Trinity, divinity of Jesus

[scotter]

If I want to read divinity of Jesus in the Gospels, there are indicative arguments, but not vindicative e.g. Thomas the doubter, “My Lord and My God!”, "The Father and I are one" (if you intepret this in Judaism terms, it was legitimate for a Jew to share his feelings of close relationship with God, the Gentile church that became the mainstream read it with non-Judaism eyes); there are also counter arguments: concerning the Last Days that Jesus would return, only the Father knows, not even the Son knows. If Jesus is God, how could he not know?

 

In believing someone as God, it is not buying a truck from the car dealership. Originally you have wanted to look for a red truck with air-con. It happens that there is a red truck w/o air-con but really good price and you drive it away. Believing someone as God, cannot be compromised, settled, or weighted by how many are pros, how many are cons, if pros are more than cons, I take it Jesus as God, no, not this. I must say it has to be 100% vindicative pros, not indicative pros, and absolutely no cons, no counterpoints, no rooms for compromise.

 

If I read the Gospel as a 3rd party, divinity of Jesus is inconclusive. Like I said, even just one point of doubt that commands a weight, regardless of its heavy weight, light weight, should not lead one to conclude that Jesus is God…..is it fair enough?

 

That said, coming to my question for you.

 

Christians, I sincerely ask for your honest thoughts and feelings on this subject: on the theological defense of Trinity, is it more for defense of historical tradition and integrity because it has been passed down for 1700 years since Trinity was declared in Nicene Council 325CE?

 

If Jesus is not God, does it really discount the Christian God’s grace to humanity salvation, in the Christian theological structure of salvation? You, as a Christian, accept Jesus as the Savior, your sins are forgiven by Jesus’ sacrifice, you attain eternal life. Does it discount God’s grace and promise a bit if Jesus is not God? Do you feel cheaper in status, do you think it is a ‘cheaper’ sacrifice less worthy, if Jesus is not God? No, I presumably answer for you, I don’t think so.

 

-----

 

Thinking points:

1. When Peter and the disciples believed Jesus was the Messiah, the Christ (Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20), and they followed him till his death, did they believe Trinity?

 

2. As mentioned, Trinity was declared in the Nicene Council, so God wasn’t Trinity yet before 325 CE. Did man make God in his image?

 

3. Billy Graham converted millions in his emotional missionary gatherings. But dare I say, is there even one convert among the millions, the moment he raised his hands in responding to Billy’s call, with the Holy Spirit descending into his Heart, in accepting Jesus as the Savior, has already sorted out Trinity? [for that moment, believing Trinity is not a pre-condition to accept Jesus as the Messiah]

 

After his conversion experience, his new Christian brothers sisters would gradually educate him the basics, Heaven, Sin, Salvation, Trinity…..it was just natural.

 

4. Play time machine, rewind the tape and surmise: If Trinity had had NEVER rooted in the Church in the beginning, e.g. God the Father the sole God, Jesus a higher created being (put it that way for the sake of argument, I am not an Arian) called Lord Jesus Christ the Messiah, Shekinah - God’s divine presence called the Holy Spirit. (Read again Paul how he opened and began his letters) And it had been that way for 1500 years, and sometime in 1500s somewhere in the Medieval Europe a monk 'Scotterus' had an ‘inspiration’: “I propose that God is Trinity. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, 3 persons, equal in divinity to each other, as one God, under One Godhead.” Would Scotterus have been declared heresy?

I invite you to ponder on it.

 

I reiterate this is NOT a theological debate on Trinity itself, but sort of ask you what you honestly feel about the Trinity defense is more a defense for the Church doctrinic tradition or actually a defense for God’s grace of salvation. If you have a third e.g. it is a defense for personal conviction, feel free.

 

Thank you in advance.

[pandora]

I have some books called The Myth of God Incarnate and The Trinitarian Controversy. When I have read them, I will get back to you.

[Guest Soulfire]

I think that the mere fact that the Jesus myth mirrors other earlier messiah/hero figures is enough to discount anything in the NT as historical fact.

Ahh the joy of the three legged stool. Kick out one leg and you're on your arse.

[scotter]

Soulfire,

 

Not here, please.

 

There is the Lion's Den.

[Ouroboros]

Interesting topic, but I'm not sure really how and why the Church had to make up the trinity.

 

I can only guess why, and it would be that they needed Jesus to be God, so they could pray to him, but they couldn't give up the monotheistic view, so Jesus had to become the son of God. Since Jesus himself was gone, back to heaven, someone had to replace him for the presence of the divine, and the Holy Spirit was the candidate. But since God was the Father, and Jesus was the son, and making the Holy Spirit the mother would have caused to much similarity with other pagan religions, the spirit was just the spirit, but still God. In the end the Trinity doctrine was just to save the face of the religion, since it was evolving into polytheism.

 

Is it a requirement to believe in the Trinity? I guess it depends on if you want to see Jesus as a god or not?

[Mythra]

Interesting topic, but I'm not sure really how and why the Church had to make up the trinity.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There's no mention of the word trinity or "three in one" or any other wording that would lead a person to believe in the doctrine just through reading the bible.

 

This one has to be taught.

 

Like most everything else, the trinity proves to be an effort to merge paganism with Judaism.

 

Perhaps another one of the reasons, was to cover up the fact that "elohim" is plural. And the wording such as "we" will make man in our image. Didn't want anyone thinking that the early Israelites were polytheistic.

 

For a great article on the trinity, check in rants. (Heimdall - author)

 

I would have stolen from it, but I could never do it justice.

[Huntsvil]

I have always felt that the trinity was, as you have stated here, an untruth that I could not find in the Bible. I think we are begining to see what postmodern christians are doing by questioning all they were taught in light of what the Bible says about it. If it says anything it says thru Jesus that He came to point the way to God. It also says somewhere that He did not find equality to God something to be grasped. He prayed to His Father and taught others to pray to the Father, not to Himself. The saying " I and the Father are one" appears to be the same as saying to a man and woman " and the two shall become one". We know this is not physically possible but must be on a spiritual level. This may shock some, but I don't believe the Bible can be trusted on a literal interpretation but must be studied on a spiritual level. Am I making sense?

[Ouroboros]

Am I making sense?

Yup, you do make sense, but raise new questions.

 

Who was Jesus then? Was he God, part of God, or was he made to be equal to God, or was he a man, and stayed a man but in a higher status then regular men?

 

In the sense of the Holy Spirit, I guess it would be interpreted similar to a human soul. Nothing separate from God, just reflecting his presence.

 

But still, who was Jesus then?

 

(It's still within the OP, since the topic states "Trinity, divinity of Jesus ")

[mako]

I am not really meaning to open up a can of worms, but the question of who Jesus was is a part of this thread and a recent exchange on the Unexplained-Mysteries forum between myself and a forum member called “draconic chronicler” was on the historicity of Jesus. DC claims to be a non-Christian and a “historian”, but his acceptance of the Jesus myths without considering both sides of the matter makes me wonder about his beliefs and his qualifications as a historian. Following is some of the dialogue (later a member called “Jesusfan” breaks in:

 

DC - Jesus of Narareth has to have been a real person or his religion could never have been accepted

Mako - I guess that means that Mithra was a real person also, else his religion wouldn't have been around 300 years prior to Christianity and would not have been Christianity's biggest competitor. Sorry, there is no contemporary evidence of such a person living, no mention by the several historians writing at that time (not decades later like Josephus), even though other so-called "Sons-of-God" were heavily reported and one even wrote his own books, while his disciples wrote his gospel! His supporters couldn’t even agree when he lived, in his “Against Heresies”, Irenaeus said that Jesus was sill alive in the reign of Trajan (ruled 98 – 177 CE), whereas Epiphanius in Haer.; 29.3 says that Jesus was born during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (ruled 103-76 BCE. To me that is a sign that the lack of mention by contemporaries is a sign of lack of Jesus.

 

DC - Remember that this religion began immediately after his death.

Mako - When was his death? We only have the word of anonymous individuals writing many decades later that he was born and executed in what we call the “1st Century CE” Even with that, they can’t agree when he was born, of the two authors (Luke and Matthew) one has him born while Herod the Great, 1st century BCE, was on the throne and one while Cyrenius was governor of Syria, 1st century CE, an eleven year discrepancy and two separate centuries! As I pointed out above, we have near contemporaries that have no real idea of when he lived.

 

DC - In many respects, the Roman empire was as "modern" as our world today, with historians, lawyers, court records, etc.

Mako - Major difference, - speed of communication. Top Speed, a horses gallop, it took days and weeks for information to get from one area of the Empire to another. Very few people traveled more than 30-50 miles from home. Many people living in the same place their entire life with little or no interaction with the rest of the world. Conditions like this are very conducive to the creation of a new religion, one without a real personage attached. A good example of this would be the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, an entire different take on Christianity, involving Jews migrating to American, splitting into two different peoples (culturally and physically), being visited by the Resurrected Christ, one peoples being destroyed by the other, and the Angel Moroni bringing all this information to Joseph Smith on Golden plates (later removed by the Angel). This all happened during the 19th century when communication was much faster and still this new religion was born and grew and is still growing. Now consider how long it took to get from Jerusalem to Alexandria in the 1st century CE – conservatively 2 weeks. Makes checking facts rather hard. Now lets talk from Jerusalem to Rome. I think this covers everything in that paragraph, but you also have to take into consideration that just as modern Christianity, the early Church was heavy into control of it’s members and heavy into brainwashing. You have to want to check facts before you will. People are gullible then and now…just look at some of the threads in the other forums…no matter what evidence you give them, they will still believe, mainly because they were told that faith was what would save them.

 

DC - Flavius Josephus, the best historian of ancient Judea, and a contemporary, or near contemporary of Jesus, verified he lived

Mako - I have to agree with Beowulf (Heimdall’s name on that website), whom I work with, and myriad other students of ancient history. There is too much evidence that both mentions of Jesus in Josephus’ works are insertions of latter Christians. Also since Josephus wasn’t born until after Jesus was supposedly executed and didn’t write his Histories until over a half century later, he would have taken any information he got from – Christians, naturally. What would these men have told him – Exactly what they wanted him to hear, naturally. If you have a religion based on a mythical character, are you going to admit it to someone that can really damage your religion? That’s a no-brainer, isn’t it?

 

DC - There is no question that a man named Jesus of Nazareth existed, and was executed by the Roman authorities

Mako - Actually, there is no verifiable evidence that a man named Jesus of Nazareth (especially since Nazareth did not exist until 130 CE) was executed by the Romans.

 

DC - We know this same man preached a doctrine thought to be blasphemous by the Jewish religious authorities of the time

We really don’t know what he taught (if he is more than fiction), especially not having the autographs of the gospels. We know that he is reported to say that the law was not to change one tit or tittle, that doesn’t sound very blasphemous to me. I do agree that Christianity (and for that matter Judaism) as we know it is naught more than a rehash and mish mash of numerous older religions ranging from the Semitic religions of Babylon, Ugarit, Assyria, through Zoroasterism of the Persians, to the Messianic/Savior religions such as Mithraism and the Greek mystery religions.

 

JF - Did any other religion claim that God's grace saves us, and not our good works? And though other figures in religion have claimed things, only jesus backed it up with his resurrection, which is one of the historically most attested too event in Human history?

Mako - Does Mithraism ring a bell? We have a Mithran that posts here, his signature says something like "Through the grace of Mithra we are saved." So yes, there were older religions that claimed to be saved by God's grace, religions that the early Christians used to put together the patchwork anima that became Jesus of Nazareth.

 

JF - only jesus backed it up with his resurrection, which is one of the historically most attested too event in Human history?

Mako - Sorry, Mithra beat Jesus to this by 300 years. As I said, Mithra is the mold Christians used to create Jesus of Nazareth!

 

DC - Mako, you are ignoring the fact that the Romans were meticulous record keepers and it would be impossible to fabricate a man executed after a trial by a Romen Prefect.

Mako - Strange that these records, that would be the very desired proof of the existence of their savior and truly holy documents, never appeared. The very lack of their preservation is further evidence that these documents never existed. You keep mentioning Josephus, but there were other Jewish historians writing during that period and later church fathers mentioned that they didn’t know Jesus….more evidence of non-existence

 

DC - Probably less than one-one millionth of the Roman Empire's documents have survived antiquity

Mako - Very true. Those that did usually were preserved by the Church because they gave affirmation to the Church. Since Christians had strongly infiltrated the Roman civil service by the middle to late part of the 2nd century, they would have had access to all those records and undoubtedly would have secured this most holy document, for verification of their god’s existence if nothing else.

 

DC - Records like those from a backwater province like Judea were probably discarded anyway after a certain number of years like so many U.S. military records we are both familiar with.

Mako - Actually during the 1st and 2nd century CE Judea was not exactly a backwater of the Empire. It was the “thorn in the side” of the Empire, requiring constant political and military monitoring. The constant riots and rebellions of the Jews made a strong troop presence necessary in that area for nearly a century. As with our military and civil law today, records would probably have a “shelf-life” where unimportant trivia such as how many pilum were issued to XI Claudia legion during fiscal year DCCIV would be disposed of within 2 to 3 years and where really important documents and data would remain in the archives forever (or the destruction of Rome). This is the way military and civil archives work now, I can guarantee you that there are records and data from the War of 1812, the Civil War, etc still on file in military archives in the Pentagon. I would imagine that Death Warrants would be of great importance, especially those coming in from a hot spot such as Judea and would warrant a long shelf-life, long enough for Christian civil servants to acquire that one special warrant. The fact that this warrant doesn’t seem to exist (it would be one of the holiest, and only, relic of Jesus that ever existed), I say absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

 

DC - it is extremely odd that you so steadfastedly maintain this Jesus never existed despite the numerous accounts to the contrary

Mako - Name one contemporary mention of Jesus.

 

DC - Ancient man was just as sophisticated, and wary of fraud as modern man

Mako - Yes, the educated upper-class was, but the uneducated, unwashed masses were a hotbed of ignorance, willing following any and all charlatans unquestioningly, just as the uneducated and gullible of today believe in many strange things (again I point to some of the other forums here). Unlike our educated and upper classes, those of the ancients did not see it their responsibility to open the eyes of the masses. In fact it probably was a good thing for them, as these charlatans kept the ignorant entertained and ignorant of the true misery of their existence and less likely to rebel.

 

DC - Wouldn't you be sceptical of following a new religion if there was no proof its founder ever existed?

Mako - As an educated person, yes I would; but as a member of the uneducated gullible masses, I wouldn’t give it a thought….again look at the proliferation of weird cults during our present time period, and we are supposed to have universal education.

 

DC - Christianity could not have gotten anywhere if its followers could not prove Jesus really lived

Mako - Why would that be, look at all the modern cults that exist without any proof of anything….Did Applewhite, of Heaven’s Gate fame, have any proof of the lurking aliens or Joe Smith have any proof of ancient Jews in America? The gullible will flock to the unusual and absurd and if enough of them do, for long enough – voila! A new religion!

 

DC - To my knowledge the Jews never questioned Jesus existence (for how could they since they caused his death)

Mako - They wouldn’t have had reason to worry about a miniscule cult hanging on their coat tails. Then when it was too late long after the destruction of the temple and its records in 70 CE, when the miniscule cult started attracting gentile converts and growing in strength and influence, they would have no proof of his non-existence. Strangely, Justus of Tiberia (Tiberia being very close to Capernaum which Jesus supposedly often visited makes no mention of him, even though he was a contemporary of Jesus! Philon of Alexandria, another contemporary of Jesus, was a famous scholar of the Old Testament and had deep knowledge of the Jewish cults of his time makes no mention of Jesus or a cult following him in any of his texts. It would seem that if a man of Jesus supposed statue ran around Palestine working supposed wondrous miracles, these two very imminent scholars would have at least mentioned him, especially the expert on Jewish sects and cults. Most scholars accept that the Romans executed Jesus as a rebel, not for religious reasons, the Jews actually had nothing to do with it...the scenes in the gospel have no backing and are probably like the rest of the gospels, fiction only.

 

DC - It is probable Mithras was dead for a century or more before he became the object of a new religion

Mako - Mithra is a very old Indo-European God, known under various incarnations among the diverse descendents of the Indo-Europeans, usually with a name similar to Mithra or Mitra. The Mithra we know was the tribal God of the Mittanni of the Russian steppes, who entered Iran (Persia) and India around 2000 – 1500 BCE. The first written mention of Mithra was in 1375 BCE on a treaty between the Mittanni (who swore on Mithra) and the Hittites (who swore on the apparently nameless Sun God). In the Zoroastrian reformation/restructuring of the 7th Century BCE, Mithra was demoted to a Amentas Spenta (bounteous immortal), but was acknowledged by Ahura Mazda as being "as worthy of worship as myself." Mithra was acknowledged as the son of Ahura Mazda and became the savior god of the Persian religion by 4th century BCE. With a pedigree that far back and a varied career, it is doubt full that Mithra ever really existed. He did however serve as the template in constructing the Christ

 

DC - In some ways you are being as ridiculous

Mako - No, I just refuse to accept something on faith, if it can’t be verified by multiple contemporary sources (what a good historian wants), I do not accept it as anything more that a possibility.

 

DC - Some things are just too obvious and cannot be denied

Mako - With no evidence, I deny them

 

DC - you seem to be ignoring the fact that many of Christianity's early followers were not ignorant rabble but from the educated elite of the Roman empire

Mako - Before we can say when the educated elite came into the religion (early or late), we have to examine the little information we have of when the religion actually was established. We have no information (other than gospels written sometime in the very late 1st century CE to the middle of the 2nd century CE) on when Jesus was actually born and when he was executed. Actually, we only have the word of the gospels that he was executed…There is no contemporary mention of this personage, even though (as I pointed out before) there were contemporary Jewish historians writing at that time that totally ignore him (much to the chagrin of later apologists).

We have a second century apologist (Irenaeus) who tells us that Jesus lived into the reign of Trajan and was over 50 years of age! Valentinus, in the mid second century CE, does not know a crucified Jesus, but only a human teacher, Basillides, writing at about the same time vehemently denies a crucified Jesus.

Maricon, 2nd century Bishop, has his Christ (not Jesus, as Maricon accepts no Jewish savior) descend from heaven full grown , Theophilus, 2nd century Bishop of Antioch knows no Jesus, and gives this reason for being called Christian, “First, because that which is anointed is sweet and serviceable, and far from contemptible ... And what man, when he enters into this life or into the gymnasium, is not anointed with oil? ... Wherefore we are called Christians on this account, because we are anointed with the oil of God.", rather strange that a Bishop doesn’t seem to have heard of Jesus! Theophilus refers extensively to Jewish scripture and even to the prophecies of the Greek Sibyl.

Clement of Alexandria, late second – early third century was under the allusion that Jesus actually reigned as King in Jerusalem!

