The Hypostatic Union for Dummies

Posted on by Ark

While I hold with the view that the bible is nothing but historical fiction/geopolitical myth, gross ignorance on both sides of the fence – believers and non-believers – is one of the bigger stumbling blocks to us as a species waking up one morning with the pleasant realization that religion, if not Deism, is something people once did a long time ago.

The Christian Doctrine of the Trinity is one such area of ignorance and I challenge anyone to explain it in a way that even vaguely makes sense.

If those who invented the doctrine never succeeded I doubt anyone in this day and age  will be able to either.

Which is one reason there is a Christian sect called the Christadelphians.  Without delving into their whole worldview – which is still as daft as the parent sect – suffice to say they reject Trinity. God is God /Yahweh, and Jesus was his kid.

Period (pretty much).

Of course they have always been regarded as heretics.  But then, so were all Protestants. ( and essentially still are)

The easiest what to explain the Trinity is to demonstrate what it isn’t and the best way to do this is refer to the bible itself and those who are considered proper biblical scholars.

Most of you are probably familiar with the Johannine comma ….

But just in case …

A Spurious Reference to the Trinity Added in 1 John 5 verses 7-8

 

From the article …

It reads in the King James Version, also known as the Authorized Version: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”

The words above (in italics) are simply not a part of the generally accepted New Testament manuscripts.

 

“The textual evidence is against 1 John 5:7,” explains Dr. Neil Lightfoot, a New Testament professor. “Of all the Greek manuscripts, only two contain it. These two manuscripts are of very late dates, one from the fourteenth or fifteenth century and the other from the sixteenth century. Two other manuscripts have this verse written in the margin. All four manuscripts show that this verse was apparently translated from a late form of the Latin Vulgate”

 

…. the word Trinity did not come into common use as a religious term until after the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325, several centuries after the last books of the New Testament were complete. It is not a biblical concept.

Some of you may remember the other ( more light-hearted) piece I wrote on this topic.
In other words … the church made it up. They created a god out of the character Jesus.
Ark.

88 thoughts on “The Hypostatic Union for Dummies”

  1. well, they invented Jesus, they invented Mary (every man needs ‘is Mum, right), they gave her a husband, and when they ran out of things to do with Jesus he went on hiatus for a few decades, and when he returned they needed a martyr to energize the new religion, so he was crucified.

    Most of it comes from older religions, all of it constructed to please the Romans enough to accept it as their own (old gods, new clothes, yadda yadda), and voila, the New Testament has risen.

    Even as kids, and reasonalby attendant Catholics, no one explained the Trinity and wisely never tried. The priest told us, some things are unknowable. Which was a nice way of saying, ‘don’t ask, we don’t know either”.

    They also invented Limbo, (or Purgatory) which was handy and a bit less agonizing to think about, sort of a ‘get out of Jail Free” card for your relatives, and you could pray them out, and into heaven. Those prayers were the last remnants of ‘Indulgences” which were a kind of barter system from the Middle Ages that had, mercifully, fallen out of favor.

    The church made EVERYTHING up, but not out of nothing. They stole everything from earlier cults, religions, beliefs, and gods. Change the name, give ’em a new outfit, and there’s your Saint Eustance. Or Timothy.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

  2. You ever notice the change in people after they have a child? I imagine the “one god” idea was written by a person without children and could never be reconciled by those with them, then, trinity had to be developed. Father , Son, and the mind of the father. The mind here is the problem. Trying to control what nature eventually wins will make any one crazy.
    The attempted reset at the onset of the New Testament comes in every man’s life after he realizes losing his shite all the time makes him alone again, and controlling nothing..not even himself.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  3. This is, as predicted, the end of the Christian era. It leads to chaos, a Dark Ages in every endeavor, and the beginnings of a new religion, hard on the heels of the old one. We are fortunate (or not) enough to be around to watch it come unglued. What comes next is anyone’s surmise, and I just hope someone somewhere is saving what we know for a time when we will need to know it again, in about 300 years or so.

    My money is on the new God being a computer guy, or a computer entity.

    People need religion. We need that sense of a higher power looming over us. Right now, if we don’t believe in a God/Deity, we do, indeed, have our own God. It’s called the computer. =) It has the heirarchy, it has developed a history of Gates and Jobs and Apple, It has drama, gods, and runs our lives. It fits, it has wheels, it could work.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. JUDY:

      Sadly I must be the doomed exception. I don’t need a god—

      —I have an entire universe, it’s quite enough. (And I don’t worship my computer—in fact I quite often curse the blasted thing).

