43
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] JohnBrownNote@hexbear.net 31 points 6 months ago
[-] Moonworm@hexbear.net 8 points 6 months ago

That's more like the saints

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Greenleaf@hexbear.net 29 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Sincere answer:

Jesus was likely an apocalyptic preacher who was crucified by the Romans but developed a following in the course of his ministry. Shortly after his death (and maybe just before), his followers saw him as a man who had the “divine” about him, like a messenger from God. Eventually, his followers started treating him like he was still a man but who was adopted by God as his son. Then eventually (maybe early 2nd century?) you eventually had this notion of Jesus as actually God. They started with a man and kept heaping glory on him until they made him God.

So over the decades, you have all these contradictory texts about Jesus’ divine versus human nature. When you get to the 3rd and 4th centuries, eventually church leaders wanted to create one harmonized view of who Jesus was. But the the problem is your sacred texts all describe him in contradictory and mutually exclusive terms.

So that did they do? They came up with the doctrine of the trinity to try and address all these contradictory views into one doctrine. But the trinity fundamentally does not make sense because it tries to take these contradictory views and mash them into a whole.

A good book if you want to know more is Bart Ehrman’s How Jesus Became God.

[-] LaughingLion@hexbear.net 13 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

The alternate theory is Jesus never existed and Paul was the prophet who spread the religion. Paul is the one who thought Jesus existed in the spirit realm. The last supper appeared to him in a vision as did all the other acts, including his death. So in this version, which is gaining more traction, Jesus was always a part of God because he only dwelt in God's realm. The death, resurrection, all that was given to Paul in his visions and happened outside of heaven but in an spiritual arena.

Now the reason we think this may have been the case is because all of the most original writings in Acts and some of the other books and so on never mention any meeting of Jesus in the flesh or existing in the flesh but he does talk about visions of Jesus. All the writings we have from Paul of Jesus in the flesh are much later additions. Paul is the only author in the bible who could have written about Jesus in the first hand. All other books came much later.

There are a few flaws with this theory and mostly come down to how we think translations of some things should read. It is also important to know that this view is still a minority but the majority of biblical scholars are believers and therefore are quick to dismiss it.

[-] comrade_pibb@hexbear.net 9 points 6 months ago

My understanding is that the commonly accepted secular position is that Jesus was a real historic person. How much of that is due to interpretation of Christian scripture?

[-] JamesConeZone@hexbear.net 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

There are very, very few people who deny Jesus actually existed. It's considered a fringe theory and isn't accepted in current academia. Bart Ehrman is very openly atheist after leaving Christian fundamentalism and he doesn't even consider Jesus mythicists worth responding to.

[-] comrade_pibb@hexbear.net 6 points 6 months ago

So is this Paul stuff just as silly?

[-] JamesConeZone@hexbear.net 5 points 6 months ago

Kinda? Paul was definitely a huge part of spreading Christianity, but we also know many important churches had no association with him at all. He writes to the Roman church as someone who's never visited them. We never hear of him visiting Alexandria, another very important early Christian site. One of the biggest names at the beginning of the second century is in France (St Irenaeus of Lyon). Paul is a very important part of the early movement, for sure, but the other disciples and their disciples were too.

As far as first hand writings: Paul's letters are the earliest NT docs (1 Thessalonians is early 50s we think), that's true. But a few of the other works aren't much later. For example, Mark's gospel is not that much later, around 60-70CE. Mark very easily could have interviewed eye witnesses or descendants of them, though this point is heavily contested admittedly. But yes, the rest are later. Matthew and John were written later still in the 80s, Revelation and John's Gospel sometime in thr 90s and Acts was probably written around the turn of the century. The pastoral letters may be as late as 125CE. So the foundation of the theory seems okay, but I don't know of any historian or scholar who argued the above theory personally.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] comrade_pibb@hexbear.net 7 points 6 months ago
[-] Voidance@hexbear.net 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Yes, i think it’s a solid theory that Jesus the real person believed the world was going to end within his own lifetime or thereabouts. It’s crazy to re-read the gospels with this in mind.

[-] Anxious_Anarchist@hexbear.net 28 points 6 months ago

Celery, onion, and green bell pepper.

[-] SpanishSpaceAgency@hexbear.net 19 points 6 months ago
[-] Satanic_Mills@hexbear.net 12 points 6 months ago

Protestantism blown out yet again.

[-] aaaaaaadjsf@hexbear.net 10 points 6 months ago

I head these two sayings all the time growing up lol.

The Italian version switches out green bell peppers for carrots as far as I know.

[-] roux@hexbear.net 6 points 6 months ago

Celery, onion, and carrot is French mirepoix. It might also have roots in Italian but not that I'm aware of.

[-] LaughingLion@hexbear.net 5 points 6 months ago

garlic, scallions, and ginger is the chinese trinity

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] aaaaaaadjsf@hexbear.net 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

It's probably one of those things Italian cuisine stole from the French, because every ragu or bolognese starts with a "soffritto" of carrots, onion and celery, and often some cured pork as well, like pancetta.

[-] roux@hexbear.net 4 points 6 months ago

I can buy that. I've used celery, onion, and carrots in a bolognese before. Just didn't really think about it since I used it for like every soup I make and it was just familiar lol.

[-] EstraDoll@hexbear.net 23 points 6 months ago

3 gods in a trenchcoat trying to sneak into an r rated movie

[-] Xx_Aru_xX@hexbear.net 22 points 6 months ago

George Bush the Father, George Bush the son and George Bush the holy spririt

[-] aaaaaaadjsf@hexbear.net 4 points 6 months ago

Is the bush burning for Moses in Exodus or not?

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] FourteenEyes@hexbear.net 21 points 6 months ago

just god setting up free email accounts to keep using the same free worship trial over and over again

[-] Findom_DeLuise@hexbear.net 10 points 6 months ago

God creating sockpuppet accounts to argue with people on Reddit about corvids

[-] niph@hexbear.net 15 points 6 months ago

Just the same body, mind, and spirit teachings common to a huge swathe of human religions, personified in the most patriarchal and annoying way possible

[-] aaaaaaadjsf@hexbear.net 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Isn't that every major monotheistic religion? Especially all the Abrahamic religions.

Is monotheism really a wonderful advance in the history of thought, a qualitative progress? There are plenty of cunning minds (but when you say cunning, you could as well say ill-intentioned or malign, inspired by the Devil) who draw a parallel between this unique God (who is represented in the popular imagination, if not in the purified vision of the learned, as an old man with a white beard, a symbol of wisdom and authority) and the patriarch of the patriarchal system, the autocrat of the power systems. In this imagery, which adequately reflects what is actually experienced, it is obvious that the wise old male is closer to God than a woman or a youth. This is a projection into heaven that legitimizes the patriarchal order and autocracy which prevails on earth. In addition, the elimination of female deities, always important in nonmonotheist religions, only accentuates patriarchal domination. Those cunning minds will add that this only and all powerful God deprives them, poor bastards, of all power.

  • Samir Amin, Eurocentrism

The religious world is but the reflex of the real world. And for a society based upon the production of commodities, in which the producers in general enter into social relations with one another by treating their products as commodities and values, whereby they reduce their individual private labour to the standard of homogeneous human labour – for such a society, Christianity with its cultus of abstract man, more especially in its bourgeois developments, Protestantism, Deism, etc., is the most fitting form of religion

  • Karl Marx
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] zongor@hexbear.net 12 points 6 months ago
[-] Dolores@hexbear.net 11 points 6 months ago

the name of my sextape

[-] Omegamint@hexbear.net 10 points 6 months ago

The lion the witch and the wardrobe?

[-] Maoo@hexbear.net 10 points 6 months ago

The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost, my child. Now do 12 Hail Marys and come back next week.

[-] SoyViking@hexbear.net 9 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

There's a father and also his son and at some point some ghost appears. They are all divine but they are all the same person because otherwise it would be polytheism which is bad somehow.

[-] rootsbreadandmakka@hexbear.net 8 points 6 months ago

Dream blunt rotation

[-] AssortedBiscuits@hexbear.net 8 points 6 months ago

The only thing I could think of that comes close to explaining the trinity without conceding that it's not supposed to make sense is if you imagine God to be like a three-headed hydra with each head corresponding to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

  1. It is monotheistic: In most religious traditions, if you have a god with multiple heads, you would just say that the god has multiple heads. You wouldn't say that multiple gods share the same body. Thus, this hydra conception preserves monotheism.

  2. It isn't God wearing three different masks: I forgot the name of the heresy, but the heretical belief is that the trinity is just God wearing three different masks like ancient Greek theater. The three-headed hydra isn't heretical in that sense because the three heads have distinct personalities. When Jesus laments of being forsaken by God the Father, it isn't God talking to himself, but a hydra head pleading to another hydra head.

  3. It presumes each part of the trinity is eternal: There's various related heresies that try to subordinate one part of the trinity to another, usually the Son being subordinated to the Father for obvious reasons. So one heresy is that Jesus started out as human but became God. Arianism also has this subordination as well. The three-headed hydra conception doesn't have a hierarchy. All hydra heads are equal with respect to one another.

