[Serious] The Trinity

[GrandizerII]

I mean if you want to persist in your error, be my guest.

From the first century, many Christians were already accepting Jesus as divine. It's absurd to think otherwise, given the documents that point otherwise.

Hell, according to Bart Ehrman, even before Mark was written, Christians already believed that Jesus was exalted to godhood upon resurrection. Then that evolved over the decades to become Jesus was exalted from the very beginning.

I'm sorry for being pushy and given the impression that I think you're lying, but it's always frustrating having discussions with you when there are disagreements. FWIW, I don't think you're lying. I do think you're being stubborn (is that a form of dishonesty? maybe) and that you don't like it when I persist in pointing out you're patently wrong.

[The Grand Nudger]

That, is not, a trinitarian, belief. It is also not a belief that jesus is a god. There are always nuts who believe something nutty, but that doesn't make them representative of the community. With respect to jesusism, becoming a god was the heaviest lift. It took time, and you can research it for yourself rather than projecting your own wrongness and your own stubbornness, on me. The orthodoxy would still be executing christians who didn't believe as much in 400ad. They also executed christians who thought jesus was a god in the wrong way.

Go, let wonder lead you to knowledge.

[Gwaithmir]

As far as I can recall from my religion classes in Catholic schools, the Trinity was not supposed to make sense. It was an official mystery and an article of faith, hence immune from rational inquiry. 

[The Grand Nudger]

It's most amusing in that this is what those very learned men came up with, but also in their stated reasons for it. They believed that it best captured the religion handed down by the apostles - which, ofc, wasn't how they got their religion at all - it was another way to express a fundamental mistruth, which they themselves had created (and were at that very moment still in the business of creating), the same mistruth iranaeus went full nutter over.

OTOH, theres a significant amount of pr in the things that early bishops decreed. What was manifestly true, is that trinitarian belief was settled on for the convenience of a roman emperor who saw no utility in a fractious christian cult. He needed them because he lacked credibility. His base of useful idiots in roman politics.

[Ranjr]

I mean if you want to persist in your error, be my guest.

From the first century, many Christians were already accepting Jesus as divine. It's absurd to think otherwise, given the documents that point otherwise.

Hell, according to Bart Ehrman, even before Mark was written, Christians already believed that Jesus was exalted to godhood upon resurrection. Then that evolved over the decades to become Jesus was exalted from the very beginning.

I'm sorry for being pushy and given the impression that I think you're lying, but it's always frustrating having discussions with you when there are disagreements. FWIW, I don't think you're lying. I do think you're being stubborn (is that a form of dishonesty? maybe) and that you don't like it when I persist in pointing out you're patently wrong.

Before Mark was written, ca 70, there was only Paul, right?  What other writing could Ehrman refer?  So no appeal to authority is needed here.  Just a citation from Paul.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Bart Ehrman 

[The Grand Nudger]

The pauline text uses the language of exaltation a few places (someone else probably knows the specific locations of each verse), but, tellingly, also the language of separation and subordination.

Paul™ wasn't a trinitarian. In fact, the only time that Paul™ appears to believe that jesus was a god, is in romans.

[The Grand Nudger]

-for completeness, outside of christian myth and superstition, and wholly apart from apologetic revisionism, we know that the idea that jesus was a god is the work of three men. Whoever wrote john, around 90ad (or between 50 and 150, if we prefer) - then polycarp as his claimed disciple 69-155 - then irenaeus as polycarps disciple, 130-202ad. Meanwhile, there is no trace of any johaninne community in history. Roll that around for a bit. We have a narrative chain asserted by the men themselves, but no attestations to that effect outside of them or which isn't a direct product of their own evangelism.

Their beliefs would be common and asserted as orthodoxy 130 some odd years later by the providence of rome, in the 300s, but were non existent or novel to themselves for at least the first two (asserted) centuries of christianity. Paul may have dreamt up some christ, but it was irenaeus and constantine who ultimately made him a god. Had irenaeus advocated for a different fourth gospel, or had constantine chosen a different christian sect to favor, the belief would not have been expected to survive the proto-christian meat grinder.

[tackattack]

---

@tackattack
Of course! Thank you for your reply. What you describe, especially in terms of separate individuals in a family unit working together to represent the same name/purpose, is similar to what the Mormons believe. I don't want to put words in your mouth to say they're the same, because Mormons are strictly in denial polytheistic, saying that Christ is literally the born son of God and that the Holy Ghost is a spirit who never gained a body and acts as the personal messenger for God.

This is a different take on it, so, if there is more, then yes, I would appreciate you continuing.

@Drich

I don't understand this, I apologize. Do the three individuals of the godhead occupy the seat of "President/God" at the same time, like, simultaneously?

---

Using my example and bringing in Drich's point.

Father Smith, son Smith and Spirit Smith are all members of the Smith family. they are all Smiths, yet they are unique. God (or Godhead if you need a differentiator) is what the most Christians I know worship. They are also usually quite indistinct in their language and vary as to the level of being able to explain themselves. The Godhead is more a definition of substance and what the group is made of combined with a title. That's why Christians in my circles claim to worship "the Godhead three in one" (It's literally in a song we sang a few weeks ago) or colloquially God for short. If this is a concept you can understand that makes sense I'll answer any questions you have on the subject, to the best of my understanding.

[The Grand Nudger]

What do you make of ecclesiastic authorities concern that trinitarian belief has gone the way of the deluge and dodo, from the inside?