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

        1. Oh, I see.
          I thought the post was self explanatory?
          This is why the Christadelphians reject the Trinity.
          It isn’t in the bible.
          The church made it up.
          Do you know the history of Arianism and the Council of Nicea?

          Did you read the other link I provided – the light hearted piece I wrote a while back?

          What are your ( apparent) objections?

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          1. No objections, I just enjoy reading the theories of others.

            Is there actual records of the church making it up? Like does it say that exactly or is that what some theorize?

            Like

          2. This is what the entire controversy of Arianism was about.
            It went on for quite some time.
            Yes, there are records, the church issued edicts to the effect, but a quick glance at Wiki should get you off to a good start.
            Or simply type in Arian Heresy.
            Before the Doctrine became Official – with a capital O- there were numerous perspectives regarding the ”Nature of Christ”
            I am somewhat perplexed that you, as a Christian, are not aware of this.
            On the other hand, it further strengthens my belief that the average christian is distressingly ignorant of their religion as a whole.

            Like

          3. You can’t help yourself can you, always with the belittling. I’m ignorant? For asking a question?

            Maybe one day you might quit casting dispersions and open your mind your eyes and your heart.

            Like

          4. @bottomless.
            Don’t get so uppity.
            Ignorant in the sense of ill informed. As I am ignorant of String Theory, for example.

            Maybe one day you will stop for a second and really consider the origins of your faith before you jump on your high horse?

            Like

          5. Now it’s a race to see who is most humble.

            You believe what you believe and I believe what I believe. There is no need to be right, just be true to who you are.

            I’m just asking questions.

            Like

          6. Then take the time to do the research, rather than simply accept your beliefs on faith.
            I have written several posts on this topic, most with links or quotes you can follow up on and it should be no great effort on your part to take some time and read a little more than the surface gloss.

            No one was ever reasoned into Christianity but there is every opportunity to be reasoned OUT of it, by way of verifiable evidence, and fact.
            It is simply a case of how far are you genuinely willing to go in pursuit of the truth, or are you a little too afraid to open the lid of that particular box?
            Here’s another post .

            https://attaleuntold.wordpress.com/2017/10/04/lets-make-us-a-god-the-trinity/

            Like

          7. “No one was ever reasoned into Christianity”? That is an bold statement for anyone who claims a scientific mind to make.

            How can you make such a sweeping comment as that?

            Like

          8. Because faith-based beliefs are just that.
            If there is no evidence for such a belief then it inevitably has to be indoctrinated.
            Think along the lines of Santa Claus but with the added belief of telling your kids they are worthless sinners, ( described in a literal fashion or some sort of allusion) and if they don’t accept they will spend eternity being tortured in a place called Hell.

            For adult conversion, some sort of emotional trauma plays a part in acceptance,but Hell is there too plus the belief they are worthless sinners.

            There is no evidence of veracity for the foundational tenets of Christianity. None.
            So how can evidence play a part?

            Even someone such as Francis Collins, as brilliant a scientist as he is, cited a fear of death ( Death Anxiety) – an emotional reason – that was a major influence on his decision to finally embrace faith.
            And then he was out hiking and saw a frozen waterfall, fell to his knees and ”knew” this was a sign of ”God” (sic)
            And he was born into, and exposed to Christian culture in one form or another.

            But don’t take my word for it – listen to any deconvert, and especially the numerous former professional pastors, priests and preachers, many of whom have considerable in-depth knowledge of the history of the Christian religion and its doctrine.

            And this is why I can make ”a sweeping comment as that”.

            Liked by 1 person

          9. The same is true of science. This is as old as mankind. The struggle to win, the race to see who can garner the most followers. Will is be science or religion?

            Neither can be believed without faith. You may believe in science, even the science that you have not conducted, yet you still peddle it as irrefutable. In tandem, you beseech Christianity and the faith of those Christians.

            The deconvert as you call them, the professional pastors, priests and preachers never believed to begin with. Early on they figured out that they could make a lot of money. So, the entire time they were just coning people.

            What is the measurement for “considerable in-depth knowledge” when it comes to Christianity?

            You continue to cite other researchers, yet I get the feeling you basically just read something and the regurgitate it to sound intelligent.

            You people and your stereotypes.

            All you do is basically talk shit, you are not even 100% about the research you cite, since you never actually did the work yourself.

            Arkenaten, you are simply lazy and insecure. You leach off of others you have never even met in an attempt to come off as intelligent. You preach science and intelligence as if you actually have any. You desire followers to reinforce what you are unsure about.

