How do you explain the Trinity to kids?

[Delightful Life]

so Christianity is forever fractured also difficult to explain

as all good literature, it resists postmodernism and protestant literalism :3

to me, the most important thing aboot Christianity is that some people find it deeply meaningful...it doesn't matter that Jesus existed, or if he had a navel or not, or that any of the things that happened in the bibble actually happened or not...i think that's because of our modern age (ever notice how books & movies these days have to come up with justifications for their character's actions? like how in the Willie Wonka reboot, they came up with a backstory explaining willie wonka's weird behaviour??? how silly...). we can love our dolls, our books, even our imaginations, we can forgive our loved one's indiscretions more than we do a stranger's, we can love a treasured old cup that our grandma gave to us...and how fortunate i am when i get to experience what someone else considers important, their story, their life, their values, etc...

a book suggestion ya might want to check out?

The Pre-Nicene New Testament by Robert M. Price -- it's hooge and full of meaty investigations & research -- he's a guy i like (and not just because he's an afficionado of HP Lovecraft), but because he still has a sense of humour, he's got the nuance, he hasn't descended into academic militantism ('i'm right! you're wrong! attack!'), and even tho he's a self-identified atheist (he sometimes calls himself a Christian atheist...and he's a political conservative, the minority for american atheists?), he believes in the importance of some religions ('by their fruits')...he reminds me of an anthropologist...and he gives enough references to whet a librarian's appetite!

and so it goes

 

[revjohn]

Was Saul not a Jewish Roman soldier who persecuted Christians

Saul was not. Specifically not a Roman Soldier. Yes he persecuted Christians that was apparently more of a Jewish thing at the time than it was a Roman thing.

Neither Judaism or Christianity were palpable to Rome since they were monotheistic and Roman religion was pantheistic.

All we know of Saul's professional occupation was that he made tents.

and advanced it with Roman influence to spread it further?

Nope.

Christianity was contrary to Roman religion. Particularly because it would not ascribe superiority to the Roman pantheon or divinity to Caesar. As a Roman citizen Paul had certain privileges he could appeal to. None of those privileges would permit him to foster a treasonous religion such as Christianity which is why Rome eventually executed him.

If governments routinely executed citizens for doing their jobs they wouldn't last long.

Not that spreading Christianity was the problem - just that Paul's version was very different.

So the only Roman persecution of Christians targeted the non-Pauline form of Christianity?

The similarity I see is in combining two religions or ideologies to advance the state's interest.

Which Paul did not do hence the execution.

I don't have to be a history expert to know that happened.

True. You don't need to be a history expert. Based on comments made here you don't evidence a great deal of knowledge about what happened.

Christianity as we know it might have died off if neither of those men had done that. However...maybe not. Maybe it just would've been different and spread differently.

Armeniam Apostolic notwithstanding. they trace their roots to the evangelical endeavours of Bartholemew and Thaddeus both of whom belonged to Jesus' 12.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

@revjohn Roman state interest was advanced with Christianity. "Christianity" was advanced with Roman state interest - dissecting every detail doesn't matter because that's what happened. And so go ahead and criticize my lack of understanding of all the details. I haven't had the advantage of seminary school - if you want to hold it over me.

All roads lead to Rome, as my uncle likes to say.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Saul was not. Specifically not a Roman Soldier. Yes he persecuted Christians that was apparently more of a Jewish thing at the time than it was a Roman thing.

Neither Judaism or Christianity were palpable to Rome since they were monotheistic and Roman religion was pantheistic.

All we know of Saul's professional occupation was that he made tents.



Nope.

Christianity was contrary to Roman religion. Particularly because it would not ascribe superiority to the Roman pantheon or divinity to Caesar. As a Roman citizen Paul had certain privileges he could appeal to. None of those privileges would permit him to foster a treasonous religion such as Christianity which is why Rome eventually executed him.

If governments routinely executed citizens for doing their jobs they wouldn't last long.



So the only Roman persecution of Christians targeted the non-Pauline form of Christianity?



Which Paul did not do hence the execution.



True. You don't need to be a history expert. Based on comments made here you don't evidence a great deal of knowledge about what happened.



Armeniam Apostolic notwithstanding. they trace their roots to the evangelical endeavours of Bartholemew and Thaddeus both of whom belonged to Jesus' 12.

I don't care if Paul made tents for a living. He persecuted Christians before his conversion, didn't he?

 

[Carolla]

I've been continuing to read along ... marveling at the depth of history some of you possess. Not a day goes by on WonderCafe2 that I don't learn something new or find my curiosity challenged. I appreciate you all.

 

[revsdd]

I don't care if Paul made tents for a living. He persecuted Christians before his conversion, didn't he?

Why are you sounding so defensive? You said Paul was "a Jewish Roman soldier." All John pointed out was that he wasn't. He self-identified as a tent-maker. Given that you made an incorrect statement about Paul, I would have thought that you would care to know the truth. No one - least of all Paul - is denying that he persecuted Christians.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Why are you sounding so defensive? You said Paul was "a Jewish Roman soldier." All John pointed out was that he wasn't. He self-identified as a tent-maker. Given that you made an incorrect statement about Paul, I would have thought that you would care to know the truth. No one - least of all Paul - is denying that he persecuted Christians.

Maybe because John insulted my lack of knowledge of the details instead of just explaining his understanding of them. When I started out explaining my understanding here it wasn't to attack anyone personally it was to explain my broad, and perhaps vague understanding. But I don't care so much about the finite details as I do about a whole picture. And the whole picture of Christianity's mixing with the Roman Empire is that all roads lead to Rome - unless conscience is the priority, IMO. All the doctrines and the rituals and the structures don't matter otherwise - except as interesting topics to whittle away a few hours discussing.

 

[revsdd]

Maybe because John insulted my lack of knowledge of the details instead of just explaining his understanding of them. When I started out explaining my understanding here it wasn't to attack anyone personally it was to explain my broad, and perhaps vague understanding. But I don't care so much about the finite details as I do about a whole picture. And the whole picture of Christianity's mixing with the Roman Empire is that all roads lead to Rome - unless conscience is the priority, IMO. All the doctrines and the rituals and the structures don't matter otherwise - except as interesting topics to whittle away a few hours discussing.

Well, Kimmio, your grasp of some basic facts does seem weak. For example, you say that Paul advanced Christianity with Roman influence. No. Paul advanced Christianity in spite of the opposition of the Empire. Rome opposed Christianity because it was a threat to the Roman religious system, and refused to pay homage to the Emperor. The Empire crucified Jesus. The Empire crucified Peter. The Empire beheaded Paul. The Empire repeatedly persecuted Christians until the Edict of Milan in 313. Roman influence did not help Paul promote Christianity, Roman influence opposed Paul's promotion of Christianity.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Well, Kimmio, your grasp of some basic facts does seem weak. For example, you say that Paul advanced Christianity with Roman influence. No. Paul advanced Christianity in spite of the opposition of the Empire. Rome opposed Christianity because it was a threat to the Roman religious system, and refused to pay homage to the Emperor. The Empire crucified Jesus. The Empire crucified Peter. The Empire beheaded Paul. The Empire repeatedly persecuted Christians until the Edict of Milan in 313. Roman influence did not help Paul promote Christianity, Roman influence opposed Paul's promotion of Christianity.

But Paul combined his own Roman influence with Christianity in making Pauline Christianity - and Paul had been himself a persecutor of Christians.

There are examples of leaders throughout history of people who have advanced state interests to serve their own interests and then been persecuted by that same state later on when that same state decides they no longer serve it's interest. That kind of brutality has happened over and over and over again. Even in recent history. But that does not mean that they didn't do anything to advance the state, prior.

 

[revsdd]

But Paul combined his own Roman influence with Christianity in making Pauline Christianity - and Paul had been himself a persecutor of Christians.

There are examples of leaders throughout history of people who have advanced state interests to serve their own interests and then been persecuted by that same state later on when that same state decides they no longer serve it's interest. Even in recent history. But that does not mean that they didn't do anything to advance the state, prior.

I honestly don't know what you mean by Paul's "own Roman interest." Can you elaborate?

Paul was both a Jew (by his own testimony a Pharisee) and a Roman citizen as well as a convert to Christianity. By his conversion he made himself a target of both Jews and Romans. So I'm struggling to figure out what his "own Roman interest" is.

 

[revjohn]

I haven't had the advantage of seminary school

One doesn't need to attend seminary to study history. I have not now nor ever held non-attendance at a Seminary against anyone.

That said if you are going to declare Paul was a Roman Soldier I'm going to disagree because he wasn't.

If you are going to insist that Paul advanced Roman interest I'm going to point out he was executed by the Roman State because he was practicing sedition by being a Christian.

You made statements that were incorrect. I corrected them.

You declared that you didn't need to be a history expert to know what happened. I pointed out that you don't know what happened.

For the record I'm no history expert either. I know enough to know how Paul was executed and Treason is not a charge one faces when you are working with the government.

I understand that without having to be a law expert.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/history/history_1.shtml

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

One doesn't need to attend seminary to study history. I have not now nor ever held non-attendance at a Seminary against anyone.

That said if you are going to declare Paul was a Roman Soldier I'm going to disagree because he wasn't.

If you are going to insist that Paul advanced Roman interest I'm going to point out he was executed by the Roman State because he was practicing sedition by being a Christian.

You made statements that were incorrect. I corrected them.

You declared that you didn't need to be a history expert to know what happened. I pointed out that you don't know what happened.

For the record I'm no history expert either. I know enough to know how Paul was executed and Treason is not a charge one faces when you are working with the government.

I understand that without having to be a law expert.

So what had his killing of Christians been about. Was he a lone wolf that went around killing Christians or did it serve some interest of the state? And I guess what I mean by his own Roman interest is that he was a Roman citizen influenced by Roman culture and ideas. His personal influence.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

One doesn't need to attend seminary to study history. I have not now nor ever held non-attendance at a Seminary against anyone.

That said if you are going to declare Paul was a Roman Soldier I'm going to disagree because he wasn't.

If you are going to insist that Paul advanced Roman interest I'm going to point out he was executed by the Roman State because he was practicing sedition by being a Christian.

You made statements that were incorrect. I corrected them.

You declared that you didn't need to be a history expert to know what happened. I pointed out that you don't know what happened.

For the record I'm no history expert either. I know enough to know how Paul was executed and Treason is not a charge one faces when you are working with the government.

I understand that without having to be a law expert.

Paul spread his churches throughout the Roman Empire and the rulers of the regions were themselves competing for turf and resources. It wasn't as if it was PAul working strictly with or against one guy. There had to be some politics involved. The same things are happening today.

 

[Mendalla]

So what had his killing of Christians been about. Was he a lone wolf that went around killing Christians or did it serve some interest of the state? And I guess what I mean by his own Roman interest is that he was a Roman citizen influenced by Roman culture and ideas. His personal influence.

He was not a "lone wolf" nor was he doing so for Rome. It was prior to his conversion and he was doing so as much for the Jewish authorities as the Roman ones, or so I have read it.

Yes, Paul brought his classical education into his understanding of Christianity but he was not the one who made Christianity a state religion. That would be Constantine. In fact, I doubt Paul would have been any happier with the state church that came after Constantine than Jesus would have been. Paul died a martyr for Christianity and I wish Christians would recognize that and stop treating him like some kind of anti-Christ. To be honest, without Paul we'd all be worshipping Sol Invictus or (given that most on here are of Northern European ancestry) Odin or something. I don't think Christianity would have advanced past the mystery cult stage without his preaching and writing. Perhaps you think that would have been a good thing, @Kimmio. Even the Gospels were largely written by followers of (Luke) or those who came after Paul had established the church in which they wrote.

Paul was not an agent of Empire any more than Jesus was. And I say that as one who has some knowledge of the history (BA in Classics).

 

[revsdd]

His persecution of Christians had nothing to do with Rome, Kimmio. The earliest Christians were opposed by the Jewish leadership. Paul, as a Pharisee, was a part of that crowd. The persecution of the earliest Christians by the Jewish authorities resulted from Jewish opposition to the Christian proclamation that Jesus was the Messiah. It had nothing to do with Rome. Whether as a Pharisee or as a Christian, Paul would not have been in Rome's good books.

I also don't see what your citation from the BBC has to do with your argument. Also, the BBC is wrong in its portrayal of the scope of Paul's church founding. It says he founded churches throughout Europe and into North Africa. At most, Paul founded churches in Turkey and Greece. There's no evidence that he founded churches anywhere else. Certainly not "throughout the Roman Empire" as you said in your last post.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

You undoubtedly know more than me John and revdsdd. Prior to 4 years ago I'd only been to any kind of church about half a dozen times in 30 years - and nobody taught me about Paul in highschool history class and I never even thought about Paul and the church - but since I have been, I have been really baffled by how a humble man like Jesus and his band of merry making and healing vagabonds fits with these elaborate churches and power and everybody sitting in pews to listen to liturgy - all dressed up to discuss a man who wore sackcloth and sandals and befriended outcasts. It's an interesting intellectual exercise and I have heard some really impactful sermons but there is something about it that doesn't sit well - and I think it is what Rome changed Christianity into - and I don't know if that was Paul who started that ball rolling or Constantine or where it started but it doesn't look like how Jesus lived or what he was doing.

 

[revsdd]

By the way, that BBC article is full of errors. Some of the more egregious:

Constantine did not declare himself a Christian immediately after his victory over Maxentius. He did give credit to "the Christian god" for his victory and began his policy of toleration toward Christianity, but it's kind of murky when he actually became a Christian or declared himself to be so.

The article seems to imply that Constantine made Christianity the official state religion of Rome. Not true. Constantine died in 337, Christianity became the official Roman religion in 380.

The Nicene Creed did not come from the Council of Chalcedon. It came from the Council of Nicaea. Thus, the name.

Not only did Paul not found churches "throughout" the Roman Empire, he didn't write to churches "throughout" the Roman Empire either, that we know of. Again - Greece and Turkey, as well as one letter to Rome.

Sloppy work by the BBC, leading people to mistakenly assume that they know things because they've read it from the BBC.

 

[redhead]

Kimmio seriously and kindly I suggest you get this : it has lots of additional historical, verifiable information helps to understand sitz im leben as well
http://www.amazon.co.uk/New-Revised...=1429234878&sr=1-1&keywords=oxford+nrsv+bible

 

[revjohn]

So what had his killing of Christians been about.

Jewish authorities in Jerusalem were persecuting Christians. Saul was an agent in that persecution. We have no record of Paul actually killing anyone. The closest we get is a text that places him at Stephen's execution, holding the cloaks of the men stoning Stephen and him giving his approval.

Was he a lone wolf that went around killing Christians or did it serve some interest of the state?

Rome didn't care about Israel or the nonsense the Jews got up to with one another. It was of strategic import only and so long as the locals minded their place all went well. As soon as the Jews stepped out of line skulls were cracked or heads rolled. Rome initially thought Christianity was a Jewish cult and they really didn't mind Jews killing one another. Saved them the bother of doing it themselves.

And I guess what I mean by his own Roman interest is that he was a Roman citizen influenced by Roman culture and ideas.

He likely had some classical training. He is able to relate to some sources and he does evidence a grasp of some Hellenic rhetoric. Apart from that he is a Pharisee and Pharisees were not friendly with Rome, they weren't keen on Christians either. It was a purity thing that was necessary for the Messiah to arrive and Christians were major roadblocks.

His personal influence.

Which was a long time coming. Some initial concern about wolf in sheep's clothing. Paul was not universally adored by the first cohort and we see evidence of opposition to Paul and his church-building throughout the Epistles. Paul was also a tad firey and had it out with Peter on at least one occasion.

[FONT=Open Sans, sans-serif]The idea that Paul was a superstar is nonsense.

Influential? Certainly Paul was that.

Fractious? Argumentative? Pig-headed? All of those apply as well.

Temporary is probably the most telling. Paul got around. Paul had no roots and he spent more time away from the congregations he launched than he did with them.

Meaning what?

Meaning that it was somebody else apart from Paul that kept the ball rolling. He is constantly remembering them in his letters.

Which does nothing to diminish Paul's impact on the history of the Church. If he was the influence you imagine it is doubtful that Rome would have chosen Peter as its first Bishop.

And then he gets his head handed to him.

Why is Paul so different from Jesus? He isn't.

Jesus ministry was building up disciples who could build his Church. Paul was one of those disciples even though he admits to being an untimely addition. Likely his education brought him up to speed on what the others laboured three years to comprehend.

NT Wright's Paul and the Faithfulness of God (a mammoth two volume read) opens up Paul in incredible new ways and explains where he was coming from.