The historical origins of the Christian notion of the Trinity
- Thread starter billvon
- Start date
In the link, are all the [who]'s and [citation needed]'s regarding egyptian influences meant to support or discredit your case?
The key word being "they".
Not you.
The bullshit "if".
It's a reflex, something close to operant conditioning.
Last edited:
None of that is relevant here. Nothing else that follows from it - the splashing around in historical trivia of no bearing on the thread - is relevant either. The tactic is deflection distraction, setting up personal disparagement of scientists and atheists on a science forum.
The setup.
That isn't true.
Very few, if any, atheists here have made any statements about "all religions", and those rare few who have thereby exemplify some effects - confusion - of the continual barrage of bs overt Abrahamic theists launch into science forums and the public discussion generally.
My case? You asked for a start in the exploration of the topic. I specifically said that I didn’t necessarily agree with the statements, but at least the wiki article and the video talk by Bart Ehrman present some points to consider. If we’re going to discuss the various claims of Egyptian influence on trinitarianism, then we need to address the claims themselves, not just the validity of their sources. If the discussion of religious doctrine in general was contingent on the legitimacy of its original sources, there would be very little to discuss. So with this in mind, do you think that there is a possibility of an Egyptian influence on Christian trinitarian concepts? Personally at this point I'm undecided on the matter, how about you?
If you want to discuss influences surrounding the trinity doctrine or early christianity, there is a requirement for at least a modicum of familiarity with events, persons and politics of that turbulent era surrounding the collapse of the roman empire..
IOW, those are the "things" one will have to isolate in order to determine their relationship to other things (whether they be Pagan, Hellenistic, Judaic - or even Egyptian - or any other sort of influencing factor).
The egyptian pseudo-wiki link fails to do this (outside of wiggling hands about the number three), although it begins to take something of a legitimate form when it discusses hellenistic influence (which comes to the fore sometime after the foundations for the trinity doctrine were laid down). The video gives a brief philosophical overview of different early schools, but has nothing to do with Egypt (which makes one wonder whether you even watch the links you provide).
The reason there is very little to discuss, regarding egyptian influence, is because you provide very little to discuss.
If one wants to discuss egyptian influence on early christianity, there is a requirement one have at least some degree of familiarity with early christianity. It's as simple and as onerous as that, and is the precise model of any sort of discussion ("If you want to have a discussion on how X influences Y, you must have a degree of familiarity with Y").
You do see why they did that, right?
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
I looked at the history.
I find it unjustifiable that believer folk look to some ancient person for the answers particularly when the answers contain nothing in the way of proof.
These religious writers really are a joke...I have had a good idea so it must reflect reality...er no.
So now we can understand how the trinity notion started...interesting but history estabilishes nothing more than there was someone airing unsupported notions...who in far too cases we can identify.
Its still just made up stuff and the passing of the years leaves it as just made up stuff.
Whats not to understand?
Theist knowledge of history we must remember is likely to include mythical events such as impossible floods and Gods being born to humans.
All made up one way or an other.
The idea that education, so as to understand the development of religion, and thus help to provide evidence of God is flawed...with no evidence its just made up stuff.
All the history actually seems to point to and confirm is that there is no evidence of a God or three Gods or indeed any God at all but certainly from the evidence and the history we can safely conclude there is not any evidence for a God that would convince a reasonable rational human.
However these "discussions" serve a wonderful purpose as they certainly show the character of folk who must lower themselves past a level one would think their "teachings" would proclaim as decent to be content to present as dishonest and indeed arogant style.
I avoid judging people so I try not to but I find it difficult to respect folk who are dishonest and arrrogant...have I judged them or do I merely call them by the lables they have made for themselves.
But we fall into their trap...they want to talk about a non existent God presumably because they have nothing else to talk about...I expect a religious life would leave little room for hobbies for example or perhaps reading outside the religious stuff.
But all we get is talk no evidence ever.
Talk doesnt make God exist, talk makes Gods fade away to hold the role of a topic for speculation.
What a waste of a life these poor theists accept.
A fact...the best educated person as to religion on the planet can not offer evidence for a God...and filling ones head with the history is similar to becoming an authority on the Lord of the Rings in so far as such involvement only leaves the subject still a fairy tale.
This thread is a waste of our time.
These believers who lie are a waste of time who we would not bother with...if it were not to point out their basic dishonesty.
But they are the losers...dishonest is not something I would be proud of but Jan must know his approach is dishonest...sure when challenged he acts cut and even offended and demands you point out where...you point out where and he rejects and denies the fact.
A waste of time but Jan has dug his own hole... he thinks he is clever but resorting to dishonesty proves dumbness.
Anyways I dont need to waste my time here...it is time to ignore this God chat that only shows that folk I once respected are just dishonest and to realise they do real damage by simply wasting your time...
I will however watch the evening news for the second coming or any fact that moves these God stories out of the fiction section...but that will never happen...more chance of finding Hobbits and dragons are real.
I do find it so sad to witness first hand folk who have been so badly brain washed they cant find reality...
Alex
I find it unjustifiable that believer folk look to some ancient person for the answers particularly when the answers contain nothing in the way of proof.
These religious writers really are a joke...I have had a good idea so it must reflect reality...er no.
So now we can understand how the trinity notion started...interesting but history estabilishes nothing more than there was someone airing unsupported notions...who in far too cases we can identify.
Its still just made up stuff and the passing of the years leaves it as just made up stuff.
Whats not to understand?
Theist knowledge of history we must remember is likely to include mythical events such as impossible floods and Gods being born to humans.
All made up one way or an other.
The idea that education, so as to understand the development of religion, and thus help to provide evidence of God is flawed...with no evidence its just made up stuff.
All the history actually seems to point to and confirm is that there is no evidence of a God or three Gods or indeed any God at all but certainly from the evidence and the history we can safely conclude there is not any evidence for a God that would convince a reasonable rational human.
However these "discussions" serve a wonderful purpose as they certainly show the character of folk who must lower themselves past a level one would think their "teachings" would proclaim as decent to be content to present as dishonest and indeed arogant style.
I avoid judging people so I try not to but I find it difficult to respect folk who are dishonest and arrrogant...have I judged them or do I merely call them by the lables they have made for themselves.
But we fall into their trap...they want to talk about a non existent God presumably because they have nothing else to talk about...I expect a religious life would leave little room for hobbies for example or perhaps reading outside the religious stuff.
But all we get is talk no evidence ever.
Talk doesnt make God exist, talk makes Gods fade away to hold the role of a topic for speculation.
What a waste of a life these poor theists accept.
A fact...the best educated person as to religion on the planet can not offer evidence for a God...and filling ones head with the history is similar to becoming an authority on the Lord of the Rings in so far as such involvement only leaves the subject still a fairy tale.
This thread is a waste of our time.
These believers who lie are a waste of time who we would not bother with...if it were not to point out their basic dishonesty.
But they are the losers...dishonest is not something I would be proud of but Jan must know his approach is dishonest...sure when challenged he acts cut and even offended and demands you point out where...you point out where and he rejects and denies the fact.
A waste of time but Jan has dug his own hole... he thinks he is clever but resorting to dishonesty proves dumbness.
Anyways I dont need to waste my time here...it is time to ignore this God chat that only shows that folk I once respected are just dishonest and to realise they do real damage by simply wasting your time...
I will however watch the evening news for the second coming or any fact that moves these God stories out of the fiction section...but that will never happen...more chance of finding Hobbits and dragons are real.
I do find it so sad to witness first hand folk who have been so badly brain washed they cant find reality...
Alex
Last edited:
No, there is no requirement. The discussion begins with whatever either side brings to the table, and progresses from there.
Obviously. So given this context, and your present familiarity with these factors, what is your opinion on the topic at at hand?
The main body of the wiki article is meant to address the justifications used by nontrinitarians, of which some deal with Egyptian influences. Do you believe that nontrinitarians have any legitimacy in these assertions?
Bart Ehrman’s video presents alternative arguments that contrast the Egyptian claims. We need to examine the various arguments to discern their relative value.
What little I’ve provided unfortunately dwarfs what you have. Time to ante up.
They? Is Musika a three headed monster as well?
I looked at the history.
I find it unjustifiable that atheist folk fail to look to some wise person for the answers particularly when the answers contain the way of proof.
These religious writers really are valuable...doing away with standard of arheist critics : "I have had a good idea so it must reflect reality"...er no.
So now we can understand how the trinity notion started...interesting but history estabilishes nothing more than there was someone airing supported notions...which in some cases we can identify.
Its still offers work of substance and the passing of the years establishes its timelessness.
Whats not to understand?
Atheist knowledge of history we must remember is likely to include speculative events such as impossible models of the universe and life being materially reducible.
All made up one way or an other.
The idea that education, so as to understand the development of religion, and thus help to provide evidence of God is necessary...the very means to discerning evidence.
All the history actually seems to point to and confirm is that there is evidence of a God or some other intelligent transcendent intelligence. Certainly from the evidence and the history we can safely conclude there is not any evidence for a Godless universe that would convince a reasonable rational human.
However these "discussions" serve a wonderful purpose as they certainly show the character of folk who must lower themselves past a level one would think their "teachings" would proclaim as decent to be content to present as dishonest and indeed arogant ...
I avoid judging people so I try not to but I find it difficult to respect folk who are dishonest and arrrogant...have I judged them or do I merely call them by the lables they have made for themselves.
But we fall into their trap...they want to talk about a Godless universe presumably because they have nothing else to talk about...I expect a atheistic life would leave little room for hobbies for example or perhaps reading outside the Godless stuff.
But all we get is talk no evidence ever.
Talk doesnt make God not exist, talk makes Godlrssness fade away to hold the role of a topic for speculation.
What a waste of a life these poor atheists accept.
A fact...the best educated person as to atheism on the planet can not offer evidence for a Godless universe...and filling ones head with ideas bereft of history and philosophy is similar to becoming an authority on the Lord of the Rings in so far as such involvement only leaves the subject still a fairy tale.
This thread is a waste of our time.
These disbelievers who lie are a waste of time who we would not bother with...if it were not to point out their basic dishonesty.
But they are the losers...dishonest is not something I would be proud of but they must know this approach is dishonest...sure when challenged he acts cut and even offended and demands you point out where...you point out where and he rejects and denies the fact.
A waste of time but they have dug their own hole... they think they are clever but resorting to dishonesty proves dumbness.
Anyways I dont need to waste my time here...it is time to ignore this Godless chat that only shows folk I once respected are just dishonest and to realise they do real damage by simply wasting your time...
I will however watch the evening news to see if scientists can cure death or any fact that moves these atheist stories out of the fiction section...but that will never happen...more chance of finding Hobbits and dragons are real.
I do find it so sad to witness first hand folk who have been so badly brain washed they cant find reality...
..... and that is how these rants come across.
I could say something about the ease in responding to arguments that utilize flexible premises at their core, but it should be self evident.
Third person singular. Like most native English speakers, I use the third person plural for an indefinite or multiply referent ostensible singular.
Slartibartfast
Registered Member
There is absolutely no historical evidence of gods. Care to refute? BTW holy books are not history.
Ok.
I should have specified "meaningful discussion" ... assuming one doesn't attribute meaningfulness to discussion that maintains a willful ignorance to reference points within the world we inhabit.
That if you want to explore influences within early christianity, it's quite a stretch to make a start with Egyptian polytheism.
Sure.
But if you want to examine that in terms of egyptian influence or terming the trinity as a polytheistic mode of worship, it would probably be worth your time to start at more credible sources. It is no coincidence that the article you quoted doesn't register on the richter scale the moment it starts discussing Egyptian polytheistic influence.
Bart Ehrman has nothing to say about Egyptian polytheistic influence (although he did mention Tertullian).
So, as far as "contrasting" the Egyptian claims, you would first have to present them in a form other than a wiki article that has taken several shotgun blasts.
The only substance you have provided are derivative from ideas I gave earlier (namely tracking unfluences through developments arising around the era of the collapse of the roman empire). As far as "contrasting" these with egyptian polytheistic influences on the trinity doctrine, you are still wiggling your hands just as emphatically as you were when you first brought the subject up.
You have to read my entire response to understand the answer to your question.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
There is nothing wrong with knowing what other folk have to say, qualifying them as wise because they suit your world view is however stupid.
It comes down to this for all the "wisdom" and writing and discussion etc etc the claim that there is a God or indeed a point of creation goes unsupported.
You can not get around that.
So all these chats are no better than chatting about Hobbits, big foot, space aliens visitations, or any fictional matter.
The God story does not move past an unsupported claim and this weakness never leaves it...so any thing you say or offer is baseless and you really cant get past this stumbling blick for any God story position.
In a few short lines I offer an alternative that has more evidence in support than all your centuries of wise folk floating "good ideas" that should remain as mere speculation but unfortunately in the asbsence of evidence are seized upon as the adopted reality.
Oh the volumes of religious analysis discussion and formulation of what God must want etc...baseless all baseless...there is no answer for that claim...none.
Well I guess fosilized lizard crap is timeless and has value but both started existence as an event of the day of no interest or significance ...and certainly time passes such that even lizards crap can be of interest...
So the suggestion must give hope that my eternal universe idea will in time be respected and taken as credible...who knows? And I would not be the only fool to be pronounced wise after many centuries have passed.
I am happy you agree with me...all human stuff is made up...you get it great.
The only hope we have of getting our hands on reality is to understand its all made up...the religion and the science.
And we need to reject anything that has no evidence... you can even say the big bang and evolution is made up if you like...neither of which if proved wrong gets you anywhere with made up God stories.
You see your made up stuff has nothing as a first step on a journey...no first step..no hint your claims are valid not even with centuries of involvement still nothing...you can not get around that...and so my claim of an eternal universe is the same as your claims of Gods ..one or three there is nothing.
I must go as there is nothing to discuss ... enjoy your life and have a great day.
For all your education you are still ruled by superstition which unfortunately somewhat means your good education failed what should be its goal which I would say is to be able to think for yourself which you do not appear to be able to do.
Goodbye and good luck.
Alex
I don’t believe you’d recognize a meaningful discussion if one bit you in the ass. You seem to go out of your way at every opportunity to avoid one.
Why? Justify your point.
Rather than just suggesting alternative sources, why not offer one yourself? I thought this was supposed to be a mutual exploration?
But we can’t conclude an Egyptian influence unless we rule out others.
Feel free to join in the research.
The material I provided was in response to your whining about the subject being presented by another poster. You said that you’d be willing to discuss the subject if I offered something up, so I did, and you refused to reciprocate. Is that your idea of an honest discussion?
If you want to take credit for contributing to a discussion, you actually have to contribute to the discussion.
///
You & I had a disagreement in which there was an exchange of facts & points & reasonable opinion. 1 of us or both may have thought the other's points invalid but at least they seemed to be honest attempts. We each actually tried to show the other rather than simply repeating "You are wrong" & being obtuse.
I do not know who paid any attention to that but some could do much worse than to emulate it & other such.
You & I & James & others attempt to explain but it seems they are stuck & cannot learn it.
<>
Because if you look at things philosophically, historically and/or culturally, it is not the starting point.
The (so called) "alternative sources" are the standard ones. If you want to contextualize a historical development by events philosophically, culturally and historically displaced by several thousand years, they are "alternative."
Given that you have, as yet, failed to establish a means to establish an Egyptian polytheistic connection, it would probably be better to begin "research" in more familiar territory (like events prior and after the appearance of Jesus)
It's not clear if you want to challenge the historical authority of the trinity doctrine (which can be done easily enough, as per the vid you linked) or if you want to draw some connection between early christianity and egyptian polytheism (which requires quite a lot of "alternative" historical sources)
Even though it's not clear what you want to discuss, it seems either way, that you require some degree of familiarity with the complexities involved in the "standard" version of early christian history. There is enough substance there to throw various angles on the trinity doctrine without wiggling one's hands in the name of egyptian polytheism (or equally emphatic hand wiggles in the name of oriental orthodoxy).