Epiphanius of Salamis, 4th century Bishop, knew this about Jesus, “"For with the advent of the Christ, the succession of the princes from Judah, who reigned until the Christ Himself, ceased. The order failed and stopped at the time when He was born in Bethlehem of Judaea, in the days of Alexander, who was of high-priestly and royal race …And this Alexander, one of the anointed and ruling princes placed the crown on his own head ...After this a foreign king, Herod, and those who were no longer of the family of David, assumed the crown." The king mentioned was Alexander Jannaeus who ruled Judea from 103 – 76 BCE.

The only true Intelligensia during the 1st three centuries of Christianity was Origen, and I am not to sure of a person that practices sexual mutilation on themselves in the name of the religion that they practice! This is the top movers, shakers and thinkers of the early (1st, 2nd, and early 3rd centuries) church, not exactly a vote for the validity of the existence of Jesus, most of them seem to have no idea of where he came from, when he was born, when and how he died, who his parents were – almost as if he never existed, Huh?

It surely is a tad more than curious than none of the other documents more or less contemporary with Paul's epistles – The Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, 1 Clement, the Book of Revelation, the epistle to the Hebrews, and the epistle of Barnabas, – say anything from the "Jesus of Nazareth" fairy tale known to every child today. Is it not more than reasonable to suggest that at this stage the story had not yet been fabricated?

Then we have the question, “How many Christians were there in the first two centuries?” ‘Popular’ Christian histories propagate that, surely and steadily, Christianity won the hearts and minds of the Greco-Roman world. Many feature a map showing churches dotted across the Middle East and Europe, as if the most important feature of a city like Alexandria or Ephesus in late antiquity was its Christian meeting place! It all helps to conjure up an image of a substantially Christianized population, one poised to topple the nasty pagan rulers and inaugurate a Christian Europe. But there is no truth in this fanciful idea.

One scholar’s estimate for the number of Christians at the beginning of the 2nd century – and this number is spread across numerous conflicting factions – is rather modest:

‘The total number of Christians within the empire was probably less than fifty thousand, an infinitesimal number in a society comprising sixty million.’

 

– Wilken (The Christians as the Romans Saw Them, p31)

 

This 50,000 compares to, say, four to five million Jews.

The Christians were loosely organised in groups ranging from perhaps a few dozen to a several hundred, in perhaps forty to fifty cities, mainly in the eastern empire.

Another writer’s estimate for the city of Rome is quite illuminating:

‘There are about 25,000 known burial places in the Catacombs of Rome. As these sites were used for nearly 300 years, that would mean on average about eighty burials a year.

If one assumes a lifespan of forty years, the average Christian population in Rome over this period would not have been more than four thousand people at any one time.

This was out of a total Roman population of well over a million.’

 

– Roberts (In Search of Early Christian Unity, p19)

One estimate for Jews in 1st century Rome (Lambert, Beloved and God) is 60-90,000. Thus, less than a tenth of Rome’s population were Jews, and less than a tenth of Jews were Christians!

In so far as officialdom noticed the Christians at all, it was as unlicensed hetaeria (associations), which might be harmless burial societies but might also be ‘political clubs’ agitating social discord.

Quite simply, at the onset of the second century, most citizens of the empire had never even heard of Christianity!

 

DC - Despite all of the ancient persecutions I don't recall any claim that "Jesus the man" was ficticious because in those times there was overwhelming proof he lived.

Mako - As I have demonstrated, for the first century or two, there were very few Christians and even those that existed had little if any knowledge of a living Jesus. This coupled with no contemporary mention by chroniclers that lived in the area at the same time (contemporary, not contemporaneous) show that the case for a historical Jesus is very weak.

 

DC - It is only modern skeptics that can make this claim 2000 years after the fact, when virtually all the documents of the ancient world are gone.

Mako - Actually, thanks to the Moslems of the 7th century on, we have quite a few of the ancient documents preserved. Strangely, the ones that were preserved by the Christians were only those that either they inserted material into or had other uses. It is almost like the Church destroyed the evidence, isn't it? What were they hiding? Could it be that they were hiding the non-existence of their supposed founder?

 

DC - Mako,

Did you see Gideon M's post about Jesus' contemporary description in the "What did Jesus look like?" thread? Apparently it is from a preserved Sanhedrin interrogation. I do not think the Jewish authorities where trying to invent proof of Jesus, so if true, this is the kind of proof you said couldn't exist.

He is quoting a third-hand description, only the word of Massalian, apparently a friend of Yeshu, as Gamaliel didn't meet Yeshu, only his parents, and Massalian…….. (Archko Volume, Chapter V).

Mako - Okay, let’s look at a coupla things here:

"There is a book called THE ARCHKO VOLUME, published by the Archko Press,231 Jefferson street, Grand Rapids, Michigan, which would provide most interesting reading for the serious student. In this book is the account of how a minister, Rev. W.D. Mahan, discovered that such records existed and spared no time nor money in investigating their authenticity. "

Hmmm, a book written about how a minister discovered these lost documents hidden deep within the Vatican. Documents such as Pilate’s reports to Tiberius, a letter which was a first hand report of the crucifixion and his (Pilate’s) reluctant part of it. Sorry, that old saw was disproven about a century ago. Another document was a scroll written by Caiaphas, the high priest, first justifying his position as defender of the temple and the Jewish faith against an impostor, then later, in the scroll, acknowledging his guilt and remorse after the undeniable facts of the resurrection. The scroll is both a confession and a resignation from his high office. Caiaphas writes that at one time, in the presence of his wife and his father Annas, he looked up from the scriptures and saw Jesus standing before him. Yeah – Sure! We have a great piece of Christian propaganda in the form of the Archko Volume, nothing more – nothing less – We for sure do not have any valid history!

Now, let’s look at the personage Gamaliel of the Sanhedrin - a Pharisee and celebrated doctor of the Mosaic Law. Gamaliel is usually identified with an illustrious Jewish doctor of the Law, who bore the same name and died nine years before the destruction of Jerusalem. In the Talmud, this Gamaliel bears, like his grandfather Hillel the Elder, the title "Rabbi". He appears therein, as in Acts, as a prominent member of the highest tribunal of the Jews. He is also treated as the originator of many legal ordinances; as the father of a son, whom he called Simeon, after his father's name, and of a daughter who married the priest Simon ben Nathanael. The Jewish accounts state he died a Pharisee, and mourn that "when he died, the honor of the Torah (the law) ceased, and purity and piety became extinct." At an early date, ecclesiastical tradition has supposed that Gamaliel embraced the Christian faith, and remained a member of the Sanhedrin for the purpose of helping secretly his fellow-Christians. Again, what we seem to have here is more Christian propaganda. One’s sources should always be checked, verified, rechecked, reverified (by mulitple sources if possible) and only then submitted.

