotheism was born, in the same place.

I do know that the Jews embraced Monotheism, while Egypt so strenuously rejected its proto-Monotheism, that later pharaohs went to great lengths to deface any depiction of Akhenaten. I also know that his worship of only the sun-disk as representative of the Godhead would not be at home in Judaism, and that the moral character of Egyptian and Jewish religions are dissimilar, moreso, for example, than the characters of Judaism and Christianity.

However, I do say that it is very likely that Egyptian proto-monotheism found its way into the ideas of Moses at the time of the Exodus.

Similarly, the ideas of the pagan world manifestly found their way into Christian trinitarian doctrine.

Can you prove that the Christian doctrine of a trinity arose ex nihilo, when its authors from the very beginning were surrounded by pagan cultures steeped in trinitarian doctrines?

In the study of history, such a development ex nihilo is exceptional, and is indeed confined by and large to cultures physically isolated from surrounding cultures. I have just demonstrated Jewish awareness at the outset of the proto-monotheism of Egypt, and pointed to a great likelihood that it is a sine qua non for the historical origin of Judaism. Within Jewish scripture there is constant reference to (and battle against) the encroachments of paganism; it is also an indisputable fact that Elohim, one of the names of God characterizing a component strand of early Judaism/Hebraism (for want of a better word), is a plural construction, probably derived from the name El, which appears throughout contemporaneous canaanite paganism, often preceded by a second description (e.g., "bull-El"). Do I believe that the significance of the Jewish God is the same as the significance of the surrounding religions around the time of the conquest? No. Do I accept that there was adoption of symbology, vocabulary, and even ideas? Of course.

You make the novel claim here that those who set the doctrine for a polyglot religious movement, early Christianity, had no influences other than internal Christian debate.

Unless we accord early Christianity a special place in the history of religions, the claim is unsupportable.

But thanks for playing

So Jesus never claimed to be God ???? That's funny because the Jews sure thought he did."



"The Father and I (Jesus) are one". Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him.
But Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"
"We are not stoning you for any good work," they replied, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."


John 10:33 "We are not stoning you for any good work," they replied, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."



And then when Thomas sees Jesus after he has risen from the dead what does he say:


Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God".


John 20:28 Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"


So what does Jesus say after Thomas makes this statement of faith. Does he correct him and tell him that he's wrong? Um...not quite.


Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."


John 20:29 Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."


Jesus doesn't correct Thomas but instead does 2 things.....first he acknowledges that Thomas was right in his belief but also that those who believe what Thomas believed without seeing what Thomas saw would be blessed even more so.



How about another one:



Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad." "You are not yet fifty years old," they said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"
Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, before Abraham was even born, I Am!"
At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.


John 8:59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.



Obviously, Jesus was equating himself to God and the Jews knew this and tried to stone him .




As for Jesus claiming to be the Son of God, when he was asked if he was the son of God he didn't deny it even though it meant his death.


They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?" He replied, "You say that I am." Then they said, "Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips."


Luke 22:71 Then they said, "Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips."




But who's witness is better than God the Father:


As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him.
And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.


Matthew 3:17 And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."



Ok, So now we look at the commission he gave the Apostles:


"Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.


Matthew 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,


This is the exact same Trinitarian baptismal, the church uses to this very day.


When you say that Jesus never spoke about something just because it wasn't in the canon of scripture it doesn't mean that Jesus didn't actually speak on the subject. The scripture is quite clear that Jesus said and did many things that were not recorded in scripture.


"Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."


John 21:25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.


You're also forgetting that Catholic teaching comes from 2 sources....the scriptures and oral teaching. We see the Trinitarian theology through oral tradition in particular in the early Patristics.


Also, Jesus made it clear that revelation didn't end with his teaching. He made it clear that the Holy Spirit would reveal even more to the Apostles after his death. So saying that "Jesus didn't say something" doesn't mean that it is any less a teaching of the church and part of revelation.


"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you."


John 16:15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you."



Again, chuck full of Jesus equating himself to God the Father and references to the Trinity.


more in next post........

 

[Lifer]

Oh thank goodness, another post "Chuck full of Jesus"

 

[RI Patriots fan]

We see the Trinitarian teaching within the church from the Apostles through the Patristics into the councils of the church:





The Didache

"After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. . . . If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).