            Like

          10. Ah … the hand wave rationale of one who is so insecure he considers himself a sinner.
            No doubt you also believe that Evolution is ”just a theory”.

            Rather than present evidence all you do is whine.
            Well, I’m sure Jesus loves you all the same.
            Why not go and polish your Glock and count your bullets? At least that will make you feel like a man.

            Like

          11. Hahahahaha, it seems like you have everything figured out. Polish a Glock? Who polishes a Glock?

            Has evolution been proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Have they found the missing link? Is there irrefutable proof now that evolution is true? All of this would require consensus. Remember when they thought earth was flat?

            Like

          12. Obviously, the jury is still out over evolution.
            In fact, we have some serious work being done by the good folks over at AiG who will soon show how to make a fully grown adult male from a bag of potting soil.

            And as we speak, a team of mountain climbers from the Creationist Institute will soon be loading a video to You Tube showing the discovery of Noah’s Ark, complete with Dinosaur coprolite.

            Exciting times indeed!

            Like

          14. I always try to pitch my responses to match the intellectual level of my readers – especially those with a very basic sense of humour and limited acumen.

            Like

          18. Not in the least, my good fellow!
            Being wrong is so often a lot more fun as it offers the opportunity to learn something new.

            The floor is yours. Don’t just sit behind your laptop whining, feel free to provide evidence that refutes any claim you see presented here.
            Nothing like a good slap down to make science sit up and take notice.

            We are all ears …

            The floor is yours, Poindexter.

            Like

          22. Oh I welcome questions. But correct me if I’m wrong, when presented with answers you have dismissed them.
            What is the point of questions if you don’t accept the answers? Why not provide the evidence to back your position? That way you will look less of a Nob.

            Like

          23. hahahaha, nob. I like it.

            The evidence is subjective. My evidence is personal, it is my faith. My evidence will never suffice you or anyone for that matter. We all have our own criteria that must be fulfilled before we can believe anything.

            All evidence is subjective.

            Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

            If you cannot accept this, then you will never be able to truly open your mind, heart and eyes to the human spirit or humanity as a whole.

            You seem to contend that we all must accept one thing as true, yet it seems that you cannot accept that many do not believe what you do.

            Like I said before, I am simply asking questions. the evidence you present is not your own. My evidence is my faith, therefore it is my own. I speak from experience whereas you speak mere hyperbole, since you simply cite other sources.

            There is no need for outward research, when I can prove everything I need to myself. Isn’t that the point in the end, that no matter what we may espouse, we actually believe it ourselves?

            Like

          30. Ah … the hard done by whining of the fake Christian.
            Sorry, Jesus doesn’t want you anymore, He has no time for two-faced wheedlers.

            Like

          34. Excellent! That IS good news.
            In the meantime, can you please stop leaking your own special brand of diarrhea all over my blog?
            It really stinks up the place.
            Thanks awfully.

            Like

          48. Okay, so you don’t even understand the meaning of the word “theory” in science.

            No point talking to you. Your level of stupid could be a museum exhibit.

            Like

          54. bottomlesscoffee007

            The Science Council defines science as “the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.”

            It goes on to state that the scientific methodology includes the following:

            – Objective observation: Measurement and data (possibly although not necessarily using mathematics as a tool)
            – Evidence
            – Experiment and/or observation as benchmarks for testing hypotheses
            – Induction: reasoning to establish general rules or conclusions drawn from facts or examples
            – Repetition
            – Critical analysis
            – Verification and testing: critical exposure to scrutiny, peer review and assessment

            Can you explain where belief or faith enter into the equation?

            Liked by 1 person

          55. Just because someone says they won’t lie or manipulate doesn’t mean they won’t. How do you speak on the authenticity of anything that you are not a part of and have zero control over.

            It’s all propaganda Ron.

            Like

          56. Sure, people can lie. But science provides the method for testing whether or not a claim is true — you’re not required to take anything at face value. So deceptions can be uncovered by those who test those claims.

            Liked by 2 people

          60. Then throw in Filioque, and the popes insertion of this word divided the eastern and western churches in a day. Catholics did not accept trinity doctrine for 600 years, then in the 11th century this other neat add-on caused more confusion. It’s a mess, and the only reasons people believe this nonsense is A, they want to, or B, they just never take the time to look.

            Liked by 3 people

  5. Well, all religions evolve, to state the bleedin’ obvious, and as Judyt54 points out, they can only do so by cribbing from, and modifying, preexisting beliefs and festivals, etc.

