What a load of shit.
Bart Ehrman, in his splendid little book "Lost Christianities," demonstrates how this whole trinity bullshit story evolved because of the fractured nature of early xtianity itself. The proto-orthodox could not tolerate such dissension and set about to exterminate other views. In the process, they painted themselves into the rather ridiculous corner that says 1+1+1=1 and they remain there to this day....
You won't learn anything just reading the same silly shit over and over. Expand your field of knowledge and learn how the con job you call xtianity evolved.
Bart Ehrman, in his splendid little book "Lost Christianities," demonstrates how this whole trinity bullshit story evolved because of the fractured nature of early xtianity itself. The proto-orthodox could not tolerate such dissension and set about to exterminate other views. In the process, they painted themselves into the rather ridiculous corner that says 1+1+1=1 and they remain there to this day....
Quote:The Roman bishops in question were Victor’s successor, Zephyrinus (bishop 198–217 CE) and Zephyrinus’s successor Callistus (217–22 CE). Hippolytus himself is one of our main sources of information for the conflict, and he has the honesty to admit that the majority of Christians in Rome supported the christological view he opposed. Both sides in the dispute, I should stress, agreed with the essential proto-orthodox notion that Christ was both God and man. And both were firmly committed to monotheism: There is only one God. But how can Christ be God and God the Father be God if there is only one God?
Hippolytus’s opponents solved the problem rather neatly. Christ was God the Father himself, come in the flesh to save the world that he created. Hippolytus was not the only proto-orthodox Christian to find this view untenable. Equally vocal in opposition was Tertullian. Together they raised a number of biblical and logical objections: Why does Scripture say that God sent his son, rather than that he sent himself? How can anyone be his own father? To whom is Jesus speaking when he prays? How can Jesus talk about going to his Father (John 20:17) if he is the Father? And is it really conceivable that God the Father was killed? This last issue became a rallying point for those who opposed the view. They mocked to those who thought the “Father suffered,” and coined the term “patripassianist” (father-sufferers) to refer to anyone who subscribed to such a otion.21
You won't learn anything just reading the same silly shit over and over. Expand your field of knowledge and learn how the con job you call xtianity evolved.