 

JF - To explain away the empty tomb, his resurrection, and the historical factual data is not being honest with the facts, but coming to them with preconceived ideas

Mako - Jesusfan, the only place that the empty tomb and resurrection are reported is in 4 documents written around a century after the supposed fact by unknown authors (surprise, surprised Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were assigned to these gospels around 180 CE) and now where else. The oldest gospel (Mark) originally ended at 16:8, the empty tomb. It wasn't until centuries later that this gospel (that Matthew and Luke copied almost word for word, around 80-95%) was brought into line with the others.

 

JF - Well... There is a fragment of the Gospel of John that was dated to around 125 AD, and that was in Coptic Egypt where it was being circulated around, so there had to be originals that these copies were made off of much earlier than that...

Mako - You are referring to the “Rylands Fragment”, also known as the P52 document. While some epigraphologists assign a date of 117-124 CE, many others deny this early day and assign a date no earlier than 135 CE. The very lack of background on this fragment makes it suspect to say the least. It supposedly was acquired in Egypt by a Bernard Greenfell in 1920 and was discovered among a group of fragments in the John Rylands Library in 1934. This “iffy” trail of evidence makes most scholars more than a little nervous about the fragment. The very small size makes true identification of the text as chancy….It could be a copy (or even the autograph) of the Gospel of John or it could be some other book that John copied from. There really is no way to tell. Several scholars are raising the question of forgery also. The Rylands fragment really isn’t that great a deal when it comes to evidence.

 

JF - The 4 Gospel accounts were being circulated around the Middle East before the end of the first Century, and even the most ardant non supporter of these accounts realise that they were wriiten from period of time 60-90 AD...

 

Actually, there is no evidence that the gospels, as we know them, were around before 150 CE (yes, Ignatius seems to have quoted from them – or some other text such as the “Q” document, but he does not say where he got his information, it could even be his own ideas. The first time that these gospels are mention was by Papias in 130 CE, when he referred to what might or might not be Mark and the next was by Justin Martyr in 150 CE, but not by name. It wasn’t until 180 CE that the names of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were assigned to them. Many scholars feel that Luke and Acts were not actually written until late 2nd century CE. Only in the 20th century were 1st century dates assigned to the gospels, prior to that all scholars “knew” that the gospels were non-witness 2nd century documents and the pendulum is swinging back to that Knowledge as more and more scholars (with the exception of the fundamentalist and Evangeliticals) review the evidence.

 

JF - Goes back to the questions... Where is the body of jesus, and why did Saul preach Christ alive, and became Paul, his most ardent follower?

Mako - Answer, either there was no body of Jesus (just as there was no body of Krishna, Mithra, Osiris, Erakles and all the resurrecting/son-of-god/saviors that predate Jesus) or the body rotted away in an unmarked Roman mass grave. The lack of a body can be explained in so many other ways than resurrection that it is the task of the believer to provide verifiable evidence of a resurrection. I don’t know, why do people convert to religions? Saul might as easily have become a Buddhist if given the chance, his conversion to any particular brand of superstition doesn’t render that superstition the “true way”, after all many Christian knights converted to Islam, after striving against the Moslems!

 

JF - There are listings for Jesus among the Rabbitical writtings of the era, and they agree with Gospels that he was a teacher, did miracles, but they claimed he did them through sorcerery/Devil, and that he had a small band of followers, and that he was comdemned to death as a Blashphemer, claiming to be Son of God...

Mako - Those listings were formulated in the 6th century CE and are only proof that the Rabbis had asked Christians for information. A lot of what you are claiming as evidence in their documents you really don’t want to use it, unless you want the world to know about the bastard son of Mary the Jewish hairdresser, wife of Joseph the Carpenter, who had an affair with Panthera the Roman soldier and bore Jesus ben Panthera, who was “hung from the tree” on the day before Passover for blasphemy.

 

JF - His greatest enemies saw his miracles, heard his doctrines being taught, knew where he was buried, yet they could not stop this by saying that he never existed, did not do miracles, did not die, nor raise from the dead, evidenced by empty tomb... They could not say any of these things, because they knew that it was true!

Mako - If these enemies saw all this, why didn’t one of them record it or give the information to the resident historians (there were several of those, living in the country and writing about Jewish history) or why didn’t these historians write about him? Could it possibly be that HE NEVER EXISTED? (Please don't insult my intelligence by saying they didn't report it because they didn't want to give credence to him or Christianity)

[MQTA]

JF - Did any other religion claim that God's grace saves us, and not our good works? And though other figures in religion have claimed things, only jesus backed it up with his resurrection, which is one of the historically most attested too event in Human history?

 

that's what I'm up to.

 

Why do people say this? As IF that makes the whole thing different? Welp, that's it, they said it, nobody else did, it must be true.

 

 

I swear, when I Read stuff like that I hear Charlie Brown's teacher. Womp wah wah womp womp wah. Yes, Mrs. Teacher. Womp womp wah womp wah?

[MQTA]

DC - Christianity could not have gotten anywhere if its followers could not prove Jesus really lived

Mako - Why would that be, look at all the modern cults that exist without any proof of anything….Did Applewhite, of Heaven’s Gate fame, have any proof of the lurking aliens or Joe Smith have any proof of ancient Jews in America? The gullible will flock to the unusual and absurd and if enough of them do, for long enough – voila! A new religion!

 

I wonder how the Hale Bopp clan is doing. did they have pictures of the comet before jumping to the other-side, to get to it?

 

And, if you order now....

[MQTA]

wow. long but good.

 

JF - There are listings for Jesus among the Rabbitical writtings of the era, and they agree with Gospels that he was a teacher, did miracles, but they claimed he did them through sorcerery/Devil, and that he had a small band of followers, and that he was comdemned to death as a Blashphemer, claiming to be Son of God...

Mako - Those listings were formulated in the 6th century CE and are only proof that the Rabbis had asked Christians for information. A lot of what you are claiming as evidence in their documents you really don’t want to use it, unless you want the world to know about the bastard son of Mary the Jewish hairdresser, wife of Joseph the Carpenter, who had an affair with Panthera the Roman soldier and bore Jesus ben Panthera, who was “hung from the tree” on the day before Passover for blasphemy.

 

Anyone knows how rumors are started Today... hearsay, idle rumors, 'telephone', play-jar-ism LOL and good marketing. What a formula.

 

If the master plan is to make humans disagree on everything, it's working. 50% will disagree 50% of the time on 50% of the topics.

[white_raven23]

The Trinity.

 

Lot of speculation on this one. Folks mulling it over and over......it's a concept that doesn't quite *click* right.......else why go over it?

 

Know why it doesn't *click*?

 

It's based on a concept of feminine divinity.

 

Three in one makes perfect sense when you have: The Maid, The Mother, and The Crone.

 

http://www.rahoorkhuit.net/goddess/herstor...ent_mother.html

 

First, THE MAID. She is Enchantment, the bright magic of the female principle, the fresh light of dawn that sweeps away weariness with the promise of new beginnings.

She is the adventurous young flame that banishes indifference and leapfrogs obstacles, the lively curiosity that blows the dust off stale knowledge and gives it new perspectives. She is springtime, the first daffodil, the hatching egg. She is excitement, she is the carefree erotic aura that sets men and gods preening themselves. She is unselfconsciousness in a mini-skirt. The huntress, running free through the woods in pursuit of her quarry with her hounds beside her. She is danger if abused; she is joy itself if respected. Her traditional colour is white.

Second, THE MOTHER. She is Ripeness; she moulds life within the womb, gives birth to it, nourishes it, teaches it and slaps its bottom when necessary. She is mentally, spiritually, emotionally and physically full-blooded and powerful. She may give open advice or exert shrewd influence which is unnoticed at the time but which achieves its ends. The male principle is both her husband and her child. As mate, she does not tantalize, which the Maid may sometimes do; she will restrain him if the time is not ripe - or if it is, she will give all, transmuting him to gold in the furnace of her love, just as she transmutes his seed into new life. Against anything which threatens what she loves, she is merciless and terrible. And when she destroys the outworn, or whatever impedes the development of that which she loves, she may seem merciless. But that is only in the eyes of those who do not understand her (which sometimes include those whom she loves). She is fertility itself - yet her fecundity, which appears unbounded, is not blind or aimless; it has an overall balance, a symphonic richness, which tunnel vision cannot perceive. It is that overall balance which determines her actions; ephemeral standards of morality or equity, believed eternal by those who hold them, mean nothing to her. Her traditional colour is red.

 

Lastly, THE CRONE. She is Wisdom, the Jeweled Hag.

She has seen it all; she has compassion for it all, but a compassion undistorted by illusion or sentimentality.

Her wisdom is much wider than intellectual knowledge, though it includes intellect and does not despise it.

Maid and Mother live within her as stored experience, and she within them as potential. (In this sense, the Three are Nine; for each contains all three, though with her own characteristic emphasis.) When called for, the Crone is baby-sitter for the Mother, and chaperon for the Maid, keeping a shrewd eye on both and maintaining the overall balance. To the male aspect she is a steadying influence, and an enriching one if he listens to her; she adds another dimension to his linear-logical thinking and prevents it getting the bits between its teeth. Like the other two, she is Love, but hers is a calm understanding love, complementing the heady love of the Maid and the incandescent love of the Mother.

She too can seem terrible, because she is the gateway to Death.

But she is also the Psychopompos who guides us through it, pointing the way to the new life where she will again be all the Three. Her traditional colour is black.

 

Anyone can easily see where a woman can clearly be all three of these people in the course of her life.

 

The Father, Son, Holy Ghost.......doesn't make clear sense.....and it's out of sequence to boot. Maid, Mother, Crone, is a logical progression.

 

But the patriarchs needed god to be first......Jesus CAN"T come first. So you have Son following Father, which doesn't work in the mind without seeing them as seperate entities or people (dad's don't de-age to become son's). Then you jump the entire gap of a life to Holy Ghost. A vague, post-mortem-but-not concept that tries to embody life with a concept we relate to death.

 

Christians stole the concept from the pagan religions they wished to put a squash on.....just as they "stole" the pagan festivals that marked the cycles of the seasons.

 

They re-worked the trinity to force it to fit a masculine model, and they didn't even "debug" it when it didn't really fit.....they just killed anyone who openly disagreed.

[SkepticOfBible]

I think the verse would be striking blow to any trinity doctrine. This is is the very verse that

 

Heb 1:5

For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

 

The son is begotten or created. JW cults believes that Jesus was probably a divine being but not necessary god

 

Yet at other times In Revelation(which Syrian Orthodox Church rejects) he does say "I am alpha .. omega"

 

I don't think you can be certain about the godship of christ based on the bible

[scotter]

Thanks Mako and White Raven, and members for the input.

 

A little further thought to share on Christian God’s Trinity status :-

 

If I want to apply your belief mentality and structure, I can propose this dialectics: Christians, if you believe God is Trinity, then God is Trinity in your worship; for non-Trinitarian God believers, and God is.

 

Allow me to presume your objection, “How can God is and is not Trinity at the same time?”

 

Me, “If you believe God can be ‘Three is One, One is Three at the same time’, why is it ‘God is and is not Trinity at the same time’ not acceptable to you and your logic?”

[iprayican]

Thanks Mako and White Raven, and members for the input.

 

A little further thought to share on Christian God’s Trinity status :-

 

If I want to apply your belief mentality and structure, I can propose this dialectics: Christians, if you believe God is Trinity, then God is Trinity in your worship; for non-Trinitarian God believers, and God is.

 

Allow me to presume your objection, “How can God is and is not Trinity at the same time?”

 

Me, “If you believe God can be ‘Three is One, One is Three at the same time’, why is it ‘God is and is not Trinity at the same time’ not acceptable to you and your logic?”

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Caretaker]

Welcome to Ex-Christian.net.

 

Did you have something to say? You quoted a message but left no reply.

[Mythra]

woops. I made a smartass comment, but forgot this was the colliseum.

[iprayican]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I stumbled upon your humble site and don't know quite where to jump in but this seems as good a place as any. You could consider me a Christian, and a creationist, as if there can be any separation between the two. Now, if you resort to name-calling and insults rather than trying to understand why I believe, than I will not stay. I will take my ball and go home. I'd much rather stay and play ball and so I begin.

 

There are many tri-themes from the very begininng. Now, you have to understand that I do believe the Bible, that is, what were the original writings from which the copies were made from, are the inspired word of God. Of course, we have only copies, and yes, some of those have a few copy errors and then there are those translation issues, but for the most part, I consider what we do have as close as it gets to God's word and as you can tell, I do believe in that God. I do expect that humanity will continue to find older and older copies, perhaps even those originals, as time marches on, and I have no difficulty dealing with the alledged descrepancies. But rather than get off topic right from the beginning, let me see if we can shed some light on this particular topic.

 

We have to start with the foundation, Genesis, so that what I believe is established in your mind. It seems very likely that Moses was the compiler and editor of a number of earlier doccuments, written by Adam and other ancient inspired patriarchs. The events recorded in Genesis took place long before Moses was born, whereas he was a direct participant in the events recorded in the other four books of the Pentateuch. It is reasonable that Adam and his descendants all knew how to write, and therefore kept records of their own times, thus the mention of "the book of the generations of Adam" in Genesis 5:1. These records were probably handed down from father to son and were finally acquired by Moses and during the wilderness wanderings, Moses compiled them iunder divine inspiration, into the book of Genesis. Genesis records the inspired accounts and eye-witness records of these primeval histories, as written originally by Adam, Noah, Shem, Isaac, Jacob and other ancient patriarchs.

 

The respective divisions of Genesis can be recognized by the recurring phrase: "these are the generations of..." P.J. Wiseman a reknown archaeologist, has shown that these statements probably represent the "signatures" so to speak of the repective writers as they concluded their accounts of the events during their lifetimes. It is interesting to note, as an indirect confirmation of the concept of Genesis authorship, that while Genesis is cited at least 200 times in the New Testament, Moses himself is never noted as the author in any of these citations. On the other hand, he is listed at least 40 times in reference to citations from the other four books of the Pentateuch. There are also frequent references to Moses in the later books of the Old Testament, but never in relation to the book of Genesis.

 

I do not believe that the events described or the understandings conveyed in Genesis are merely ancient legends or religious allegories, but that they are actual eyewitness accounts of the places, events and people of those early days of earth history, written by men who were there, and then transmitted down to Moses, who finally compiled them into a permanent record under the inspiration of God.

 

So, with that understanding of what I believe, I approach your topic. Chapter one of Genesis, 1:1 The creator of the tri-universe space ("the heaven") of time ("in the beginning") and of matter ("the earth"), the tri-universe, the space/time/matter continuum which constitues our physical cosmos, is the triune God, Elohim, the uni-plural Old Testament name for the divine "Godhead," a name which is plural in form (with its Hebrew "im" ending) but commonly singular in meaning. As I see it, God can be thought of as a triangle of sorts, it is made up of three connecting points, those points are joined together and yet are each set apart at the same time. These three points act as one but also have different functions in how they interact in the universe and with man.

 

In verse 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Perhaps the first words written by the first man, revealed to Adam by God. God (Elohim) is eternal, existing before the universe, and is omnipotent, having created the unverse. No attempt is made to prove God in this verse, it was recorded in the beginning when no one doubted God. The first point in the triangle.

 

In verse 1:2 "And the Spirit...moved" The "Spirit" (Hebrew ruach) "Breath" (another meaning of ruach), the prime mover of the universe, of God (Elohim) proceeded to "move upon the face of the waters" (literally, "vibrate in the presence of the waters"). The second point in the triangle.

 

Genesis 1:3 Now the Word of God speaks in Genesis 1:3 "And God said". The result is light, the energizing of the vast cosmos through the marvelous electro-magnetic force system which maintains all structures and processes in matter.

The third point in the triangle.

 

In verse 1:26, "in our image" God is, as it were, taking counsel here with Himself, not with angels, since man was to be made in the image of God, not of angels. "Our image," therefore implies human likeness to the triune God-head. Plants possess a body and animals possess a body and consciousness; man was not only to have a body (of the created "earth") and a consciousness (of the created"soul"), but man was also to possess a third created entity, the image of God, an eternal spirit capable of communion and fellowship with his Creator. A tri-existance. And in the second chapter where we are given additional details of certain events of the sixth day 2:7 "breath of life" though animals also possess the "breath" (Hebrew neshimah;-Genesis 7:22) and the "soul" (Hebrew nephesh;-Genesis 1:24), we are told that man's breath (same word as spirit) and soul were imparted to him by God.

 

In chapter 3:8 "And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden" This is not a crude anthropomorphism, but an actual theophany. The "word of God," Christ in His preincarnate state, appeared in the garden for fellowship and communication with Adam and Eve. Christ is the point in the triangle that reveals himself to us again in the physical state born as both man and God. He was, and is, God incarnate in human flesh, the living Word of God. Later in 6:3 we read "My Spirit shall not always strive with man" One of the ministries of God's Holy Spirit has always been to convict man's spirit of "sin and of righteousness and of judgement"

 

As history unfolds, more and more of God is revealed to man, and the three points of the triangle, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are clearly explained but the basic tenants of that understanding were there from the beginning, in the first of books as written by the first of men.

 

In John chapter 1:1 " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not."

 

In John 17:24, where Jesus, in His humanity, acknowledged that He was with the Father and loved by the Father, "before the foundation of the world." The "Word of God" (Jesus Christ) was God yet also "with God." Thus, God is both personal and plural (in a uni-plural sense only, a mysterious category that makes sense only in terms of the Trinity, or my triangle).

[SkepticOfBible]

I stumbled upon your humble site and don't know quite where to jump in but this seems as good a place as any.  You could consider me a Christian, and a creationist, as if there can be any separation between the two.  Now, if you resort to name-calling and insults rather than trying to understand why I believe, than I will not stay.  I will take my ball and go home.  I'd much rather stay and play ball and so I begin. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thank you for writing such a long answer. I for one will not call you any names. Some do, and my advice is to ignore them

 

Of course, we have only copies, and yes, some of those have a few copy errors and then there are those translation issues, but for the most part, I consider what we do have as close as it gets to God's word and as you can tell, I do believe in that God. I do expect that humanity will continue to find older and older copies, perhaps even those originals, as time marches on, and I have no difficulty dealing with the alledged descrepancies. But rather than get off topic right from the beginning, let me see if we can shed some light on this particular topic.

 

First of all, why should Humanity find the original documents. Shouldn’t that be god’s job. That will be a big proof to a lot of skeptics.

 

Get real, most of the original copies are destroyed. Paper doesn’t last forever.

