Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Paranoid Android

Trinities

104 posts in this topic

Osiris, Isis, Horus - the Egyptian "trinity".

Zeus, Poseidon, Hades - the Greek "trinity".

Vishnu, Shiva, Ahura Mazda - the Hindu "trinity".

And more besides! In various contexts these are all said to be typical deity relationships in ancient beliefs. This then leads to the Christian "trinity" of Father, Son, and Spirit, and how these concepts found their way into Christian theology. What I'd like to know is what is so special about these other trinities that they get compared to Christian theology? Osiris and Isis were siblings, quadruplets even (Seth and Nut were fellow siblings), not even mentioning other Egyptian gods like Ra, Anubis, Hathor, et al. Zeus fathered the Demi-god hercules, was the "father of the gods" including Thor, Apollo, Athena, Hera, and more. Vishnu, Shiva, Ahura Mazda, were all incarnations of Brahman, as are millions of other Hindu deities such as Krishna (often cited as a Christ copycat, but this isn't a copycat thread, so I'll ignore that for the purpose this thread).

In an historical context I'd very much like to know what's so special about these "trinities" that they are seen as templates of Christian trinitarian theology while the obvious differences are overlooked completely?

Or, as I suspect, the "similarities" are not quite so profound as made out to be. Due to current time restrictions I can't pledge to respond quickly to this thread, but I will read all responses and note any legitimate historical commentary that proves a "borrowing" situation in these matters.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do not forget the "Capitoline Triad" of the ancient Roman Religion.

http://www.vroma.org/~bmcmanus/captriad.html

Going from memory, the Christian Trinity is a 2nd century, and later theological concept.

200px-Triade_Capitolina_img126.jpg

Edited by davros of skaro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it shows humans like patterns. Putting things in threes makes things easy to remember, too. When these religions were getting started most people couldn't write and you had to remember things in your head. People also visually like triangles and you see them all over the ancient world. It says it a lot about religion being a creation of man and not from an outside supernatural source.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a rather popular them back in the days. But in case of Christian Trinity, it seems like they tried to merge two contradictory concept into one.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Osiris, Isis, Horus - the Egyptian "trinity".

Zeus, Poseidon, Hades - the Greek "trinity".

Vishnu, Shiva, Ahura Mazda - the Hindu "trinity".

And more besides! In various contexts these are all said to be typical deity relationships in ancient beliefs. This then leads to the Christian "trinity" of Father, Son, and Spirit, and how these concepts found their way into Christian theology. What I'd like to know is what is so special about these other trinities that they get compared to Christian theology? Osiris and Isis were siblings, quadruplets even (Seth and Nut were fellow siblings), not even mentioning other Egyptian gods like Ra, Anubis, Hathor, et al. Zeus fathered the Demi-god hercules, was the "father of the gods" including Thor, Apollo, Athena, Hera, and more. Vishnu, Shiva, Ahura Mazda, were all incarnations of Brahman, as are millions of other Hindu deities such as Krishna (often cited as a Christ copycat, but this isn't a copycat thread, so I'll ignore that for the purpose this thread).

In an historical context I'd very much like to know what's so special about these "trinities" that they are seen as templates of Christian trinitarian theology while the obvious differences are overlooked completely?

Or, as I suspect, the "similarities" are not quite so profound as made out to be. Due to current time restrictions I can't pledge to respond quickly to this thread, but I will read all responses and note any legitimate historical commentary that proves a "borrowing" situation in these matters.

I just wanted to point out that the Hindu "trinity" is actually Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva.(Brahma and Brahman are different things - the former is a deity and the other roughly means the universe in its entirety) Plus, Ahura Mazda is a Zoroastrian deity from ancient Iran.

Also, Krishna allegedly died in 3102 BC, which marks the beginning of the Kali Yuga or the final stage of the cycle of Yugas before the dissolution of all life (or the way of life) and the re-creation of everything anew (much like the Mayan cycles of the calender).

Sorry, but that's all I wanted to contribute to this thread. No offence, but I think you should make informed statements in your post, PA.

P.S. - I am an atheist but I'm also from India. And I mean no disrespect but I feel that Google can come in very handy in these modern times. Also, good thread btw. Please carry on with the discussion. :)

Edited by dlonewolf85

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do not forget the "Capitoline Triad" of the ancient Roman Religion.

http://www.vroma.org/~bmcmanus/captriad.html

Yes, as I said, there are many alleged trinities, except there aren't! There are dozens, if not hundreds or thousands of deities, of which modern man had chosen three because they want to think the Trinity is a pagan concept.

Unless there is actual historical evidence that there are "three" divine deities in each culture, which this thread is designed to find out about. So far the responses have lacked historical backing.

Going from memory, the Christian Trinity is a 2nd century, and later theological concept.

200px-Triade_Capitolina_img126.jpg

Going from textual evidence, the Christian Trinity is espoused frequently in 1st century texts, though the ability of early Christians to theologically express this notion didn't develop fully until the 2nd century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it shows humans like patterns. Putting things in threes makes things easy to remember, too. When these religions were getting started most people couldn't write and you had to remember things in your head. People also visually like triangles and you see them all over the ancient world. It says it a lot about religion being a creation of man and not from an outside supernatural source.

I think you've overlooked the point of my question. I www seeking ancient evidence they these deities were considered special in their "three-ness". Isis and Osiris had two siblings, and that doesn't even account for the other Egyptian deities. Do why/when/how did Osiris/Isis/Horus become special and separate? The only places on the net I've seen that group these three together as special is pp. sites that specifically argue trinitarian correlation. No general source on Egyptian mythology ever makes a link between these three as substantially different to any other Egyptian deity. Same for any other ancient pantheon. Unless I'm missing something from the historical/mythological Eugene, which is what I'm asking for - ancient evidence that these deities were actually a "trinity".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wanted to point out that the Hindu "trinity" is actually Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva.(Brahma and Brahman are different things - the former is a deity and the other roughly means the universe in its entirety) Plus, Ahura Mazda is a Zoroastrian deity from ancient Iran.

Also, Krishna allegedly died in 3102 BC, which marks the beginning of the Kali Yuga or the final stage of the cycle of Yugas before the dissolution of all life (or the way of life) and the re-creation of everything anew (much like the Mayan cycles of the calender).

Sorry, but that's all I wanted to contribute to this thread. No offence, but I think you should make informed statements in your post, PA.

P.S. - I am an atheist but I'm also from India. And I mean no disrespect but I feel that Google can come in very handy in these modern times. Also, good thread btw. Please carry on with the discussion. :)

Thanks for the info, in a way you've actually confirmed the premise of my thread. My citing of Vishnu, Shiva, and Ahura Mazda was based on popular mythicist claims that the Christian trinity was "stolen" from other belief systems. I was repeating popular claims, as it goes.

But if you have ancient source evidence that Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva were considered special and triune as opposed to the thousands of other emanations of Brahman, I'd like to hear about it - that is the purpose of this thread, after all.

Edited by Paranoid Android

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Humm, so where did Science get the three states of Matter: Solid, Liquid & Gas?

It's a rather popular them back in the days. But in case of Christian Trinity, it seems like they tried to merge two contradictory concept into one.

If not mistaken, are you referring unto 1 John 5:7-8?

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Science now holds that there are 4 states of Matter, Solid, Liquid, Gas, and Plasm [ionized gas]. However, in Genesis it appears that the LORD God formed man from the dust [solid] of the ground and breath into the nostrils of man the breath of life [Gas]. However, in the Gospel it is written that the Spirit taught the teacher to marvel not, that man must be born also born of water [Liquid] and Spirit [Phasm] to enter the Kingdom of Truth.

But the same Spirit taught that man can not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God.

Edited by 029b10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, as I said, there are many alleged trinities, except there aren't! There are dozens, if not hundreds or thousands of deities, of which modern man had chosen three because they want to think the Trinity is a pagan concept.

Unless there is actual historical evidence that there are "three" divine deities in each culture, which this thread is designed to find out about. So far the responses have lacked historical backing.

Going from textual evidence, the Christian Trinity is espoused frequently in 1st century texts, though the ability of early Christians to theologically express this notion didn't develop fully until the 2nd century.

It's just comparing apples to oranges, and besides the Muslims think Christians are Polytheists because of the Trinity concept.

Only difference between the Capitoline Triad ruling over a pantheon of Gods, and the Trinity ruling over Angels is that people with voices in their heads are still pushing the Trinity.

The Father, the Son, and the worse crime of all deny the Holy Spirit are just remnants of Man's mental handicaps that no longer serve a purpose except to backslide the rest of us.

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you've overlooked the point of my question. I www seeking ancient evidence they these deities were considered special in their "three-ness". Isis and Osiris had two siblings, and that doesn't even account for the other Egyptian deities. Do why/when/how did Osiris/Isis/Horus become special and separate? The only places on the net I've seen that group these three together as special is pp. sites that specifically argue trinitarian correlation. No general source on Egyptian mythology ever makes a link between these three as substantially different to any other Egyptian deity. Same for any other ancient pantheon. Unless I'm missing something from the historical/mythological Eugene, which is what I'm asking for - ancient evidence that these deities were actually a "trinity".

I agree with devo, it is comparing apples to oranges. Each religion is it's own view on Gods and the supernatural. There are some religions which are related because their origins are related by geography and people take ideas from others and mix them in their own. Like Christmas, people are not going to stop a party because the religion changes they just incorporate the old in the new. The history of religion is a complex trail. I guess that is why it interestes me. When people tell me all religions are the same, IMO, they are same as in we are all humans, beyond that I don't really see it in the evidence. The more I look at religion the more I am amazed at the creativity of the human mind.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most people who would argue

It's a rather popular them back in the days. But in case of Christian Trinity, it seems like they tried to merge two contradictory concept into one.

Except the term "Christian Trinity" is an erroneous concept, christians didn't invente the concept nor did they need to copy the concept from other religions, it is clearly evidente throughout the Old Testament. As can be seen in a number of passages like the following from the Jewish Targums...

Targum Onkelos

And they heard the voice of the Word of the Lord God walking in the garden in the evening of the day; and Adam and his wife hid themselves from before the Lord God among the trees of the garden. And the Lord God called to Adam and said to him, Where art thou?

And he said, The voice of Thy Word heard I in the garden, and I was afraid, because I (was) naked, and I would hide.

The Targum of Palestine

Walking in the garden in the strength of the day......And the Word of the Lord God called to Adam, and said to him, Behold, the world which I have created is manifest before Me; and how thinkest thou that the place in the midst whereof thou art, is not revealed before Me? Where is the commandment which I taught thee?

And he said, The voice of Thy Word heard I in the garden, and I was afraid, because I am naked; and the commandment which Thou didst teach me, I have transgressed; therefore I hid myself from shame.

It seems that the "Word", is God but isn't, and this is repeated many times in diferent ways throughout the Old Testament, dozens of times, not just a few times here and there. It was so evidente that John 1:1 recites the concept verbatim. Yet how many times have we seen people reject the trinity, as a christian invention or a stolen concept from another religion?

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Osiris, Isis, Horus - the Egyptian "trinity".

Zeus, Poseidon, Hades - the Greek "trinity".

Vishnu, Shiva, Ahura Mazda - the Hindu "trinity".

And more besides! In various contexts these are all said to be typical deity relationships in ancient beliefs. This then leads to the Christian "trinity" of Father, Son, and Spirit, and how these concepts found their way into Christian theology. What I'd like to know is what is so special about these other trinities that they get compared to Christian theology? Osiris and Isis were siblings, quadruplets even (Seth and Nut were fellow siblings), not even mentioning other Egyptian gods like Ra, Anubis, Hathor, et al. Zeus fathered the Demi-god hercules, was the "father of the gods" including Thor, Apollo, Athena, Hera, and more. Vishnu, Shiva, Ahura Mazda, were all incarnations of Brahman, as are millions of other Hindu deities such as Krishna (often cited as a Christ copycat, but this isn't a copycat thread, so I'll ignore that for the purpose this thread).

In an historical context I'd very much like to know what's so special about these "trinities" that they are seen as templates of Christian trinitarian theology while the obvious differences are overlooked completely?

Or, as I suspect, the "similarities" are not quite so profound as made out to be. Due to current time restrictions I can't pledge to respond quickly to this thread, but I will read all responses and note any legitimate historical commentary that proves a "borrowing" situation in these matters.

Man’s life on earth has only one end and purpose: to identify himself with his eternal Self and so to come to unitive knowledge of the Divine Ground.

In Hinduism the first of these four doctrines is stated in the most categorical terms. The Divine Ground is Brahman, whose creative, sustaining and transforming aspects are manifested the Hindu trinity. A hierarchy of manifestations connects inanimate matter with man, gods, High Gods, and the undifferentiated Godhead beyond.

In Mahayana Buddhism the Divine Ground is called Mind or the Pure Light of the Void, the place of the High Gods is taken by the Dhyani-Buddhas.

Similar conceptions are perfectly compatible with Christianity and have in fact been entertained, explicitly or implicitly, by many Catholic and Protestant mystics, when formulating a philosophy to fit facts observed by super-rational intuition. Thus, for Eckhart and Ruysbroeck, there is an Abyss of Godhead underlying the Trinity, just as Brahman underlies Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. Suso has even left a diagrammatic picture of the relations subsisting between Godhead, triune God and creatures. In this very curious and interesting drawing a chain of manifestation connects the mysterious symbol of the Divine Ground with the three Persons of the Trinity, and the Trinity in turn is connected in a descending scale with angels and human beings. These last, as the drawing vividly shows, may make one of two choices. They can either live the life of the outer man, the life of the separative selfhood; in which case they are lost (for, in the words of the Theologia Germanica, “nothing burns in hell but the self”). Or else they can identify themselves with the inner man, in which case it becomes possible for them, as Suso shows, to ascend again, through unitive knowledge, to the Trinity and even, beyond they Trinity, to the ultimate Unity of the Divine Ground.

http://parvati.tripod.com/perennial.html

In "A Psychological Approach to the Doctrine of the Trinity",[6] again by tenet #1 Jung interprets the Father as the self, the source of energy within the psyche; the Son as an emergent structure of consciousness that replaces the self-alienated ego; and the Holy Spirit as a mediating structure between the ego and the self. However, Jung believed that the psyche moves toward completion in fours (made up of pairs of opposites), and that therefore (using tenet #3 above) the Christian formulation of the Trinity would give way to a quaternity by including missing aspects (e.g. the feminine and evil). (This analysis prompted Jung to send a congratulatory note to Pope Pius XII in 1950 upon the adoption of the doctrine of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, to wit completing the quaternity.)

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

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

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Humm, so where did Science get the three states of Matter: Solid, Liquid & Gas?

If not mistaken, are you referring unto 1 John 5:7-8?

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Science now holds that there are 4 states of Matter, Solid, Liquid, Gas, and Plasm [ionized gas]. However, in Genesis it appears that the LORD God formed man from the dust [solid] of the ground and breath into the nostrils of man the breath of life [Gas]. However, in the Gospel it is written that the Spirit taught the teacher to marvel not, that man must be born also born of water [Liquid] and Spirit [Phasm] to enter the Kingdom of Truth.

But the same Spirit taught that man can not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God.

What you've got there is the four classical elements; Earth, Water, Air and Fire. It certainly didn't take them from the New Testament if that's what you're trying to say,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chloe

Greetings!

On this one, I wonder about Uncle Carl. The bodily assumption of Mary into Heaven is an old doctrine (otherwise the Pope couldn't have defined it "infallibly"). More so than most people, Jung would have known all that. His reaction, then, was disproportionate to the actual advance.

It is interesting that Christian apologists, very much including Protestants (many of whom consciously reject any special continuing role for Mary at all), project onto Mohammed a supposed "mistake" that the Christian Trinity is Father, Mother and Son, based on a Koran passage that says no such thing. Both Jung and Freud can wink knowingly to each other what that means the apologists' unacknowledged attitude toward Mary probably is like.

I would propose a Jungian solution and wonder that it was not Jung's. The Orthodox point of bodily ascension would be assurance that Mary now participates in theosis - she isn't a goddess, but rather a person all but indistinguishable from God. This is supposedly the good outcome for all human beings, but here and now, Mary would be the only human to have achieved this estate. So, there is your quaternity, without any revision to the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity.

(I used Eastern Orthodox terminology. Supposedly Catholics' beatific vision is the same as theosis, although I sense the Easterners are more plainspoken that it means asymptotic unity with the Godhead. Among Protestants, Anglicans also use the term "beatific vision," and as far as I can tell, many of them are aware that it means theosis. Maybe others do, too.)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was to look at the Trinity in the purest, and earliest perspective to Mankind?

It sounds silly, but it's the most vital, while taking in account early Man's limited

knowledge.

#1 Penis:The giver of the Seed of life.

#2 Vagina: The reciever, and incubator of the Seed of life.

#3 Breast: The giver for new life.

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

What comes to your mind looking at this 20,000+ year old statue?

Venus-of-Willendorf-24000BC.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chloe

Greetings!

On this one, I wonder about Uncle Carl. The bodily assumption of Mary into Heaven is an old doctrine (otherwise the Pope couldn't have defined it "infallibly"). More so than most people, Jung would have known all that. His reaction, then, was disproportionate to the actual advance.

It is interesting that Christian apologists, very much including Protestants (many of whom consciously reject any special continuing role for Mary at all), project onto Mohammed a supposed "mistake" that the Christian Trinity is Father, Mother and Son, based on a Koran passage that says no such thing. Both Jung and Freud can wink knowingly to each other what that means the apologists' unacknowledged attitude toward Mary probably is like.

I would propose a Jungian solution and wonder that it was not Jung's. The Orthodox point of bodily ascension would be assurance that Mary now participates in theosis - she isn't a goddess, but rather a person all but indistinguishable from God. This is supposedly the good outcome for all human beings, but here and now, Mary would be the only human to have achieved this estate. So, there is your quaternity, without any revision to the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity.

(I used Eastern Orthodox terminology. Supposedly Catholics' beatific vision is the same as theosis, although I sense the Easterners are more plainspoken that it means asymptotic unity with the Godhead. Among Protestants, Anglicans also use the term "beatific vision," and as far as I can tell, many of them are aware that it means theosis. Maybe others do, too.)

Hello Mr. Bits!! Oh how I miss these discussions, wish I had more time.

I was thinking about this from my quote above: "The Divine Ground is Brahman, whose creative, sustaining and transforming aspects are manifested the Hindu trinity," and the interplay of terms you used - God, Father, and Godhead? All the same thing or no? I could see Godhead being the Divine Ground, Brahman, and the Father, Son, Holy Ghost being the transforming aspects if we were to look for some connection in these trinities. Mary achieving theosis, not indistinguishable from the God of the Trinity, the Father, but beyond that, which I guess would be considered blasphemous in some way, to assume there is something more or beyond the Father, but I would consider it attaining a state of transcendence, where these separations don't exist, which Christianity seems to drop off there and falls short. I was looking what Joseph Campbell had to say on it:

”The key to understanding the problem that’s solved with the symbolic idea of the Trinity is the Tantric saying, ‘To worship a god, one must become a god.’ That is to say, you must hit that level of consciousness within yourself that is equivalent to the deity to whom you are addressing your attention.

“In the Trinity, the Father is the deity your attention is addressed to; you are the Son, knower of the Father; and the Holy Spirit represents the relationship between the two.

“It seems to me you cannot have the notion of a god without having implicit the notion of a Trinity: a god, the knower of the god, and the relationship between the two, a progressive knowing that brings you closer and closer to the divine.

“The divine lives within you.”

Joseph Campbell in “A Joseph Campbell Companion: Reflections on the Art of Living”

Again that seems like the transformative process, the missing piece of the quaternity, being you, as god or union with the divine ground, with Mary being the human example set before us.

Edited by ChloeB
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Chloe

Busy is good, even if I, too, miss these conversations.

I think PA is mostly concerned with the simple problem of trinities across religions and establishing that his favorite, the Christian version, isn't "copied" in any direct way from others'.

But from the depth psychology point of view, throughout most of its history, the Christian Trinity really was complemented by a prominent doctrine of Mary having been bodily assumed into Heaven. So, whether she was acknowledged as having achieved union with the Godhead or not, she was there, and just as you say, "the human example set before us" of divine union.

And she was not an invisible example. Much of the best and most powerful Christian visual art is of her: the visitations, the annunciations, the madonnas-with-child, the pietas. She has the best music, too. She even has a great Gospel speech, her Magnificat in Luke 1: 46 ff.

So, the quaternity was there all along. I wonder why Jung didn't see it before the Pope did.

Anyway, as always, Campbell just amazes with how easily and surely he navigates even the deepest Indian material. At least PA doesn't have to worry about anybody in his church having copied any of that.

Edited by eight bits
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Chloe

Busy is good, even if I, too, miss these conversations.

I think PA is mostly concerned with the simple problem of trinities across religions and establishing that his favorite, the Christian version, isn't "copied" in any direct way from others'.

But from the depth psychology point of view, throughout most of its history, the Christian Trinity really was complemented by a prominent doctrine of Mary having been bodily assumed into Heaven. So, whether she was acknowledged as having achieved union with the Godhead or not, she was there, and just as you say, "the human example set before us" of divine union.

And she was not an invisible example. Much of the best and most powerful Christian visual art is of her: the visitations, the annunciations, the madonnas-with-child, the pietas. She has the best music, too. She even has a great Gospel speech, her Magnificat in Luke 1: 46 ff.

So, the quaternity was there all along. I wonder why Jung didn't see it before the Pope did.

Anyway, as always, Campbell just amazes with how easily and surely he navigates even the deepest Indian material. At least PA doesn't have to worry about anybody in his church having copied any of that.

Yes, well, my apologies to PA. I think the copycat stuff is pretty much a dead end. However, this idea appeals to me because I do think that establishing your favorite is a waste of time, what is of true value is noticing that trinities show up so often over religions and asking why. Religions, especially those of the west are saturated with cultural customs and laws of the day, of little importance to spirituality, but I think when you see similarities appearing over and over, those are the things you can consider above and beyond, much more important than the name of your God, what day you go to church, what you can eat, get a divorce, all those petty things. And yes, we have the treasure of Joseph Campbell that gets that. And definitely PA wouldn't have to worry about his church copying any of that, as I said, it seemed like they were onto something, but then fell short and veered off ending it all with a bunch of scary death and destruction like a big Hollywood blockbuster movie. There's something disabling or confining about having to always be right, that's the pity of these religions that teach they are the only one, people lose out, though the ending sells a lot of tickets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In "A Psychological Approach to the Doctrine of the Trinity",[6] again by tenet #1 Jung interprets the Father as the self, the source of energy within the psyche; the Son as an emergent structure of consciousness that replaces the self-alienated ego; and the Holy Spirit as a mediating structure between the ego and the self. However, Jung believed that the psyche moves toward completion in fours (made up of pairs of opposites), and that therefore (using tenet #3 above) the Christian formulation of the Trinity would give way to a quaternity by including missing aspects (e.g. the feminine and evil). (This analysis prompted Jung to send a congratulatory note to Pope Pius XII in 1950 upon the adoption of the doctrine of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, to wit completing the quaternity.)

http://en.wikipedia....ion_of_religion

http://en.wikipedia....ion_of_religion

Right Brain, Left Brain, Corpus Callosum.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you've got there is the four classical elements; Earth, Water, Air and Fire. It certainly didn't take them from the New Testament if that's what you're trying to say,

earth, water, blood and the spirit.

Don't have to say it, it is self-evident....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Osiris, Isis, Horus - the Egyptian "trinity".

Zeus, Poseidon, Hades - the Greek "trinity".

Vishnu, Shiva, Ahura Mazda - the Hindu "trinity".

What I'd like to know is what is so special about these other trinities that they get compared to Christian theology?

Lets put that in perspective: what is so special about Christian theology that it gets compared to these other trinities?

Vishnu, Shiva, Ahura Mazda, were all incarnations of Brahman, as are millions of other Hindu deities such as Krishna (often cited as a Christ copycat, but this isn't a copycat thread, so I'll ignore that for the purpose this thread).

The earliest reference to Krishna that I know about is one from Roman literature (Seneca? - I'm not sure where I read it.). That would be in the 60s AD. Depending on when you think the gospels developed (not the same as written), that would be either before Christianity, or contemporary with it. Does anybody know of an earlier reference to Krishna?

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, well, my apologies to PA. I think the copycat stuff is pretty much a dead end. However, this idea appeals to me because I do think that establishing your favorite is a waste of time, what is of true value is noticing that trinities show up so often over religions and asking why.

Hi Chloe, Hope you've been well. I'd like to address the bolded and coloured piece of text here, because you've hit exactly my point - Trinities don't show up so often! Modern man simply says they do.

Am I wrong? That's what this thread is for. What I want is ancient evidence (preferably pre-1st Century AD, otherwise it could be argued that it was them that borrowed from Christianity, not vice versa). Ancient texts, manuscripts, stories, anything that shows a special triune nature beyond "mommy and daddy god get together and have baby god". So far, not a single person has compellingly argued for an ancient trinity, except through linking videos that attempt to show how the Christian trinity is not "special". I don't want videos trying to prove a "trinity" akin to Christianity, I'm looking for ancient evidence (aka, the original source material) that (to use an example from the OP) Osiris/Isis/Horus are special trinitarian relationship comparable to Christianity. For one thing, Osiris and Isis are quadruplets - what about Seth and Nut, are they suddenly of zero importance to the "trinity"? Of course not, Seth killed Osiris and chopped him into tiny pieces. What about other gods? Thoth brought Horus back to life after a snake bit him, when Isis pleaded to bring her son back. Is Thoth nor Seth not worthy of mention in the "trinity"? Why are these ignored when people say the "Egyptian trinity" simply because mommy and daddy had a baby? If that is the definition of "trinity", then I can only say the definition is so broad as to be irrelevant to begin with.

Do you get my meaning? Simply repeating that "trinities occur so often" is a moot point if it's wrong!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets put that in perspective: what is so special about Christian theology that it gets compared to these other trinities?

It's currently the world's largest religion, it's known to have borrowed certain pagan elements (Christmas, Easter, etc) from contemporary pagan beliefs, and then mix in modern scepticism over ancient history (The Da Vinci Code syndrome, one might call it). Add in the viral nature of the internet, and repeat a lie often enough and it truly does become unquestioned fact. It's this kind of thing that has led (to borrow from a recent discussion) people to actually come onto places like UM and declare that the early priests edited Genesis to remove Lilith from the text in order to maintain their patriarchal dominance, when you and I both know the origin of this story is early Middle Ages.

As such, when things such as "Egyptian Trinity" gets bandied about, it's repeated so often that it is unquestioningly taken as fact, and then put up against the largest religion in the world today, but if you read my above post to Chloe, it's obvious that there's more to the story than the simplified Osiris/Isis/Horus.

The earliest reference to Krishna that I know about is one from Roman literature (Seneca? - I'm not sure where I read it.). That would be in the 60s AD. Depending on when you think the gospels developed (not the same as written), that would be either before Christianity, or contemporary with it. Does anybody know of an earlier reference to Krishna?

Doug

I was under the impression Krishna was referenced several times in the Bhagavad Gita, which dates roughly 2nd Century BC, perhaps a century or two earlier. At the least, last time I ate at a Hare Krishna restaurant, I was given a copy of the Bhagavad Gita, and a quick rifle through it showed "Lord Krishna did such and such..." on several occasions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's currently the world's largest religion, it's known to have borrowed certain pagan elements (Christmas, Easter, etc) from contemporary pagan beliefs, and then mix in modern scepticism over ancient history (The Da Vinci Code syndrome, one might call it). Add in the viral nature of the internet, and repeat a lie often enough and it truly does become unquestioned fact. It's this kind of thing that has led (to borrow from a recent discussion) people to actually come onto places like UM and declare that the early priests edited Genesis to remove Lilith from the text in order to maintain their patriarchal dominance, when you and I both know the origin of this story is early Middle Ages.

As such, when things such as "Egyptian Trinity" gets bandied about, it's repeated so often that it is unquestioningly taken as fact, and then put up against the largest religion in the world today, but if you read my above post to Chloe, it's obvious that there's more to the story than the simplified Osiris/Isis/Horus.

My whole point was that there is another of looking at that. Christianity is not the Ultimate Religion. There are other people out there with beliefs just as valid.

Lets have done with Lillith. We both agree she's a later edition.

I was under the impression Krishna was referenced several times in the Bhagavad Gita, which dates roughly 2nd Century BC, perhaps a century or two earlier. At the least, last time I ate at a Hare Krishna restaurant, I was given a copy of the Bhagavad Gita, and a quick rifle through it showed "Lord Krishna did such and such..." on several occasions.

Thanks. I was asking because I truly do not know.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.