Ignatius of Antioch

"[T]o the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in ************ our God" (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).

"For our God, ************, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit" (ibid., 18:2).



Justin Martyr

"We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the mystery which lies therein" (First Apology 13:5–6 [A.D. 151]).



Theophilus of Antioch

"It is the attribute of God, of the most high and almighty and of the living God, not only to be everywhere, but also to see and hear all; for he can in no way be contained in a place. . . . The three days before the luminaries were created are types of the Trinity: God, his Word, and his Wisdom" (To Autolycus 2:15 [A.D. 181]).



Irenaeus

"For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, the Father Almighty . . . and in one ************, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit" (Against Heresies 1:10:1 [A.D. 189]).



Tertullian

"We do indeed believe that there is only one God, but we believe that under this dispensation, or, as we say, oikonomia, there is also a Son of this one only God, his Word, who proceeded from him and through whom all things were made and without whom nothing was made. . . . We believe he was sent down by the Father, in accord with his own promise, the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father and the Son, and in the Holy Spirit. . . . This rule of faith has been present since the beginning of the gospel, before even the earlier heretics" (Against Praxeas 2 [A.D. 216]).

"And at the same time the mystery of the oikonomia is safeguarded, for the unity is distributed in a Trinity. Placed in order, the three are the Father, Son, and Spirit. They are three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in being, but in form; not in power, but in kind; of one being, however, and one condition and one power, because he is one God of whom degrees and forms and kinds are taken into account in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (ibid.).

"Keep always in mind the rule of faith which I profess and by which I bear witness that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and then you will understand what is meant by it. Observe now that I say the Father is other [distinct], the Son is other, and the Spirit is other. This statement is wrongly understood by every uneducated or perversely disposed individual, as if it meant diversity and implied by that diversity a separation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" (ibid., 9).

"Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent persons, who are yet distinct one from another. These three are, one essence, not one person, as it is said, ‘I and my Father are one’ [John 10:30], in respect of unity of being not singularity of number" (ibid., 25).



Origen

"For we do not hold that which the heretics imagine: that some part of the being of God was converted into the Son, or that the Son was procreated by the Father from non-existent substances, that is, from a being outside himself, so that there was a time when he [the Son] did not exist" (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:4:1 [A.D. 225]).

"No, rejecting every suggestion of corporeality, we hold that the Word and the Wisdom was begotten out of the invisible and incorporeal God, without anything corporal being acted upon . . . the expression which we employ, however that there was never a time when he did not exist is to be taken with a certain allowance. For these very words ‘when’ and ‘never’ are terms of temporal significance, while whatever is said of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is to be understood as transcending all time, all ages" (ibid.).

"For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds every sense in which not only temporal but even eternal may be understood. It is all other things, indeed, which are outside the Trinity, which are to be measured by time and ages" (ibid.).



Hippolytus

"The Word alone of this God is from God himself, wherefore also the Word is God, being the being of God. Now the world was made from nothing, wherefore it is not God" (Refutation of All Heresies 10:29 [A.D. 228]).



Novatian

"For Scripture as much announces Christ as also God, as it announces God himself as man. It has as much described ************ to be man, as moreover it has also described Christ the Lord to be God. Because it does not set forth him to be the Son of God only, but also the son of man; nor does it only say, the son of man, but it has also been accustomed to speak of him as the Son of God. So that being of both, he is both, lest if he should be one only, he could not be the other. For as nature itself has prescribed that he must be believed to be a man who is of man, so the same nature prescribes also that he must be believed to be God who is of God. . . . Let them, therefore, who read that ************ the son of man is man, read also that this same Jesus is called also God and the Son of God" (Treatise on the Trinity 11 [A.D. 235]).



Pope Dionysius

"Next, then, I may properly turn to those who divide and cut apart and destroy the most sacred proclamation of the Church of God, making of it [the Trinity], as it were, three powers, distinct substances, and three godheads. . . . [Some heretics] proclaim that there are in some way three gods, when they divide the sacred unity into three substances foreign to each other and completely separate" (Letter to Dionysius of Alexandria 1 [A.D. 262]).