Apparently, there is art that depicts the Trinity as a dude with three heads, but I guess this isn't popular because it's resembles Hindu religious iconography.

[-] PM_ME_YOUR_FOUCAULTS@hexbear.net 7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)
[-] JamesConeZone@hexbear.net 7 points 6 months ago

Is this a real question? Happy to give it a go but don't want to waste my time

[-] CDommunist@hexbear.net 7 points 6 months ago

I want to actually know. Evrrytime I think I understand it turns out to be a heresy

[-] Dolores@hexbear.net 13 points 6 months ago

Evrrytime I think I understand it turns out to be a heresy

average peasant during the reformation actually reading the bible for the first time

[-] JamesConeZone@hexbear.net 10 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Sure! So first, even though historically Christians would affirm the Nicaean Creed which espouses the trinity, not all Christians adhere to the trinity. Unitarians and Christadelphians, for example, along with a lot of Pentecostals. These are non-Nicenean Christians which may or may not be considered Christians depending on who you ask.

Some history. The Trinity developed alongside the canon, or which books did and did not make it into the New Testament. Philosophical discussions that leaned heavily on the Greek philosophy schools became either the foil or the leader in the arguments. So Gnosticism and similarly Docetism was rejected because Jesus was a real human which, in turn, led to the Gospel of Thomas being rejected. But Jesus was also considered divine, so the ongoing debates focused on how to reconcile God being human and also divine and also still God. This wasn't a quick process. It also caused huge divisions with the Eastern church rejecting the Filioque clause; the argument was/is largely over where the Holy Spirit comes from and its relationship to Jesus, but it's now just about tradition as its so deeply rooted at this point. So the trinity is not just answering "What is the nature of God" but also "How does that affect free will, faith, creation, etc." which means all explanations turn into a huge tome. As cultures change, explanations change and are accepted or rejected based on philosophic and scientific shifts. They all are attempting to explain how God can remain outside of time as "father" and inside of time as "spirit" and Jesus' relationship to both.

Even though some groups may act like nothing has changed since the fourth-century CE, there were many, many different phases in the development and understanding of the trinity. The famous allegories pop up early on and are sometimes praised at the time and later rejected (especially in the medieval period). This is very different from, say, Karl Barth. His dialectical understanding of the trinity in which we approach the I-Thou distinction by eliminating the differences God that acts in and through history for salvation ("economic trinity") and the eternal God outside of time ("immanent trinity"). Put another way, the relation between "God in Godself" and "eternal God and temporal acts." Barth is interested in how the eternal can enter time, how the divine can become flesh and still remain divine, etc., and that eventually makes him create such a picture of the trinity. This was a huge shift at the time. There will be more to come, for sure.

All that to say: don't worry about being confused about the trinity. Every generational of people have a go at it and try to understand it in their own culture, place, and time. As always, these things shift and change as material conditions shift and change. Find an explanation that has resonance with you, even if just for logical explanations. You may find "heretical" explanations are better than historical ones!

Two books that offer good introductory articles to guide you if you want to explore more: Cambridge Companion to the Trinity (2011) and Oxford Handbook of the Trinity (2012). If you only have 10 mins, read the preface/intro to each and find a chapter that sounds interesting.

[-] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Idk seems like polytheism with extra steps. And looking at least at the catholic church in Poland, adding Mary and all saints the only word coming to mind is "idolatry" - or at least would be if not for entire thing being just a power grab mafia with a fairy tales for the naive and superstitious.

Or as certain XVI century bishop put it: "Let them believe even in the goat, provided they pay tithes."

[-] Poogona@hexbear.net 6 points 6 months ago

We human beings do love making our little systems and categories don't we?

We started recognizing three vibes in our Big Tale and made a nice little system for them so that they could interact with each other

[-] Evilphd666@hexbear.net 6 points 6 months ago

This overbearing absent father and a rebellious son who objects tradition and trancends into a female energy.

[-] DragonBallZinn@hexbear.net 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Genocide, destruction, evil

[-] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 6 points 6 months ago

The rejection of the transitive property. It also makes me mad, but I can only say at this point that it just doesn't make sense.

[-] CliffordBigRedDog@hexbear.net 4 points 6 months ago
[-] CDommunist@hexbear.net 5 points 6 months ago

This shit doesn't help. It doesn't explain shit

If you say they are forms, fragments, manifestations, or pieces of God you are doing heresy

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 09 May 2024
43 points (100.0% liked)

chapotraphouse

13558 readers
694 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Gossip posts go in c/gossip. Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from c/gossip

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS