The Trinity

Childhood indoctrination isn't the only explanation by the way. I think there are also biological, psychological, and cultural reasons involved as well. It's not a question that has a simple answer.
You're right about that. Psychology probably plays an important role in the propensity toward religious beliefs, while indoctrination and culture influence specific beliefs.
Childhood indoctrination isn't the only explanation by the way. I think there are also biological, psychological, and cultural reasons involved as well. It's not a question that has a simple answer.
Shermer's book has not really caught my attention. Sounds like a fun read though. I think, when people ask, "why would someone believe", they are aware of indoctrinated young people, people truly messed up by their isolated culture, and maybe some who have some kind of brain thing that makes them hear voices or something, but the question is really for the rest of us, the people who are giving you money at the bank, or counseling children at our schools, or running any number of businesses, how do they avoid the information that is constantly there. Not to mention the lack of data about the supernatural.
The gospel of Mark speaks against conceptualizing Jesus as one third of the Trinity. The prayer in the garden of Gethsemane, like the cry of dereliction from the cross, show Jesus crying out to one who is wholly Other: to God. It would be absurd to say in these cases that Jesus was crying out to himself.
The doctrine of the Trinity is that the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons but one God. In other words, Trinitarians believe in a God which is not limited to singularity of personhood; they believe in one transpersonal God. Accordingly, in Gesthemane and elsewhere, Jesus cries out to and speaks to the Father who is not Himself but another person -- another person but still one and the same God. Let me stipulate, however, that the doctrine of the Trinity is not in the Bible. It can be argued that this is the conception of God most consistent with all of the Bible taken together. But the doctrine is not actually in the text. It is however in the Nicene creed of 325AD (oldest consensus on what Christians believe) and therefore defines "Christianity" as a religion distinct from Islam and others. You can put it down to my perversity, but this not being in the Bible is actually one of the reasons I like this doctrine. I also like it because it is messy, an idea of God not made in our own image, and because it teases at the border of polytheism. But why believe it? Well it really comes down to believing in both the Bible and the divinity of Jesus. Why believe in the divinity of Jesus? For me the most convincing Biblical passage is Phillipians 2:5-8.
5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant,[a] being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.
But why believe it? Well it really comes down to believing in both the Bible and the divinity of Jesus. Why believe in the divinity of Jesus? For me the most convincing Biblical passage is Phillipians 2:5-8.
5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant,[a] being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.
Can you not see the circular reasoning here?
But why believe it? Well it really comes down to believing in both the Bible and the divinity of Jesus. Why believe in the divinity of Jesus? For me the most convincing Biblical passage is Phillipians 2:5-8.
5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant,[a] being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.
Can you not see the circular reasoning here? Overall Bible implies Trinity => Why believe in Trinity? => Believe the Bible and what the Bible says about the divinity of Jesus Wat.
But why believe it? Well it really comes down to believing in both the Bible and the divinity of Jesus. Why believe in the divinity of Jesus? For me the most convincing Biblical passage is Phillipians 2:5-8.
5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant,[a] being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.
Can you not see the circular reasoning here? Overall Bible implies Trinity => Why believe in Trinity? => Believe the Bible and what the Bible says about the divinity of Jesus I am not making any such argument. It is more like this. 1. The case for the Trinity in the Bible is shaky there being no explicit statement of such and passages which by themselves suggest quite different understandings of Jesus. 2. In that context Phillipians 2:5-8 made up my mind to conclude the following. 3. The doctrine of the Trinity is in my judgement the most consistent with all of the Bible taken together. However, I would not consider this to be anything even remotely approaching an objective proof this is the case. And certainly the fact something is in the Bible doesn't establish that anything it says is the case in reality.
I am not making any such argument. It is more like this. 1. The case for the Trinity in the Bible is shaky there being no explicit statement of such and passages which by themselves suggest quite different understandings of Jesus. 2. In that context Phillipians 2:5-8 made up my mind to conclude the following. 3. The doctrine of the Trinity is in my judgement the most consistent with all of the Bible taken together. However, I would not consider this to be anything even remotely approaching an objective proof this is the case. And certainly the fact something is in the Bible doesn't establish that anything it says is the case in reality.
Makes sense. The Trinitarian idea of God probably is the most consistent in the New Testament compared to other views throughout history even though it isn't explicitly stated.