"Therefore, the divine Trinity must be gathered up and brought together in one, a summit, as it were, I mean the omnipotent God of the universe. . . . It is blasphemy, then, and not a common one but the worst, to say that the Son is in any way a handiwork [creature]. . . . But if the Son came into being [was created], there was a time when these attributes did not exist; and, consequently, there was a time when God was without them, which is utterly absurd" (ibid., 1–2).

"Neither, then, may we divide into three godheads the wonderful and divine unity. . . . Rather, we must believe in God, the Father Almighty; and in Christ Jesus, his Son; and in the Holy Spirit; and that the Word is united to the God of the universe. ‘For,’ he says, ‘The Father and I are one,’ and ‘I am in the Father, and the Father in me’" (ibid., 3).


The Trinity | Catholic Answers



So you ask me to prove that Christian doctrine was not influenced by outside sources which have similar beliefs (more dissimilar than similar). The burden of proof is not on me to prove that there isn't a link. The burden of proof is on you to prove there is a link.

The only "evidence" you're provided so far is this same weak, indefensible argument that people use to explain away the historical Jesus.....it was "similar".
As you mentioned earlier in this thread, similarities prove nothing.

"similarity does not prove the phenomenon of borrowing from one cultural system to another."

So if similarities do not prove the "phenomenon" of borrowing than what proof do you have? Nothing.....zippo......zero.


The Doctrine of the Trinity was given to us by God through the Apostles in the deposit of faith. We see it referenced in the scriptures and see the term used in oral tradition. We see it in the Patristics and later defined infallibly in several councils.

I'd say it was a nice try on your part but quite frankly it was pretty sad especially after you freely admitted that similarities do not prove borrowing.

You can certainly try again if you like but how about this time providing some actual evidence to demonstrate a link rather than some lame "similarity" argument that even you admit proves nothing.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Oh thank goodness, another post "Chuck full of Jesus"

Seems I triggered a core dump

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Despite the increasing appearance of proto-trinitarian sayings, particularly as we get further from eyewitnesses (note your primary reliance on John,) you've broken new ground by being right about something; namely, that trinitarian sayings are attributed to Jesus as early as the later synoptics (Matthew,) in the sense of Jesus making claims of divinity. Of course, that's where we founder on the rocks of likely reliability.

You've quoted as support (ironically) of your argument -- or more accurately, copied and pasted a quote -- from Luke. In the Luke passage, the crowd reprises Pilate's challenge -- the crowd does so theologically, Pilate in terms of state power:

Are you not the son of God?
You have said that I am

Are you the king of the Jews?
You have said so

In both cases, the scene ends in such a way that any intelligent reader would say that Jesus is basically saying, "you've got no proof that I say that other than your own accusation." In the version with the crowd, they say "A ha, we have it from his own lips!" The meaning's clear: They say his claim usurps power, either from God or from Rome, and his reply is "You have said so."

Although you do have scraps to cling to in (surprisingly) Matthew, and others in John, this one is the most self-defeating you could choose.

Jesus is, in essence, denying that he has made either claim in both of these passages.

What's interesting about what you've chosen is that the writer of "Luke" chooses the accusation for which each "interest" would kill Jesus: For the Jews, it is a man claiming he is the son of God. For the Romans, it is the claim that he is the secular ruler of the Jews, who have a Roman governor and a "king," Herod (who I think was Idumaean in the first place, but why dwell.)

Now then -- why is Jesus essentially denying that he ever proclaimed such a thing when the crowd so accuses him? The "clincher" passage in Luke says "You have heard it from his own lips," but that's certainly not meant to convey that the crowd was justified in their antipathy to him. It's a "clincher" that they're acting as a mob and judging unfairly.

Why unfairly, if, as you contend, Jesus is a blasphemer, identifying himself as God?

If you insist on mis-reading this and other passages, and take Jesus to be proclaiming his divinity in the gospels, we have two other problems. One is only a problem for me, because I am looking through as objective a lens as possible. To wit: how reliable do we take the sayings to be in which he proclaims a "bridge" to a church doctrine?

To me, of course, the answer is that sayings authenticity is strongest when it's unlikely to pacify either Jewish or Roman authorities, and when the saying in question appears in more rather than fewer gospels. These are the sayings likely to have survived in popular memory.

One day, you'll be ready to have that discussion, but for the time being, you're of no mind to enter into historical critical study, as we've seen. You can't do that and defend at the same time.

The other problem is that without historical critical study, I'm stuck just saying "nuh-uh." I'm loathe to do so. So I'll stipulate without agreeing... what if Jesus does proclaim a pagan doctrine, with him at the center?

I don't actually think this is the case. But I do think that if you are moving Trinitarianism to Jesus from his later followers, you've simply moved the entry point for pagan influence on the doctrine of the Trinity.

Judaism doesn't have it. In fact, Luke's very portrayal of the Jewish crowd establishes that Christians portrayed Jews as availing themselves of the charge of blasphemy if a man proclaimed himself to be integral to the godhead.

So: Jesus, in your world, is a blasphemer by first century Jewish standards. Whence comes this blasphemy?

Ground rules: Natural explanations only, thank you. Jesus is only a man to me and to history. If you are looking at the historical origin of the doctrine of the trinity in Christianity, why are you insisting that it's an "original" Christian concept -- whether the borrowing was by an early Church father or by Jesus?

I don't view it as likely that trinitarian Christianity has its origin in the life of Jesus. However, you say that you do, and I'm stipulating to your point of view.

We have already shown that Jesus took from the story of the pagan Socrates "take this cup away from me." Obviously, the authors of the gospels saw the Socratic parallel, liked it, and used it -- whether or not they inserted it for their pagan audiences who would know the Socrates story.

They, or Jesus, could construct their trinity ex nihilo, but they would have known of pagan trinities that by dividing the godhead and still insisting it to be "one," have accomplished essentially the same task of inserting a man into a role within the godhead (not in the sense that all men/women can be in communion with the godhead; rather, the elevation of one unique man to divine status). With the examples of prior trinities, and prior God-men (the Romans come to mind,) Christians (or Jesus if you like) were well-equipped to establish Christian Trinitarianism on the same well-trodden ground.

In fact, could it be said that people in contact with preexisting trinitarian doctrines even authored such a doctrine to begin with?

Can I write "Fourscore and seven years ago" without every reader knowing I am alluding to the Gettysburg address?

Perhaps in a better example, were I to proclaim that I am God's son and will die for your sins, would you not say that I am coopting Christian doctrine? Were a cult to spring up around such a saying, would you not accuse it of being borrowed from Christianity?

And, chillingly, given sufficient success, would not some future Church proclaim that I was only alluding to Christian doctrine, but that Christian doctrine was inherently flawed and that I came up with "my" real meaning all by myself... after, of course, it's gone through a twist or two or eight in the doctrine mill on the way to its ossification in a catechism?

So to sum up:
1) Why does Jesus appear to deny speaking the words he's accused of saying in Luke, both before the crowd and before Pilate?

2) Even assuming Jesus spoke the words ascribed to him in the Gospels ("does he not say it? Your Gospel says he does..."), and even if you can torture your few passages into a trinitarian "creed"....

in the presence of known antecedents dividing the godhead into triune form, with which Jesus would have been as familiar as he was with, say, the story of Socrates,

How can we say that Jesus himself did not borrow from preexisting triune concepts?

And I feel I should once again contest that Jesus was doing so, in historical terms. I am just following you down your rabbit hole. Why the inconsistency in (1)? How does Jesus claim his trinitarianism is a wholly Christian doctrine in (2)? It's fine when he cribs from Judaism, because he's supposed to be "fulfilling" the Torah. When he cribs from the pagans, you have more of a problem.

PFnV

 

[Greatest I am]

I think we all fall short of the dictates of Jesus.

He wasn't a "Roman invention". I assume you are referring to Mithras.

No. I would link you up but am not privaleged to do so yet.

I was referring to a new book I just finished called Caesars messiah by Joseph Atwill. I found it quite compelling and is of the time long before Constantine had the Trinity concept forced down Christianity's throat by rigging the vote for his own self-aggrandizement as a man God.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

PS, welcome, DL, haven't seen you around.

I am new here and looking to save poor Christians who are blind because they have their heads too far up God's ass. I hope the site is tolerant as I try to get theist to reconsider following their genocidal son murdering God.

I am a Gnostic Christian who thinks more like an atheist in terms of morals and ethics and that is why I fight for a sane God instead of the O T S O B.

95% of atheists do not mind me and the 5 % are so locked into their thinking patterns that they are no better than theists and I ignore them.

Thanks for the welcome.
Which camp are you in?
Will we be friends or foe?

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Christianity obviously has it's roots in Judism. When I hear that it was a "Roman invention" it always gives me a chuckle.

The person of Jesus is the fulfillment of God's promise to the Jewish people. I don't think that he was merely a mortal being radicalizing the Jewish faith.
I believe that he truly rose from the dead and I certainly believe that his disciples believed it as well.

Ok...Roman influence. Please do tell. I want specifics. How specifically did Rome influence Catholic doctrine? What doctrine and what is the evidence?


I don't believe that my religion "borrowed". I believe that my religion was revealed to us by God himself. I believe that God began to reveal himself to the Jewish people and then finally through his son Jesus. I believe there is a supernatural....do u? Is there any room in that Progressive heart for a divine being?

Who put Jesus in the Trinity?
Constantine. ARoman emperor. After forcing a vote.


Originally Posted by animefan48
Well, the reality is most Christians do buy into the trinity doctrine because of persecution of the early Gnostics and non-Trinitarians, and the religious councils were dissenters were forced to agree to a Trinitarian theology. Many Unitarian and Universalist theologies argue that when Jesus said he was the way, he meant that he was an example of how to live to be united/reunited with God. As for the name, God does give other names for himself including the Alpha and Omega, as well as some believe a name that should not be written (or even spoken I believe). Honestly, I think using the name I Am That I Am would just be confusing and convoluted, seriously. I seriously do not believe that it is a continuation of Gnostic/mystical/Unitarian suppression. Even the Gnostic and mystical traditions within Islam and Christianity do not tend to use that name, and among the 99 Names of Allah, I did not find that one. Also, many Rastafarians believe that the Holy Spirit lives in humans and will sometimes say I and I instead of we, yet they don't seem to use the name I Am for God/Jah either, so I really don't think it can be related to suppressing mystical and Gnostic interpretations. I think that originally oppressing those ideas and decreeing them heretical are quite enough, the early Church did such a good job that after the split many Protestant groups continued to condemn mystical and later Gnostic sects and theologies.


Yup, the bishops voted and it was settled for all time!!1 (Some say the preliminary votes were 150 something to 140 something in favor of the trinity)

But then Constantine stepped in: After a prolonged and inconclusive debate, the impatient Constantine intervened to force an end to the conflict by demanding the adoption of the creed. The vote was taken under threat of exile for any who did not support the decision favored by Constantine. (And later, they fully endorsed the trinity idea when it all happened again at the council of Constantinople in AD 381, where only Trinitarians were invited to attend. Surprise! They also managed to carry a vote in favor of the Trinity.)



Even a Trinitarian scholar admits the Earliest & Original beliefs were NOT Trinitarian!

The trinity formulation is a later corruption away from the earliest & original beliefs!

"It must be admitted by everyone who has the rudiments of an historical sense that the doctrine of the Trinity, as a doctrine, formed no part of the original message. St Paul knew it not, and would have been unable to understand the meaning of the terms used in the theological formula on which the Church ultimately agreed".
Dr. W R Matthews, Dean of St Paul's Cathedral, "God in Christian Thought and Experience", p.180

"In order to understand the doctrine of the Trinity it is necessary to understand that the doctrine is a development, and why it developed. ... It is a waste of time to attempt to read Trinitarian doctrine directly off the pages of the New Testament".
R Hanson: "Reasonable Belief, A survey of the Christian Faith, p.171-173, 1980

The doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament.
New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. XIV, p. 306.

"The formulation ‘One God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.... Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective"
New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 14, p. 299.

"The formulation ‘One God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.... Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 14, p. 299).

"Fourth-century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary a deviation from this teaching" (The Encyclopedia Americana, p. 1956, p. 2941).

Was Jesus God to Paul and other early Christians? No. . . . .
(Source: How the Bible became the Bible by Donald L. O'Dell - ISBN 0-7414-2993-4 Published by INFINITY Publishing.com)

Regards
DL

 

[RI Patriots fan]

Who put Jesus in the Trinity?
Constantine. ARoman emperor. After forcing a vote.


Originally Posted by animefan48
Well, the reality is most Christians do buy into the trinity doctrine because of persecution of the early Gnostics and non-Trinitarians, and the religious councils were dissenters were forced to agree to a Trinitarian theology. Many Unitarian and Universalist theologies argue that when Jesus said he was the way, he meant that he was an example of how to live to be united/reunited with God. As for the name, God does give other names for himself including the Alpha and Omega, as well as some believe a name that should not be written (or even spoken I believe). Honestly, I think using the name I Am That I Am would just be confusing and convoluted, seriously. I seriously do not believe that it is a continuation of Gnostic/mystical/Unitarian suppression. Even the Gnostic and mystical traditions within Islam and Christianity do not tend to use that name, and among the 99 Names of Allah, I did not find that one. Also, many Rastafarians believe that the Holy Spirit lives in humans and will sometimes say I and I instead of we, yet they don't seem to use the name I Am for God/Jah either, so I really don't think it can be related to suppressing mystical and Gnostic interpretations. I think that originally oppressing those ideas and decreeing them heretical are quite enough, the early Church did such a good job that after the split many Protestant groups continued to condemn mystical and later Gnostic sects and theologies.


Yup, the bishops voted and it was settled for all time!!1 (Some say the preliminary votes were 150 something to 140 something in favor of the trinity)

But then Constantine stepped in: After a prolonged and inconclusive debate, the impatient Constantine intervened to force an end to the conflict by demanding the adoption of the creed. The vote was taken under threat of exile for any who did not support the decision favored by Constantine. (And later, they fully endorsed the trinity idea when it all happened again at the council of Constantinople in AD 381, where only Trinitarians were invited to attend. Surprise! They also managed to carry a vote in favor of the Trinity.)



Even a Trinitarian scholar admits the Earliest & Original beliefs were NOT Trinitarian!

The trinity formulation is a later corruption away from the earliest & original beliefs!

"It must be admitted by everyone who has the rudiments of an historical sense that the doctrine of the Trinity, as a doctrine, formed no part of the original message. St Paul knew it not, and would have been unable to understand the meaning of the terms used in the theological formula on which the Church ultimately agreed".
Dr. W R Matthews, Dean of St Paul's Cathedral, "God in Christian Thought and Experience", p.180

"In order to understand the doctrine of the Trinity it is necessary to understand that the doctrine is a development, and why it developed. ... It is a waste of time to attempt to read Trinitarian doctrine directly off the pages of the New Testament".
R Hanson: "Reasonable Belief, A survey of the Christian Faith, p.171-173, 1980

The doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament.
New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. XIV, p. 306.

"The formulation ‘One God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.... Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective"
New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 14, p. 299.

"The formulation ‘One God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.... Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 14, p. 299).

"Fourth-century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary a deviation from this teaching" (The Encyclopedia Americana, p. 1956, p. 2941).

Was Jesus God to Paul and other early Christians? No. . . . .
(Source: How the Bible became the Bible by Donald L. O'Dell - ISBN 0-7414-2993-4 Published by INFINITY Publishing.com)

Regards
DL

The Trinity and belief in Jesus as God was a well formulated doctrine believed by the church well before Constantine. I've already shown the scripture connection to Jesus as God and I've linked the Patristics.
Let's see the Patristics who denied Jesus as God.

BTW, your citations are not linked. That would be helpful.

 

[RI Patriots fan]

I am new here and looking to save poor Christians who are blind because they have their heads too far up God's ass. I hope the site is tolerant as I try to get theist to reconsider following their genocidal son murdering God.

I am a Gnostic Christian who thinks more like an atheist in terms of morals and ethics and that is why I fight for a sane God instead of the O T S O B.

95% of atheists do not mind me and the 5 % are so locked into their thinking patterns that they are no better than theists and I ignore them.

Thanks for the welcome.
Which camp are you in?
Will we be friends or foe?

Regards
DL

Um.....I'll give you one chance and then I ignore you. If you're going to use name calling, I'm not going to waste my time responding to you.
So the choice is up to you.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

I am new here and looking to save poor Christians who are blind because they have their heads too far up God's ass. I hope the site is tolerant as I try to get theist to reconsider following their genocidal son murdering God.

I am a Gnostic Christian who thinks more like an atheist in terms of morals and ethics and that is why I fight for a sane God instead of the O T S O B.

95% of atheists do not mind me and the 5 % are so locked into their thinking patterns that they are no better than theists and I ignore them.

Thanks for the welcome.
Which camp are you in?
Will we be friends or foe?

Regards
DL

Oh good Lord. It's looks as if you're spoiling for fights, and I typically gravitate toward something more like a vigorous exploration of a topic. For instance you may have noticed that RI and I disagree pretty broadly here. However, I don't consider him an "enemy" so much as an "adversary" by virtue of our respective arguments.

By "the O T S O B" I take it you're referring to the "Old Testament" [sic], and I can think of only one candidate for "SOB." Naturally, that's not my favorite description. However, plenty of the laws and incidents attributed to God in the Hebrew Bible are indefensible from my point of view. For example, the commandment to wipe out the seven nations of canaanites to take possession of the land seems a singularly human commandment in origin, and not the best human idea to boot. I am somewhat comforted that the prophets occasionally upbraided the people for not adequately completing their genocidal tasks.

However, I do believe that we have a choice as to belief, beginning with whether to believe or not. I choose to believe, and my springboard is Judaism, so my gut reaction to that "OTSOB" thing is "heeeere we go."

So, glad to have a gnostic around. It appears you see the God of the Hebrew Bible as the demi-urge. Of course, I'd like to avoid the usual button-pushing that could be predicted to ensue, to keep things civil. Seeing God as the demi-urge is no more incongruous from a Jewish point of view than reducing him to a digestible (no pun intended) man-sized chunk, as the more orthodox Christians do. Can I take it you're a gnostic Christian, or are you using gnostic in another sense?

As to my own relationship to the "OT" as folks hereabout seem bent on calling it, I'm not a radical reformer like the 19th century reform Jews who believed the whole Torah had to go, but I am a reform Jew. I think there's moral worth to be salvaged there... but I also think you have to go way past the bickering and the defenses to get anywhere, and that when we're most concerned with the best part of any faith, or concerned with direct experience of the divine, we have the least time and energy to bicker.

But then again, bulletin boards are most fun when we're bickering.

I suppose you see me most active here because I'm confronted with one sect's tenets being elevated to the status of "universal" in conversation with those who don't believe. Makes no real sense to me, outside of one's own church, sect, cult, or whatever.

So I like to see the reasoning behind such claims. So long as a modicum of respect is maintained, I think that makes sense.

PFnV

 

[Greatest I am]

The Trinity and belief in Jesus as God was a well formulated doctrine believed by the church well before Constantine. I've already shown the scripture connection to Jesus as God and I've linked the Patristics.
Let's see the Patristics who denied Jesus as God.

BTW, your citations are not linked. That would be helpful.

I could not link because of the restrictions her but let me know if you will actually look up the sites that contradict you and I will write them out for you.

Further, do you not find it strange that Rome did not vote in the Trinity 300 years after Jesus purportedly died?

Any thinking person will.



I also noted how you like to thump away and quote Jesus. Rather selectively.

Why quote all that from Jesus and not the quote that negates what you quoted.

John 5:31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.

And truthfulness is supposed to be what Christians are all about.

Tsk. tsk. Repent sinner.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Um.....I'll give you one chance and then I ignore you. If you're going to use name calling, I'm not going to waste my time responding to you.
So the choice is up to you.

What?

You can call your God all kinds of things, like Love and other crap while I cannot label the genocidal son murderer one by his true label.

Reciprocity is fait play where I come from, Canada, but I guess not where you live. Not too surprising that you do not follow that moral tenet. Yours is a corrupted morality thanks to your religion.

Run from truth all you like. I will continue to give it.

Regards
DL