The historical origins of the Christian notion of the Trinity

Discussion in 'Religion' started by billvon, Aug 30, 2018.

  1. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,906
    Yes

    I think you are dressing it up a bit if you think such rudimentary knowledge constitutes "education".

    The very environment that gave rise to trinitarianism, which, in short, is everything you would expect a person to specifically reference in such a discussion.

    What they are "missing" is the standard field in terms of time, culture and politics that anyone would refer to if they wanted their ideas on historical continuity to be taken seriously. As I said, its just trying to draw a connection between ancient north africans during the roman empire and the politics of Martin Luther King. Sure, you could talk about a similarity of category, but if you try to ply them into some narrative of historical continuity you have to do more than wiggle your hands during the intervening period of a few thousand years.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,906
    I guess you felt you needed to say all that, but I don't see any relevance to what is under discussion.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,784
    As disappointing as I might personally find that to be, I respectfully suggest you readjust your dial on the matter. Given the feedback you've had so far, only those genuinely not looking for discussion would continue as you are.
    If one does not have the "rudimentary" knowledge, and you insist they go away and get that knowledge, that is telling them to get an education on the matter. I make no assumption as to the method of that education.
    So, despite several opportunities, and repeated hints toward the need, to give some detail, some specifics, you continue with the most generic of explanations, namely words to the effect of "you're ignoring everything". And you still think you're here to have discussion with people? (Don't worry, that's a rhetorical question this time).
    And once again you fail to give any specifics.
    What do you expect people to draw from this, Musika? You've had ample opportunity to provide some specifics, some detail as to what you think they're ignoring, and all you can do, all you can repeatedly do, is say to the effect that "they're missing everything important". No detail. No help. No intent to actually want a discussion.
    I ask again: what is it you're actually after here, given that it's clearly not a discussion with those here?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,445
    To be fair, he did advise us all to read the complete works of Tertullian. I'm sure it's in there somewhere!
     
  8. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,247
    ///
    Evidence of god is also somewhere in the complete works of Shakespeare & evidence of no god is somewhere in the complete works of StrangerInAStrangeLand.

    <>
     
  9. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,906
    If someone introduces their opinion on a particular subject, they have set the bar for the discussion. For instance, if I want to talk about the connection between ancient North Africans and Martin Luther King, I have set the bar at understanding something of the history of black civil rights in america. If I want to talk something about the influence of photons on cellular respiration, I have set the bar at understanding something about carbohydrates and mitochondria. And, if I talk something about the connection between Egyptian polytheism and the development of trinitarisnism, I have set the bar in understanding something of what went down between the east and west roman empires. If you want to turn around and throw the "standard understandings" of the subject in the "too hard" basket, it is probably wiser to come up to speed with the subject. You can call that "getting an education" or "developing a rudimentary understanding", but either way, one's opinions have already established the height of the bar.
     
  10. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,784
    There is no objective or formal bar for such informal discussion. There are simply people with their own understandings, however that might be reached, however high their own bar may be set. If you are going to dismiss someone's view on your perception that their bar is not as high as yours then you are arguing ad hominem, and appealing to your own authority. The one thing you then fail to do, and the one thing you have failed to do thus far, despite given ample opportunity, is to actually provide any counter or rebuttal to what has been offered by the other.
    Surely if they are missing the "standard understandings" then there is ample for you to choose from. Yet you don't.

    But hey, you've now made it patently clear you have no intention of discussing with people on this forum. So why are you here?
     
  11. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,906
    You set a high standard.
    What can one discuss with someone who wants to talk about the connection between Martin Luther King and ancient north africans yet can't offer any references to black civil rights in the states?
    What can one discuss with someone who wants to talk about the influence of photons on cell respiration, yet they stumble to provide any meaningful understandings of carbohydrates and mitochondria?
    And what can one discuss of the influence of egyptian polytheism on the development of trinitarianism, when such persons cannot reference any historical event, persons or movement during the first 500 or perhaps even 1500 years of christianity's development?
     
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,882
    Same reason the OP was posted.
    The OP is a fundamentally dishonest misrepresentation of a minor scientific research paper, used to malign science in general and atheistic scientists personally. That kind of posting - the style, the dishonesty, the focus on disparagement of persons - is completely characteristic of the posting of overt Abrahamic theists on this and other science forums on the internet. Musika is one of them.
     
  13. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,784
    On the contrary. I am suggesting that if you wish to actually discuss then you let people come with their own standard, and start from there. If you want them to reach a higher bar then offer constructive suggestions, specifics of what they may not be considering (rather than blanket "500-1000 years of history"). Show them that their understanding is not what it should be. Don't just claim that their understanding is flawed but actually show them what they are not considering, show them that there is more to ponder, more information that leads to a different conclusion. That would be the decent thing to do, would it not.
    Or you can just claim "You're wrong. I'm not going to show you why. Get an education." and come across as arrogant, unhelpful, and ultimately a waste of time.
    If you feel a conversation beneath you then just move along. Leave them to it. But if you want to partake and feel that what someone says is wrong, the decent thing would be to help explain to them why. Justify your view that it is wrong. That is what discussions are. Simply stating "oh, well you're leaving out 500-1000 years of history" is not helpful. Which parts of history, for example? What links are they missing that suggest their views are wrong?
    Then don't discuss with them. Move along. Go to another thread, or another forum. That would be the decent thing to do, rather than to simply state (to the effect of) "you're wrong. Get an education". Doing so offers nothing. It is simply you asserting your own authority (without anything to support it). It is devoid of anything constructive to the ongoing discussion. It simply works to close down discussion simply because you find the level of discussion beneath you.
    And that's not the decent thing to do.
    If you don't want to have discussion that's fine. No one is holding a gun to your head to join in. But don't destroy others' discussions when you do. Be constructive. Be helpful. Be decent.

    I'm not going to go on about it any more. I wouldn't have thought I'd have to go on this long, yet still, here we are. And if you still don't get it then I'm not sure there is anything (further) I can say to help.
     
  14. Capracus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    936
    Your opinion on that topic.
    Your opinion on that topic.
    Your opinion on that topic.

    That’s how discussions work. You throw in your two cents, and someone else throws in theirs. Stop complaining about the noise and the lighting and just ante up. These aren’t high stakes games, what do you have to lose?
     
  15. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,906
    There is a whole stack of difference of opinion, controversy and mystery surrounding the development of early christianity. Unfortunately, one cannot enter in to it unless one is somewhat familiar with early christianity. BTW, this phenomenon between diversity and familiarity is not unique to early christianity. Its kind of the rules for, well anything you might want to discuss.

    Plenty of atheists have made valid statements about "all religions", usually as a consequence of having some familiarity with them.
    Similarly, many atheists have said valid things about the development of trinitarianism, usually as a consequence of being somewhat familiar with it.

    I'm sure you would have brought that to such people's attention on more than one occassion.

    Well, for example, if someone wants to talk about the influence of egyptian polytheism on trinitarianism, one would assume that they would have some historical point of reference in the timeline of the development of trinitarianism. I guess you could say pointing out this gargantuan absence in someone's argument is fault finding, but its a bit much to turn around and say such antagonists are also now duty bound to provide a concise presentation on the development of trinitarianism.

    Demanding that others who make claims about historical developments provide a historical framework or point of reference for their claims is not superiority. Its the rules of engagement. I guess we could do some sort of DIY/DUI anthropology or something if one is interested in creative writing or something.

    If citing the name "Tertullian" is sufficient to blow people out of the water in a discussion about trinitarianism, you certainly set the bar very low.

    Geez.
    And you don't think a person leveling claims about egyptian polytheistic influence on trinitarianism is duty bound to take their claims out of shapelessness by providing a bit of historical context?

    Not that everything said herein is impervious to criticism, but just to provide a bit of a taste of how practically "everything" points in the opposite direction:

    https://www.quora.com/To-what-exten...r/Keith-Rockefeller?share=e3ed8d12&srid=hM5pX

    Fancy that, eh?


    It was more a reference point for understanding how trinitarianism developed. He falls snuggly in the political timeline, in terms of determining his influences and his opponents, for understanding how things developed. If you want to read his entire works, that's your prerogative. However if one does not have at least a rudimentary understanding of who and what he was, its difficult to understand how one could launch a valid opinion on the development of the trinity doctrine.

    Aside from having a desire to engage in fallacious argument, it's a mystery why you would presume that.
     
  16. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,906
    Then I guess the next question is, "what is the value of such opinions?"
     
  17. Capracus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    936
    Do you consider your opinions worthless? If so, why bother logging in?
     
  18. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,906
    If my opinions were bereft of any meaningful reference point to the world we live in, I could understand why others might think as such.
     
  19. Capracus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    936
    The only way to determine if that is the case or not is to present them for analysis, just as everyone else does in this forum. We all have strengths and weaknesses regarding our opinions, can you think of a better way to test them?
     
  20. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,906
    What is that?
    A collection of lolcats and atheist memes?
     
  21. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,906
    Well, so whenever you are ready to make a start regarding the influence of egyptian polytheism on the trinity doctrine.
     
  22. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,247
    ///
    Missing the point, as usual. You cannot go long without childish attempts at insult.

    <>
     
  23. Capracus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    936
    Not that I agree with the claim, but it seems to be a notion perpetuated by nontrinitarian Christians.

    The ancient Egyptians, whose influence on early religious thought was considered profound, usually arranged their gods and goddesses in groups of three, or trinities: some examples of this are the trinity of Osiris, Isis, and Horus, the trinity of Amen, Mut, and Khonsu, and the trinity of Khnum, Satis, and Anukis.[citation needed]

    Some nontrinitarians[who?] also say that a link between the doctrine of the Trinity and the Egyptian Christian theologians of Alexandria suggests that Alexandrian theology, with its strong emphasis on the deity of Jesus, served to infuse Egypt's pagan religious heritage into Christianity. They accuse the Church of adopting these Egyptian tenets after adapting them to Christian thinking by means of Greek philosophy

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism#Purported_pagan_origins_of_the_Trinity
     

Share This Page