How do you explain the Trinity to kids?

[Delightful Life]

(Matthew 18:3 "And he said: "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

i guess we adults are screwed then our kids will bring heaven aboot. OR be a Christian for the kids :3 maybe soonish, with tech advances, sombunall Christians will be able to age regress so they can enter the kingdom of heaven?

GO CHILD PREACHERS!)

 

[redhead]

I think the best way to teach children is to be direct Honest and open about not knowing everything. That kind of levels the playing field, and also crushes authority, but overall, I think it works well for children.

 

[revsdd]

I always thought Nicea was to determine Jesus divinity, not establish canon?

Oops! You are absolutely correct. Call that a brain cramp. I was writing quickly and had Nicaea on my mind. The first Council to actually define the 27 New Testament books was the Synod of Hippo Regius in North Africa in the late 4th century. Everything else I said I stand by. It wasn't a matter of taking things out; it was more a matter of deciding what was in.

 

[Neo]

But John and Revsdd, wasn't the Codex Sinaiticus written in the 4th Century? And even thought to have been one the many bibles commissioned by the Emperor Constantine himself? How could this be a valid authority on Mark 16 9:20?

 

[redhead]

if one studies world religions, eventually one will come across information and it will shake up what we were taught- Mark is the earliest gospel written - the synoptics are not in order chronologically, and the first Council of Nicaea was as political as it was religious. and the result was to collect writings that most agreed upon and call it the Bible of, but many early Christian writings were left out. Nag Hammadi writings prove this.

 

[revsdd]

if one studies world religions, eventually one will come across information and it will shake up what we were taught- Mark is the earliest gospel written - the synoptics are not in order chronologically, and the first Council of Nicaea was as political as it was religious. and the result was to collect writings that most agreed upon and call it the Bible of, but many early Christian writings were left out. Nag Hammadi writings prove this.

It's no secret that Mark is the earliest gospel. That's been accepted for a long time. Ditto for Nicaea being as much political as anything. That's probably been accepted longer. As waterfall accurately pointed out, Nicaea was not about establishing a canon, but dealing with the nature of Jesus. And we've always known that many early Christian writings failed to make the cut. Nag Hammadi wasn't needed to prove that. I'm not sure how anything you posted shakes anything up.

 

[revsdd]

But John and Revsdd, wasn't the Codex Sinaiticus written in the 4th Century? And even thought to have been one the many bibles commissioned by the Emperor Constantine himself? How could this be a valid authority on Mark 16 9:20?

Mid 4th century, yes. Constantine died in 337 - probably too early for him to have commissioned it, but not impossible. I wouldn't bet on it though. I don't see anyone in this discussion citing Codex Sinaiticus in reference to Mark 16:9-20.

For me, the evidence that Mark 16:9-20 is a later addition has nothing to do with Codex Sinaiticus. Mark's Gospel just seems to have a natural end at v.8. In the same way, John 21 seems to be a later addition, as the Gospel of John seems to reach its logical end with the end of chapter 20.

 

[Neo]

Mid 4th century, yes. Constantine died in 337 - probably too early for him to have commissioned it, but not impossible. I wouldn't bet on it though. I don't see anyone in this discussion citing Codex Sinaiticus in reference to Mark 16:9-20.

RevJohn said: "All of the resurrection accounts found in the four gospels (particularly Mark's longer ending) are found in the Codex Sinaiticus."

For me, the evidence that Mark 16:9-20 is a later addition has nothing to do with Codex Sinaiticus. Mark's Gospel just seems to have a natural end at v.8. In the same way, John 21 seems to be a later addition, as the Gospel of John seems to reach its logical end with the end of chapter 20.

And this is the conclusion of many scholars, which is why waterfall raised the question of Mark 16:9-20 being fraudulently attributed to the Gospel of Mark.

 

[revjohn]

But John and Revsdd, wasn't the Codex Sinaiticus written in the 4th Century?

No. It was not written in the fourth century. It was compiled in the fourth century. The individual books existed and were circulated among individual churches prior to the fourth century.

And even thought to have been one the many bibles commissioned by the Emperor Constantine himself?

Contrary to the conspiracy theory regarding the Bible, Constantine did not determine which books would go into scripture and which would not. If one stops to consider that nothing in the Bible actually casts Rome in a positive light it becomes fairly obvious that if Constantine was using the Bible to prop himself up he was spectacularly stupid in picking these books.

Constantine commissioned a Bible, which was put together by various Bishops to promote harmony within the Christian religion. If he wanted a Church which would fawn over him as Emperor he probably would have found other material to go with.

How could this be a valid authority on Mark 16 9:20?

In the absence of the original manuscripts one has to work from copies.

There are few manuscripts in our possession which are whole copies of the Bible. Codex Sinaiticus is one. What we have, for the most part are thousands upon thousands of manuscripts that are portions of one of the books which made it nto the Bible and some of those manuscripts are fragments of a page of text.

Those who study in this particular field are able to date texts and even determine which family of manuscripts the texts belong to. They can identify where the text was written (generally) within the bounds of Christianity by textual variations and they can point to when the variations occurred (again generally).

Comparing Codex Sinaiticus with earlier fragments (dead Sea Scrolls) we can note changes to text. The Dead Sea scrolls does not represent a complete Biblical manuscript.

 

[revjohn]

RevJohn said: "All of the resurrection accounts found in the four gospels (particularly Mark's longer ending) are found in the Codex Sinaiticus."

True. I did say that. It is just as true that when I said that I was responding to a statement made by Waterfall which said that Codex Sinaiticus did not reference Mary's virginity or the resurrection.

Looking at the Sinai Bible which is supposed to be the oldest Bible known, we are told there is no mention in it of the virgin birth, Mary, the resurrection, etc.....

I demonstrated that Waterfall's claim (quoted here as a reminder) was in error.

 

[Luce NDs]

And in wee thoughts infantry is needed to control moral adultery ... but adults see it differently and those set in their ways cannot allow such chaos as altruism as expressed by Dickens in a Tale of Two Chaos (chaises; things to set a disturbed bottom on?). Thus the myth becomes a heavenly case-load ... or a manifestation of what isn't.

Such dissonance allow rearranging mindsets! It is a vast undertaking that is sometimes referred to as subtle, or sous-la in Gaels.

You can't tell an adult anything as their whines mature ... except through myths, Ba'aL-ads and song as hung in dead space to disturb Aryes of Ares in his isolation because of the heresy about those people causing a riot when the mon-achists require quiet for their idée-ills which may often be composed of lack of conception, or thought about that observed by Elysium experience of observing sacred zones. This could be infinitely below the belle'tas blown upon ...

Considering all the robotized intelligence ... does this process fail if there is not wise ends or terminal operators ... could there be means to such goods that may be abba'd due to un-knowing peoples, or those loosing it? Depends! On what you say ... that would be upon what you are deficient in: emotions, or intellect! Does keep the wee chits moving though ...

 

[revsdd]

RevJohn said: "All of the resurrection accounts found in the four gospels (particularly Mark's longer ending) are found in the Codex Sinaiticus."


And this is the conclusion of many scholars, which is why waterfall raised the question of Mark 16:9-20 being fraudulently attributed to the Gospel of Mark.

It's not fraudulent. It's part of the Gospel of Mark, whether added later or not. The Gospel of Mark as recognized by the church is what it is. Arguing that the later ending is fraudulent is like silly debates over what belongs in the Star Trek canon. Is is only TOS? Are the sequel series (even Enterprise) vaild? Is it only stuff that Gene Roddenberry was involved with? Does the animated series count? The new movies? The novels? Star Trek is what it is. If it says Star Trek, then frankly it's Star Trek. If the church has historically said Mark 16:9-20 is part of Mark's Gospel then it's part of Mark's Gospel.

And, of course, John is right that Codex Sinaiticus was compiled in the 4th century, not written. I assumed that's what we were both talking about, but it never hurts to clarify,

 

[Waterfall]

True. I did say that. It is just as true that when I said that I was responding to a statement made by Waterfall which said that Codex Sinaiticus did not reference Mary's virginity or the resurrection.



I demonstrated that Waterfall's claim (quoted here as a reminder) was in error.

Which is easy to do when you rely on google because sometimes google is made up of a lot of non scholarly articles that wish to disprove the resurrection.
The more one reads and researches from historically reliable sources it becomes apparent that the resurrection and the trinity seem to appear quite early in the church, long before Constantine.

Revjohn or revsdd, do you happen to know when the "trinity" concept first appeared within the teachings of the church?

It's interesting to me that Jesus always referenced the OT with His teachings, yet the resurrection according to the Jews was not to be considered an individual event, which would seem to me to be something the disciples (being Jewish) wouldn't recognize at first. Is there some sort of explanation why Jesus would present this concept contrary to Jewish thinking? (contrary meaning different)

 

[Waterfall]

It's not fraudulent. It's part of the Gospel of Mark, whether added later or not. The Gospel of Mark as recognized by the church is what it is. Arguing that the later ending is fraudulent is like silly debates over what belongs in the Star Trek canon. Is is only TOS? Are the sequel series (even Enterprise) vaild? Is it only stuff that Gene Roddenberry was involved with? Does the animated series count? The new movies? The novels? Star Trek is what it is. If it says Star Trek, then frankly it's Star Trek. If the church has historically said Mark 16:9-20 is part of Mark's Gospel then it's part of Mark's Gospel.

And, of course, John is right that Codex Sinaiticus was compiled in the 4th century, not written. I assumed that's what we were both talking about, but it never hurts to clarify,

Constantine wasn't the most honourable or admirable character though wouldn't you say? Would it be beyond belief that he or anyone would add or detract from the gospels after the fact?

 

[Waterfall]

Was there even a "hint" of the trinity in the Jewish monotheist(seemingly?) scriptures in the early church?

I'm recalling the Ugaratic texts.

 

[Luce NDs]

Remember the jude'n was the power in Hebrew territory that allowed no flexibility ... and Hebrew is very ambiguous ... like the shifting sans (that beyond us)!

 

[revsdd]

Constantine wasn't the most honourable or admirable character though wouldn't you say? Would it be beyond belief that he or anyone would add or detract from the gospels after the fact?

In historical context, Constantine was certainly no worse than most Roman emperors and probably better than most. He was a capable military leader and he provided good government and a reasonably sound economy, particularly through currency reform. Did he do things that make us cringe? Yes. Was his conversion to Christianity genuine or a political ploy? Arguments get made both ways. Is it beyond belief that he would add or detract from the Gospels? Nothing's "beyond belief," but it's quite irrelevant. The Bible after all these centuries is what it is. The canon isn't going to change in my opinion. Debating what was or wasn't original is an interesting academic exercise but pointless for day to day Christian life.

 

[revsdd]

Was there even a "hint" of the trinity in the Jewish monotheist(seemingly?) scriptures in the early church?

Not sure what you mean by "the Jewish monotheist ... scriptures." If that's the Old Testament then one may be able to see hints, although the hints are mostly the result of Christians reading the trinity into the Jewish Scriptures rather than something that leaps out naturally from them.

 

[redhead]

It's no secret that Mark is the earliest gospel. That's been accepted for a long time. Ditto for Nicaea being as much political as anything. That's probably been accepted longer. As waterfall accurately pointed out, Nicaea was not about establishing a canon, but dealing with the nature of Jesus. And we've always known that many early Christian writings failed to make the cut. Nag Hammadi wasn't needed to prove that. I'm not sure how anything you posted shakes anything up.

not shaking anything up - but perhaps it is important to set the record properly - and most people will not know about Nicaea or Mark and how the NT was created - most will see it as it is designed and presented.

 

[revsdd]

By the way, although I agree with John that it's doubtful whether Constantine played much of a role in what was in or out of the New Testament, I don't completely agree with his reasoning. Constantine's tolerance of Christianity was controversial with many military leaders and powerful figures who still promoted adherence to the Roman gods. It might well have been to his advantage to allow a negative portrayal of Rome's past in order to boost his own standing with contemporary Christians who were growing in influence in the Empire. To pagans he needed to promote the idea that his new way was better than the old way. You don't do that by glorifying the old system.