But why believe it? Well it really comes down to believing in both the Bible and the divinity of Jesus. Why believe in the divinity of Jesus? For me the most convincing Biblical passage is Phillipians 2:5-8.
5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant,[a] being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.
Can you not see the circular reasoning here? Overall Bible implies Trinity => Why believe in Trinity? => Believe the Bible and what the Bible says about the divinity of Jesus I am not making any such argument. It is more like this. 1. The case for the Trinity in the Bible is shaky there being no explicit statement of such and passages which by themselves suggest quite different understandings of Jesus. 2. In that context Phillipians 2:5-8 made up my mind to conclude the following. 3. The doctrine of the Trinity is in my judgement the most consistent with all of the Bible taken together. However, I would not consider this to be anything even remotely approaching an objective proof this is the case. And certainly the fact something is in the Bible doesn't establish that anything it says is the case in reality.You're missing the point, or rather you've got the horse before the cart. The notion of a Trinity was only one amongst many, and it won out. Subsequently the versions of the bible were changed to fit the winning idea. Had another non-Trinity viewpoint won out the New and Old testaments we have today would be very different. Check out Bart Ehrman et al.
You're missing the point, or rather you've got the horse before the cart. The notion of a Trinity was only one amongst many, and it won out. Subsequently the versions of the bible were changed to fit the winning idea. Had another non-Trinity viewpoint won out the New and Old testaments we have today would be very different. Check out Bart Ehrman et al.
Yep. This is the real issue.
You're missing the point, or rather you've got the horse before the cart. The notion of a Trinity was only one amongst many, and it won out. Subsequently the versions of the bible were changed to fit the winning idea. Had another non-Trinity viewpoint won out the New and Old testaments we have today would be very different. Check out Bart Ehrman et al.
Yes, I agree that some versions like the KJV (or a source it was taken from) were so altered. But then we still have the more ancient manuscripts and thus more honest translations have since reversed these changes. My conclusion obviously applies to these, otherwise I would be insisting that the Trinity was in the Bible as I have heard some KJV only xtians do.
You're missing the point, or rather you've got the horse before the cart. The notion of a Trinity was only one amongst many, and it won out. Subsequently the versions of the bible were changed to fit the winning idea. Had another non-Trinity viewpoint won out the New and Old testaments we have today would be very different. Check out Bart Ehrman et al.
Yes, I agree that some versions like the KJV (or the source it was taken from) were so altered. But then we still have the more ancient manuscripts and thus more honest translations have since reversed these changes. My conclusion obviously applies to these, otherwise I would be insisting that the Trinity was in the Bible as I have heard some KJV only xtians do. This could be solved pretty easy by a simple reference. Biblegateway has many versions online. Or whatever it is you're saying.
This could be solved pretty easy by a simple reference. Biblegateway has many versions online. Or whatever it is you're saying.
1 John 5:7 KJV For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 1 John 5:7 RSV And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
Yes, I agree that some versions like the KJV (or a source it was taken from) were so altered. But then we still have the more ancient manuscripts and thus more honest translations have since reversed these changes. My conclusion obviously applies to these, otherwise I would be insisting that the Trinity was in the Bible as I have heard some KJV only xtians do.
This could be solved pretty easy by a simple reference. Biblegateway has many versions online. Or whatever it is you're saying. There have been enumerable sources that contributed to the KJV. Which are you referring to as a "source"? The word "the" has been corrected to the word "a". If you really want to know the details I am sure you can find it by googling the 1 John 5:7 passage.
There have been enumerable sources that contributed to the KJV. Which are you referring to as a "source"?
By "source", I meant the Bible itself, or A Bible. Of course, there is the entire Eastern Orthodox world that disagrees that this is an important passage, and who says "Word" = "Son" = "Jesus"? I don't actually care that much who that was, I'm just pointing it out.

And of course none of this has anything to do with truth. It’s all just textual analysis, the history of verbal traditions, local lore, etc. We could be having the same conversation about unicorns, tri-unicorns, dragons, whatever. But it is fun!

And of course none of this has anything to do with truth. It's all just textual analysis, the history of verbal traditions, local lore, etc. We could be having the same conversation about unicorns, tri-unicorns, dragons, whatever. But it is fun!
You can't disprove those unicorns!

:wink:

The cry of dereliction in Mark also shows Mark’s Jesus did not think he would be resurrected after three days. The cry of dereliction by Jesus makes no sense if Jesus anticipates a speedy resurrection.

Interesting to note that Mark also has a rather unimpressive resurrection story compared to the other gospels. The last bit of chapter 16 was added on later to probably make it seem more credible.
Credible? You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.
Lois
Oh yeah? But you could…you could… make a really small football.
:ahhh: