Summations Only

It may be politics and it may well be human nature, tragedy and humor writ large, but its not Jesus. And if Jesus never existed, the Trinity would fall apart. Tales told round a campfire or in an English satirical novel are no substitute for the origin (SOURCE) of Christianity as often opposed to the CONTENT (Human History) of what "it"(He?She?They?) meant. If Jesus never existed, the church would fall apart. If it stayed together at all, it would simply become a secular humanist do-gooders club.The meaning of the Trinity...to me...is the idea that God (Creator of all seen and unseen) sought to have relationship with humans(so far the only animal who documents its existence and takes selfies) through a human character who told us that He must die and that He would send the comforter(Holy Spirit).You will argue that such thinking leads to exclusivity since only "some" receive this Spirit.And you will point out that this was essentially your original point.

jar:

---

It's meaning was that one group were REAL Christians while the other was excluded from the power and control hierarchy. It was successful and so became a touchstone for defining who was politically in power and who was not.

---

You will likely argue that GOD if GOD exists would not simply pick and choose who to help.

The split was in 1054. 1066 was the Norman conquest of Britain.
I would not be surprised if Shelley got it wrong. Though he taught history he had no credentials to do so. His degrees were in Divinity.

Shelley was not my source for the 5 church thing. It was an Orthodox Pamphlet. Shelley did a fine job at breaking down church history...better than any biased mythicist could have done, in my opinion. I'm rereading his book now as I formulate and edit this response.Concerning the Schism...im looking at the book index.
He describes the events leading up to the Schism itself, then describes the historical moment in context.You cant judge a man simply by the formal degrees that he has. Mythicists in general tend to employ historical revisionism and seem to have a motive at exposing myths and supporting the idea of myths. Shelleys book, which I highly recommend, explains the inter-relatedness between the early church before Constantine, the rivalry and eventual split as the church was later politicized, the fallible human quirks emanating from supposedly infallible Popes who were all too human and the Protestant Reformation leading up to the time we are in.

You mentioned "1066" which is a memorable date for those who have studied British history. It was the date of the battle of Hastings. The book you refer to, "1066 and all that" is a humor book. It is not intended as history. Growing up in Australia, we were soaked in British history, and "1066 and all that" was a lot of fun. The book is not about whether humans created religion. It's about making fun of history.Maybe I should make it clear that this was not a history book used in school. It was a humor book that I read after graduating.However, there is a book which convinced me that humans created religion. That book goes by the title "The Holy Bible".

I will agree that humans obviously wrote the Bible. No giant hand dropped it from the sky. I will also agree that even within religion itself, human fallibility, pathos, evil, and vile intent were evident. What I wont agree with was the idea that Jesus was a myth and that the God we know came from human stories alone.

Yahweh and Adam were originally depicted as androgynous.Think of the Adam's rib to create Eve.The feminine had to go somewhere when Christianity changed the trinity concept from Father Mother and child to their stupid take on it.Regards
DL

Yes. Belief in fantasy without evidence. The true poison of religious thought.

On Jesus.You will likely know that Jesus was never anointed to Christ. Right?Does that lie of his Christ status make a diference to yopu?Regards
DL

The church itself became the Mother.

You will likely tell me...indirectly that "Christ Consciousness is what makes you a god and that Jesus was a myth. Next! No. Your Gnostic B.S. mixed with whatever other esoteric stuff you read suggests to me that satan himself sent you over here to muddy up this topic. Show me some books that you read and I might talk to you again. Or not. The only lies are those you yourself are spreading. Prove me wrong.

I just knew that you would chime in too, but you are a familiar soul and I welcome your input. Maybe you and GIA agree that religion was vile and evil, but I would argue that anyone who gets worked up enough to seek to stifle the thought of it needs medication.

It is the religious thought that is the poison, Phat. It allows you to believe anything a priest tells you. Intellectual evil.I am on meds. And I take them ... religiously. I have a pill caddy with separate days of the week with am pm compartments of pretty colors for each. I am up to date. I just checked.The issue is there seems to be no med to counter the religious poison in society. You have to take the poison out of the system.

Are you serious about the feminine being the Church??Why does the Mother forbid other women to preach or teach men in the church?Regards
DL

I dont believe anything that anyone tells me/ I dont care if you are a PhD. My motto is always to question.

Ive never seen woman teachers forbidden to teach. They simply need to have read the course materials, just as any man would need to do.