How do you explain the Trinity to kids?

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
Kimmio said:
Constantine was like another version of Paul. History repeats itself.
Click to expand...

From time to time it does.

Generally among those who fail to learn it. At least that is how the proverb goes.

How, in your opinion is Constantine another version of Paul?
 
revsdd said:
Incidentally, on the question of sun worship and back to the original point of the thread, here's another analogy I've used for the trinity:

Sun = Father
Light from sun = Christ/Son
Heat we feel when light from sun hits us = Holy Spirit

All exist only because the others exist, none could exist without the others existing.
Click to expand...

That's Arianism.

Light and Heat are creations of the Sun and not the sun itself






Patrick.
 
I simply suggest that Constantine realised that Christianity was expanding, and understood that centuries of trying to block it did not work. So, in a similar way to dealing with Jews centuries earlier, Constantine did the very same thing. I say this with a caveat: Constantine may very well have held faith and been a Christian. A person's faith, if found and declared, cannot be doubted. I cannot recall reading about Constantine's faith, but I do recall reading many of his contemporaries recording history. So it becomes an issue of facts - speculation will always be present when one reads documents. That is part of questioning and revising and understanding and comprehending
 
redhead said:
One of the difficulties is oral tradition and not writing - I would suggest that this is the case with both Zoroastrian and Judaic traditions.
Click to expand...

True both exist as oral tradition prior to the appearance of any written record.

Which is why I make the statement that there is no hard evidence to support the notion that Zoroastrianism influenced Jewish thought.

It is also why I pointed out that the Jews taken into captivity in 597 brought with them a fully functioning and highly institutionalized belief system.

Zarathustra, the principle prophet of Zoroastrianism would have something to match if his birth date was 6000 BC as was initially claimed. If he was born in 600 BC as more recent scholarship suggests there would have been nothing of Zoroastrianism in place to greet the captives arriving from Israel and Judea.

So is Zarathustra originating ideas that the Jews would add or is Zarathustra adopting ideas from Judaism and modifying them to a Persian model?

Personally, it seems more likely that Zarathustra is the one learning from a previously established system other than the reverse. I can see Zarathustra having a profound impact upon Judaism if he were a Jewish scholar. I find it more than a little unlikely that he would be born, create a system of thought and establish a belief system of his own in a short period of time that would overwhelm a thoroughly entrenched Jewish thought system safeguarded by a rather obstinate priestly caste.

For some reason that is not a "popular" thought. I have no idea whether or not it is a "scholarly" one.

redhead said:
But looking at regions, similarities in ideology can explain influence - and agreement between people of diverging cultures
Click to expand...

Similarities does not necessarily reflect agreement. Many of the religions in the fertile crescent have flood narratives and sometimes there are similarities. That doesn't mean that they are the same. Nor does it prove that there is a common antecedent which explains multiple appearances across traditions.
 
chansen said:
What we do know is that faiths have been invented and altered by charismatic leaders before, and not exactly for altruistic reasons. I don't see why Christianity would be immune to that.
Click to expand...

Christianity is not immune to that as we have real-time examples of individuals who have twisted Christianity to suit their personal tastes.

The Reverend Fred Phelps a frequent object of study on WonderCafe.ca more than WC2 certainly did not reflect a tradition so much as he claimed to.

The Reverend Creflo Dollar a recent object of study here also does not reflect a long standing tradition so much as he and others of his ilk claim to.

Both demonstrate extremely well that charisma can trump Christian doctrines and sometimes quite handily.

Like it or not we have a long chain of Christian writings even if one eliminates the scriptures themselves we have copies of Christian writings that we can trace to the first century. We can see, in those writings who and what was being referenced and we can also see how various doctrines of Christianity were shaped and formed. We can also see where the Church universal dealt with issues and we can also see where the Church couldn't tolerate the differences and ultimately split.

In all of that we see that the greatest influence on Christianity has been more of a philosophical issue than it is a source material issue.

The notion that someone, even a Constantine, could simply waltz in, tell everyone to think and radically re-engineer the Christian faith is preposterous. Especially in light of the notion that what the Church has historically deemed heretical and invested a great deal of time and energy into eradicating still finds articulation in the Church today.
 
Kimmio said:
Constantine was like another version of Paul. History repeats itself.
Click to expand...
Actually, there existed a philosopher born approximately the same time as Jesus who also definitely existed, named Apollonius of Tyana that I actually find fascinating, who reminds me of a combined Jesus and Paul. He was widely sought after by Rulers and common folk, vegetarian, did not drink alcohol, took a vow of silence for five years in which he was only allowed to sing or write on a tablet to communicate,wrote several books including a book denouncing all forms of sacrifice (called On sacrifice), he was a nazerene and a Roman citizen but neither favoured the Romans or the Jews. He was welcomed into any town and sought after for his advice, travelled the world extensively and did not try to discourage people from their own faith but only to add to it, temples and statues were built in his honor. He was highly educated, born into extreme wealth but gave his inheritance away choosing instead to wear bark sandals and a linen cloth. Some say the "good shepherd" pictures with the sheep on his shoulder is really about him because he spoke out against any form of sacrifice. Performed miracles, raised the dead, and lived to be 100 years old. Neither Jesus or Apollonius refer to each other despite the fact that they existed in the same area at the same time.

Short version:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonius_of_Tyana

Long:
http://www.gnosis.org/library/grs-mead/apollonius/apollonius_mead_0.htm

And just to point out how common place "resurrections" were in the day there was Nero who many believed after his death in 68 AD he would return again from the dead:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero_Redivivus_legend

and many Emperors referred to themselves as "the son of God" or "God" etc....
 
Last edited:
revjohn said:
This is a good question.

Does anybody really care what the answer might be?

Because if they do there is evidence which makes it plain that the key writings (scripture) and key (doctrines) theology were embraced and underway before Constantine became involved.

There is also evidence that the majority of ecumenical councils called over the years met without much interference or direction from Imperial authorities.

There is also ample evidence from the material we have coming out of each ecumenical conference as to what the precipitating issue for each council was. Much to the chagrin of conspiricists.

There is no question that becoming a state religion meant Christianity would no longer be persecuted and that Christianity would have more influence than other religions in the area. Human beings being what they are we see both the benevolence of the good and malevolence of the evil in any and every system that human being can get their fingers on.

That includes Christianity.

And you don't need anyone like Constantine around to prove that is so.

Writings of early Church patriarchs survived varying levels of persecution by Roman emperors up until Constantine signed the Edict of Milan in 313 AD. Because the persecution was not uniform in degree or even uniformly applied across all precincts of the Roman Empire we have copies of material written in the areas where persecution was heaviest.

But we can ignore that if it gets in the way of pet theories.
Click to expand...
I don't have any pet theories - we don't know exactly who influenced who or what when exactly - somebody could've influenced somebody in a conversation in passing or at the dining table that we would never even know about and so on, rather than some formal arrangement that made it into recorded history - because life often happens like that - maybe that's a pet theory - but I do think Roman influence changed the flavour of Christianity into something more hard-line and more legalistic than Jesus intended.
 
revjohn said:
From time to time it does.

Generally among those who fail to learn it. At least that is how the proverb goes.

How, in your opinion is Constantine another version of Paul?
Click to expand...

Was Saul not a Jewish Roman soldier who persecuted Christians - and he had a life changing conversion but we don't know exactly what happened in reality vs. story - adopted Christianity and became Paul - and advanced it with Roman influence to spread it further? Not that spreading Christianity was the problem - just that Paul's version was very different.

The similarity I see is in combining two religions or ideologies to advance the state's interest. I don't have to be a history expert to know that 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.
 
Last edited:
revjohn said:
Christianity is not immune to that as we have real-time examples of individuals who have twisted Christianity to suit their personal tastes.

The Reverend Fred Phelps a frequent object of study on WonderCafe.ca more than WC2 certainly did not reflect a tradition so much as he claimed to.

The Reverend Creflo Dollar a recent object of study here also does not reflect a long standing tradition so much as he and others of his ilk claim to.

Both demonstrate extremely well that charisma can trump Christian doctrines and sometimes quite handily.

Like it or not we have a long chain of Christian writings even if one eliminates the scriptures themselves we have copies of Christian writings that we can trace to the first century. We can see, in those writings who and what was being referenced and we can also see how various doctrines of Christianity were shaped and formed. We can also see where the Church universal dealt with issues and we can also see where the Church couldn't tolerate the differences and ultimately split.

In all of that we see that the greatest influence on Christianity has been more of a philosophical issue than it is a source material issue.

The notion that someone, even a Constantine, could simply waltz in, tell everyone to think and radically re-engineer the Christian faith is preposterous. Especially in light of the notion that what the Church has historically deemed heretical and invested a great deal of time and energy into eradicating still finds articulation in the Church today.
Click to expand...
I don't think Constantine waltzed in and re-engineered Christianity over night. Culture changes more slowly and subtly that that. It's one of those things we don't always perceive happening until we look back. Like how school curriculum changes what and how people learn. Or how even a pop song can introduce an idiom that changes the meaning of language as commonly understood. However, if there were barbaric penalties in those times for not believing one thing or another -what they called heresy - influence under duress would have changed things the very wrong way.
 
Last edited:
revjohn said:
True both exist as oral tradition prior to the appearance of any written record.

Which is why I make the statement that there is no hard evidence to support the notion that Zoroastrianism influenced Jewish thought.

It is also why I pointed out that the Jews taken into captivity in 597 brought with them a fully functioning and highly institutionalized belief system.

Zarathustra, the principle prophet of Zoroastrianism would have something to match if his birth date was 6000 BC as was initially claimed. If he was born in 600 BC as more recent scholarship suggests there would have been nothing of Zoroastrianism in place to greet the captives arriving from Israel and Judea.

So is Zarathustra originating ideas that the Jews would add or is Zarathustra adopting ideas from Judaism and modifying them to a Persian model?

Personally, it seems more likely that Zarathustra is the one learning from a previously established system other than the reverse. I can see Zarathustra having a profound impact upon Judaism if he were a Jewish scholar. I find it more than a little unlikely that he would be born, create a system of thought and establish a belief system of his own in a short period of time that would overwhelm a thoroughly entrenched Jewish thought system safeguarded by a rather obstinate priestly caste.

For some reason that is not a "popular" thought. I have no idea whether or not it is a "scholarly" one.



Similarities does not necessarily reflect agreement. Many of the religions in the fertile crescent have flood narratives and sometimes there are similarities. That doesn't mean that they are the same. Nor does it prove that there is a common antecedent which explains multiple appearances across traditions.
Click to expand...

Are the dates that exact, for sure?
 
revjohn said:
That's Arianism.

Light and Heat are creations of the Sun and not the sun itself






Patrick.
Click to expand...

Of course, it's an analogy and no analogy is perfect.

And, I disagree with you. Light and heat are not "creations" of the sun. If so, then the sun could conceivably exist without emitting light and heat. I submit that it is impossible for a star to exist without emitting light and heat. I submit that the moment a star becomes a star it emits light and heat; it does not "create" light and heat. The emission of light and heat is simply the natural state of a star being a star. Even a star that has collapsed and become a black hole (which our sun cannot do as I understand it because it has insufficient mass) emits light. The light just can't escape the black hole's gravitational pull.

Thus, I submit that your comparison of my analogy to Arianism is without foundation. The weakness of the analogy is that the star itself and all its qualities are a creation, while God is not. However, analogies by definition require the use of created things for the purpose of the analogy.
 
Kimmio said:
Was Saul not a Jewish Roman soldier who persecuted Christians - and he had a life changing conversion but we don't know exactly what happened in reality vs. story - adopted Christianity and became Paul - and advanced it with Roman influence to spread it further? Not that spreading Christianity was the problem - just that Paul's version was very different.
Click to expand...

there is a long history of people having these visionary experiences that seem to cloak themselves in the mythos of the culture (there is even a long history of various people being visited by 'fictional' characters, even in modern times...)

so we have people seeing demons in christian europe...we have people seeing the little folk or faeries or the 'White Lady'...we have modern people seeing 'aliens', 'reptoids', 'ufos'...see Jacques Vallee's book Passport to Magonia for a good intro to this by someone who has seriously investigated it...whatever this historical phenomena is, it seems to interact with us physically mentally emotionally and effects changes in our Belief Systems (one famous one is the 'Miracle of the Sun', where thousands of people of different belief systems, ages, genders, etc for 10 minutes experienced something very strange and not all of them experienced the same things) can leave physical traces and exhibits paradoxical behaviour that seems ridiculous & violates various laws (of society, of expectations, of physics)...

what happened to Saul is no different...in fact, he could have encountered Satan...taking a look at all the problems the conversion has caused

or maybe it is part of the whole process of intentional brain change/enlightenment, that one goes through these bizarre experiences?

heck, i wonder how g_d's experiment in Europa is doing? we'll be finding out soon :3
 
Yes, I do believe people experience strange phenomena and their experiences are very real for them (could be a stroke or a psychotic break or sleepwalking or a seizure or their right brain on hyperdrive but regardless the experiences are real for them and we don't know that they are not transcendent from another plane of existence - we haven't the means to prove that our physical senses weren't designed to perceive something more than earthly life and dimensions). However...we don't have a lot of details in many bible stories about any characters and they are often embellished or symbolized. That doesn't mean there is nothing to be learned from them. We've here to live this earthly life the best we can no matter what else is or is not existing on another plane.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top