    The Church’s masterstroke was turning ’round and demonizing the people they stole from, like Jews and pagans. This is where the Abrahamic faiths– especially Christianity and Islam — resemble totalitarianism, in their attempt to rewrite the past in their image.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  6. @bottomfeedingcough007

    Before admonishing Ark with platitudes about opening “your eyes and blah blah blah”, you might want to get your terminology correct:

    “…casting dispersions [sic]”

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  8. As Chris has said, the Romans managed to demonize the Jews (basically to make themselves look like the good guys) as being responsible for Jesus’ crucifixion, and after a decent period of time, many if not all true believers somehow forgot that Jesus was a card-carrying Jew, as was his mother. Images of him have appeared as a blue eyed blonde with a really nice beard. I suspect he more closely resembled a Hasidic Jew, all but the hat.

    Im sure many people who stil revile Jews to this day would be horrified to think of Jesus as a Jew. Or his mother. Shock and horror.

    Much of the Bible has been rewritten, reworded, changed to suit the times. Purgatory was a construct. So were the indulgences of the early and middle ages. How does one, by the way, suddenly “defrock” a well known and well worn saint like St. Christopher, or St. Timothry, or one of the Teresas? As my mother said, when they took Christopher out of the pantheon (they had run out of days), “how will I ever get home from a trip, now?” She was joking, but just barely.

    For Catholics, fasting on Fridays came from a master stroke in the early middle ages, when there was a crop failure, and it looked like Europe was going to starve to death. The Monks instituted meatless days, and foodless days, to get the peasants through the winter. It worked, and so well, that they kept the idea in the list, and pared it down to no red meat on Fridays. Mortal sin, babee…

    When you start seeing the amount of heavy handed tinkering the churches did, declaring this and banning that, because…and only long long after Day One, you start to wonder (or shoudl) what else did they mess with?

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. It is not easy to deduce the biblical tale is entirely a piece of geopolitical bullshit.
      Just consider the claim the Jesus came to initially save His People.
      After all, it was the Jews who had screwed up with Yahweh, right?

      If the idea was to really bring all into the fold what was the point of Saul’s introduction to the story?
      Why was Yeshua’s name changed to Iesous and then to Jesus?

      Why the doctrinal disagreements with the character Peter? Circumcise or not to circumcise.
      Why the change of name for Saul to a gentile one?
      It is obvious there was a definite intent to erode and finally do away with the Jewish nature of the entire tale, distancing the main characters of the story from their Jewish origens and once they had done this, to vilify the Jews as much as they could.

      On the subject of meat —- I am sure I read it was a Pope who issued a decree banning the eating of horsemeat?

      Like

      Reply

  9. Tertullian (inadvertantly) summed it up best when he argued:

    Crucifixus est dei filius; non pudet, quia pudendum est.
    Et mortuus est dei filius; credibile [prorsus]* est, quia ineptum est.
    Et sepultus resurrexit; certum est, quia impossibile.

    The Son of God was crucified: I am not ashamed — because it is shameful.
    The Son of God died: it is [immediately]* credible — because it is silly.
    He was buried, and rose again: it is certain — because it is impossible.

    * prorsus is not in the Codex Agobardinus or Codex Trecensis (the best mss), but is in the other MSS (the Corpus Cluniacense)

    Source: http://www.tertullian.org/quotes.htm

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  11. The idea was actually lifted from much older religions. Even the Greeks were fond of The Threes. Aristotle wrote:

    ‘All things are three, and thrice is all: and let us use this number in the worship of the gods; for, as the Pythagoreans say, everything and all things are bounded by threes, for the end, the middle and the beginning have this number in everything, and these compose the number of the Trinity'”.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    2. And the Lord spake, saying, “First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then, shalt thou count to three. No more. No less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, nor either count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then, lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it.”

      AMEN

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply
  12. Pingback: Facts and Faith … One More Time | Nan's Notebook

  13. It seems another lost moth has been attracted to Ark’s glowing blog. How they must feel so big and brave hiding behind their keyboard (warriors). To say Ark talks shit and then spout gallons of the stuff! What are they trying to prove, ask questions but don’t except the answer and offer nothing in return. Bottomcough you are nothing but a complete and utter twat. Go and play with the pussycat.

    Like

    Reply

  14. Science is a religion! Evolution is just a theory! You’re a poopyhead!

    I think we have the Trinity right there… bottomless cup o stoopid. Geeze I’ve seen this pest manifest somewhere before, and thought it’s gyrations were designed to annoy, now I know from whence the annoy comes, and it ain’t pretty.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment