DrJoe1:
No, jesus is a fictitious character in a compiled contradictory story of a historically inaccurate book that is being used to convince people to bring 10% of their salary in exchange for blessing. he was allegedly persecuted under Roman law of treason, and Herodian blasphemy law against the temple, he is not God

hope this helps

Kei144:
@BIBLESPEAKS, thanks for your great post. You sure did some research.

BIBLESPEAKS:


Secular historians, including Josephus and Tacitus of the first century mention Jesus as a historical figure. More important, the Gospels convincingly shows that jesus was a real person, not a fictional character. The record is specific and detailed in stating time and place. The Bile is far from a book of historical inaccuracies. Gospel writer luke mentions 7 ruling officials - whose names have been corroborated by secular historians.

Scholarly opinion on the total or partial authenticity of the reference in Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 of the Antiquities, a passage that states that Jesus the Messiah was a wise teacher who was crucified by Pilate, usually called the Testimonium Flavianum, varies . The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian expansion/alteration

johnw74:
I wrote in another thread that Jesus is the Son of God, the flesh and blood Jesus is the Son of God.
Luk_1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

But before that He was the Word of God, God Himself.
We cannot understand all things of God until we are changed in the twinkling of an eye. Some things on Earth are not like things in Heaven.
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

dolphinheart:


On this thread, if you want to prove that the pagan doctrine of trinity is biblical, then answer the questions posted by the op.
Dnt derail, answer from number 1 to last.

dolphinheart:


On this thread, if you want to prove that the pagan doctrine of trinity is biblical, then answer the questions posted by the op.
Dnt derail, answer from number 1 to last.

johnw74:


Hi, I never mentioned trinity which would includes the holy Spirit, I showed from scripture that the Word of God, when He was born to flesh became the Son of God, John 1:1&14 and Luke 1:35.

We know that God who became the Father when Jesus was born is God, and
we know that the Word who became Jesus is God

God became man and dwelt among us.
Joh_1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Php 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Php 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

The Word is God, God became the man Jesus.

johnw74:


Hi, I never mentioned trinity which would includes the holy Spirit, I showed from scripture that the Word of God, when He was born to flesh became the Son of God, John 1:1&14 and Luke 1:35.

We know that God who became the Father when Jesus was born is God, and
we know that the Word who became Jesus is God

God became man and dwelt among us.
Joh_1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Php 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Php 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

The Word is God, God became the man Jesus.

paulGrundy:
Does the fact that doctrine of trinity, coincide with other similar pagan doctrines, basis for it to be discarded?

BIBLESPEAKS:


It doesn't just coincide, it was borrowed from the pagans. Servants of God in the time of israel were unitarians, they were commanded thses words in Deut 6:4. "Listen, O israel: JEHOVAH our God is one Jehovah." During that time, there were prophecies concerning the coming not of God, but of the son of God - the messiah. So when christs disciples identified him, they didn't think he was the God they had been praying to, but the son of God and messiah.

In 325 AD after the apostles had died off, the counsel of Nicaea formulated the doctrinethat Jesus was almighty GOD. Later in 381 AD, they added the holy spirit in the mix, resulting to what is now the tri-une God.

The Council of Nicea - 325 AD
There are many erroneous things said and written about the famous Council of Nicea. For example, it was not:
- the beginning of the "Catholic Church"
- when Christianity decided Jesus was divine
- when the New Testament was made official

There was not exactly a vote on the trinity, or even the divinity of Jesus (it was much more technical than this). No vote on the official biblical text. No vote on gnostic gospels. Christianity was not made the official religion. [You can read about the development of the trinity to see how the divinity of Jesus was a settled issue in early Christianity prior to the Council of Nicea in 325 AD]

Early Christianity

Ignatius (circa 112-114AD) affirms Jesus as God in the flesh, using the Logos theology of John's gospel, the Word – and to keep anyone from misunderstanding that he might be speaking of Jesus in a docetic or ebionitic way, “both made and not made,”

There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible, even Jesus Christ our Lord.    Ignatius to the Ephesians 7 (short)

...our Physician is the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son. We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For "the Word was made flesh."
Ignatius to the Ephesians 7 (long version)
While it is true that we have two versions of Ignatius (a short and a longer, more “orthodox” version), one can see a strong pre-existence Christology even in the shorter version.

Irenaeus (cir. 175 AD) wrote against Gnostics and is fairly consistent with Ignatius, but also further elaborates the divinity of Jesus,

The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father "to gather all things in one," and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father...    Against the Heresies 10.1
Through the second century most of the discussion that relates to the concept of trinity focused on the nature of Jesus. First the church battled against ebionitic christology, insisting on the divinity of Jesus. Then some of the fathers battled against docetic christology that existed in many gnostic groups. There is very little discussion on the Holy Spirit. You can see that Irenaeus affirms the Holy Spirit, but there is no divinity language. There is evidence in Clement and Origen that teaching on the Holy Spirit was reserved for teaching catechumens (young believers preparing for baptism) and was guarded, kind of secret.

Sabellius

Up to this point the discussion tended to focus on "logos theology," trying to explain John 1:1. With Sabellius hypostasis was introduced, the idea of "substance" or "personality." Around 220 AD a Libyan leader named Sabellius rejected the idea of three personalities, wanting to hold tightly to a monotheistic position. Sabellius promoted a type of modalism, that each part of the trinity was revealed through energies but did not have a separate personality.

In the late 250's this theological discussion was taken up by Dionysius, the bishop of Rome and the bishop of Alexandria (and a student of Origen), also named Dionysius. To make things more confusing these two church leaders were not fluent with each other's language which caused what Frend calls "a comedy of errors." Dionysius of Rome understood the Greek word hypostasis to mean "substance" when his counterpart in Alexandria was actually talking about "personality." This linguistic struggle only made a delicate and technical discussion more difficult. In addition, the Greek word homoousias (same substance) had also been introduced in the discussion to reference whether the Father and the Son were of the "same substance." The Alexandrian Dionysius used the term "same substance," but refused to rely on it theologically because the word was not used in any biblical text. The Roman Dionysius was fully prepared for this usage.

In the end this discussion showed the willingness of regional bishops to work together for a common faith, but it also opened the door for the future problems that would follow. The concept of homoousias would resurface and the bishops at Nicea would act in a definitive fashion.

Paul of Samosata

In around 260 AD Paul of Samosata became the bishop of Antioch. Paul was a charismatic man - described by Eusebius as "loud-mouthed" and "brash." He had a lofty bishop's throne built for himself; he shouted and waved his hands while preaching; he smacked his thighs and stomped his feet to bring emphasis in his sermons; he called for people to wave hankerchiefs when he said anything that demanded a rowdy response. All of these things only made his theological abberations stand out.

With Paul of Samosata the difference between Antioch and Alexandria clearly comes to the surface. A strong Jewish influence had continued in the church of Antioch and is manifested in the theology of Samosata by an ebionitic slant, a focus on the humanity of Jesus. Paul of Samosata, who held a very dim view of Origen, believed that Jesus had not been eternally united with the Logos, but had been infused with Logos at his baptism.

In 264/265 Dionysius of Alexandria attacked bishop Paul's theology headon, calling a council - there were actually 2-3 different councils, each being used to sway enough leadership to act against Paul. At a council (cir. 265 AD) the Alexandrian bishops won the day and pronounced that in order to be in the catholic church one must affirm the preexistence of Christ. In 268 AD, after failed attempts to defrock him, a group of bishops called on the help of the Roman government (Aurelian) to deal with Paul for his lack of orthodoxy. He was able secure support from Zenobia, the Palmyrene empress which protected him from the bishops actions. This represented the first time Christian bishops petitioned a Roman official for help. Aurelian deferred the case to the bishop of Rome which is the precedent followed later by Constantine

paulGrundy:


Stop telling lies the doctrine of trinity had developed prior to the time of council of Nicaea. Evidence of my claim below.



http://www.churchhistory101.com/century4-p7.php


.
http://www.churchhistory101.com/century3-p6.php

What is the source of your information I remember seuin correcting a misrepresentation on this thread. You would do well to verify any information, if you want to be taken seriously.

BIBLESPEAKS:



I didn't respond to seuin's post because it was to derail this thread. We're to dicuss about Jesus, who he is and his position. Seuin tried to question the historicity of Jesus so he shld create a thread for that.

Are u the only one not seeing the quotations esp from the encyclopedia that the trinity was of late formation?
Have I not quoted the Bible - the very book that trinitarians used to support their doctrine?

BIBLESPEAKS:
The Divinity of christ was not taught in the synagouges in jerusalem during the time of jesus

neither did the apostles teach or write anything about it after jesus

It was established by the church in 325 AD. It was until 381 AD that the holy spirit was added to form a full fledge doctrine of trinity.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

BIBLESPEAKS:



I didn't respond to seuin's post because it was to derail this thread. We're to dicuss about Jesus, who he is and his position. Seuin tried to question the historicity of Jesus so he shld create a thread for that.

Are u the only one not seeing the quotations esp from the encyclopedia that the trinity was of late formation?
Have I not quoted the Bible - the very book that trinitarians used to support their doctrine?

johnw74:


Hi, I never mentioned trinity which would includes the holy Spirit, I showed from scripture that the Word of God, when He was born to flesh became the Son of God, John 1:1&14 and Luke 1:35.

We know that God who became the Father when Jesus was born is God, and
we know that the Word who became Jesus is God

God became man and dwelt among us.
Joh_1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Php 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Php 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

The Word is God, God became the man Jesus.