Christianity was like all other religions created over time by many men and therefore you get the Trinity. Trinity was obviously not something that they planned from the start but was introduced when it came to Rome because many other religions had trinities of gods most notably Greco-Roman and Egyptian. And while it made sense in polytheism it doesn't make in so called monotheism.

Same thing with worship of Jesus' mother. They had to have their Magna Mater even tough Jesus denounced her.

In one of his books Bart Ehrman deals with the trinity doctrine and how it came about because the proto-orthodox, the eventual winners of the great xtian sweepstakes, painted themselves into corners trying to dispute all the so-called "heresies" which were competing with them and ended up supporting the absurd doctrine of 1+1+1=1.  I'll have to see if I can find that discussion.

(July 17, 2018 at 2:53 pm)JairCrawford Wrote: Some say that Jesus' saying these words increases the plausibility of the crucifixion occurring, due to the argument of embarrassment. The idea is that for the later gospel writers this utterance was not theologically sound enough, thus He is instead recorded as saying "Father, into Your hands I commit my spirit," and "It is finished," instead.

Now I don't hold to that view theologically, but it is an interesting argument from the non-mythicist position.

I think that trying to figure out what would and wouldn't be embarrassing to anonymous authors 2,000 years ago is an exercise in futility.

That also assumes that the religious would be embarrassed about mouthing any absurdity. My experience is that they are not.

'So you see, children, God is like a shamrock:  small, green, and split three ways.'  Eric Idle, Nuns On The Run

Boru

(July 17, 2018 at 2:21 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(July 17, 2018 at 2:19 pm)Crossless2.0 Wrote: Lol. No. But the psalm in its entirety bears that out. Presumably Matthew's audience would have been familiar with it.

I doubt the man said any such thing on the cross. *shrug*

Considering that crucifixion kills by the weight of the body causing the victim to be unable to draw breath after a while on the cross, the idea that he said anything at the last is a bit ridiculous.

Royal society of medicine published a study which suggests it isn’t direct asphyxiation that kills during crucifixion. Instead it is progressive organ failure resulting from gradual circulatory collapse, brought on by reduced heart and lung function.

Also some physicians have suggested description of jesus’s Death fits a sudden catastrophic medical event while on the cross, such as stroke, heart attack, or arterial rupture, and not ordinary cause of death during cruciffixion.

I want to see an atheist correctly articulate the doctrine of the trinity. Should be easy with most of you claiming to know exactly what Christians believe and how stupid they are to believe it. Go ahead...consider it a triple-dog dare. Lets stick with the most common concept found in the Apostle's Creed.

(July 17, 2018 at 4:46 pm)SteveII Wrote: I want to see an atheist correctly articulate the doctrine of the trinity. Should be easy with most of you claiming to know exactly what Christians believe and how stupid they are to believe it. Go ahead...consider it a triple-dog dare. Lets stick with the most common concept found in the Apostle's Creed.

Even christians don't know "exactly" what christians believe. There is no single articulation of the doctrine of trinity for all of christianity. 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trini...story.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinita..._positions

Which is kind of the whole fucking point, MH.  I bet Stevie can define it.  Whatever some holy joe told him he will regurgitate back.

(July 17, 2018 at 4:46 pm)SteveII Wrote: I want to see an atheist correctly articulate the doctrine of the trinity. Should be easy with most of you claiming to know exactly what Christians believe and how stupid they are to believe it. Go ahead...consider it a triple-dog dare. Lets stick with the most common concept found in the Apostle's Creed.

That's kind of the point really, we have not heard or seen a version of it that does not at some point rely on it being a 'mystery' in some way.
Sure you can define it theologically, but so what ? it still has to make some kind of sense to be believed.