 

Is the Bible Perfect? (Interesting Article)

 

There are 1438 significant disputed readings in the New Testament alone, not including spelling errors. [1 ] No two manuscripts of any significant length agree on everything. So which manuscript will you select? Why should we use the one that you choose? If they all differ, and you have no good reason for declaring one to be perfect, then the one you select probably has errors. Most translations recognize that no manuscript is perfect, so they use a document that is a combination of many texts. Scholars analyze the passages that differ, and try to select the reading that has the greatest support in the available manuscripts. Do you know if they have made the right choices? They probably have good reasons for their choices. That is not the question. Are they perfect in their choices? Probably not.

 

Second of all why should we believe that the bible that you hold is the word of god ie why should we choose your version of the bible over the catholics, mormons or the Syrian Orthodox version(since they all have different books)

 

Your bible did not fall from the sky, it was voted in by a council of men(not god), and Martin Luther took out books from it. So my question is who gave them authority to decide what is the word of god? Let's see some credentials

 

We have to start with the foundation, Genesis, so that what I believe is established in your mind. It seems very likely that Moses was the compiler and editor of a number of earlier doccuments, written by Adam and other ancient inspired patriarchs.

 

Again it is a big speculation on your part, since authors of these book are not known.(and that is the case in most of the books).

 

I can speculate that this book was written by Noah(one speculation is as good as another one)

 

The events recorded in Genesis took place long before Moses was born, whereas he was a direct participant in the events recorded in the other four books of the Pentateuch. It is reasonable that Adam and his descendants all knew how to write, and therefore kept records of their own times, thus the mention of "the book of the generations of Adam" in Genesis 5:.  These records were probably handed down from father to son and were finally acquired by Moses and during the wilderness wanderings, Moses compiled them iunder divine inspiration, into the book of Genesis. Genesis records the inspired accounts and eye-witness records of these primeval histories, as written originally by Adam, Noah, Shem, Isaac, Jacob and other ancient patriarchs.

 

Yet again this is a speculation on your part. Please show where it says that Adam and all the descendants knew how to write.

 

There are no eyewitness since they never identify themselves.

 

The respective divisions of Genesis can be recognized by the recurring phrase: "these are the generations of..." P.J. Wiseman a reknown archaeologist, has shown that these statements probably represent the "signatures" so to speak of the repective writers as they concluded their accounts of the events during their lifetimes. It is interesting to note, as an indirect confirmation of the concept of Genesis authorship, that while Genesis is cited at least 200 times in the New Testament, Moses himself is never noted as the author in any of these citations. On the other hand, he is listed at least 40 times in reference to citations from the other four books of the Pentateuch. There are also frequent references to Moses in the later books of the Old Testament, but never in relation to the book of Genesis.

 

Since Jesus is cited many times in the NT, does that mean he wrote the NT

 

I do not believe that the events described or the understandings conveyed in Genesis are merely ancient legends or religious allegories, but that they are actual eyewitness accounts of the places, events and people of those early days of earth history, written by men who were there, and then transmitted down to Moses, who finally compiled them into a permanent record under the inspiration of God.

 

Again a big assetian on your part, show me from the bible which proves this point.

 

It is big debate in the christian world whether these stories are allegories or actual eyewitnesses. Many christian will disagree with you on this point.

 

So, with that understanding of what I believe, I approach your topic. Chapter one of Genesis, 1:1 The creator of the tri-universe space ("the heaven") of time ("in the beginning") and of matter ("the earth"), the tri-universe, the space/time/matter continuum which constitues our physical cosmos, is the triune God, Elohim, the uni-plural Old Testament name for the divine "Godhead," a name which is plural in form (with its Hebrew "im" ending) but commonly singular in meaning. As I see it, God can be thought of as a triangle of sorts, it is made up of three connecting points, those points are joined together and yet are each set apart at the same time. These three points act as one but also have different functions in how they interact in the universe and with man.

 

Are they like the borg?

 

It seems you choose to ignore the following verse.

 

John 20:17

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

 

It says right there that jesus believed he had a god

 

In verse 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Perhaps the first words written by the first man, revealed to Adam by God. God (Elohim) is eternal, existing before the universe, and is omnipotent, having created the unverse. No attempt is made to prove God in this verse, it was recorded in the beginning when no one doubted God. The first point in the triangle.

 

In verse 1:2 "And the Spirit...moved" The "Spirit" (Hebrew ruach) "Breath" (another meaning of ruach), the prime mover of the universe, of God (Elohim) proceeded to "move upon the face of the waters" (literally, "vibrate in the presence of the waters"). The second point in the triangle.

 

Genesis 1:3 Now the Word of God speaks in Genesis 1:3 "And God said". The result is light, the energizing of the vast cosmos through the marvelous electro-magnetic force system which maintains all structures and processes in matter.

The third point in the triangle.

 

In verse 1:26, "in our image" God is, as it were, taking counsel here with Himself, not with angels, since man was to be made in the image of God, not of angels. "Our image," therefore implies human likeness to the triune God-head. Plants possess a body and animals possess a body and consciousness; man was not only to have a body (of the created "earth") and a consciousness (of the created"soul"), but man was also to possess a third created entity, the image of God, an eternal spirit capable of communion and fellowship with his Creator. A tri-existance. And in the second chapter where we are given additional details of certain events of the sixth day 2:7 "breath of life" though animals also possess the "breath" (Hebrew neshimah;-Genesis 7:22) and the "soul" (Hebrew nephesh;-Genesis 1:24), we are told that man's breath (same word as spirit) and soul were imparted to him by God.

 

The trinity is just a speculation made by a council of men which you have chosen to follow. The OT does not support the trinity concept

 

The following verse shows God as one singular being.

 

Gen 1:27

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

 

The "us" in Genesis 1:26 more appropriately would be referring to God's court of heavenly beings.

The OT God surrounds himself with beings who praise him and do his bidding:

 

Psa 148:2

Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts.

Isa 6:1-3

In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the LORD sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.

Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly.

And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.

 

However you raised the point of the Jewish word Elohim in plural. I let a Jew address that point

 

Is the Trinity Found in the Torah?

 

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning G-d created the heaven and the earth. (KJV)

 

In the beginning, who created the heaven and the earth? (Note: most translations use a plural of "heavens.") G-d did. No help from Jesus or a Holy Ghost is indicated here. However, some Christians can’t let it go right there. So, they pore over the Hebrew, trying to find evidence that will support their beliefs, trying to find evidence that the Jews were wrong.

 

Genesis 1:1 Bereisheet barah Elokim et hashamayim v’et ha’aretz. (Hebrew Transliteration)

 

Christians point to the name of G-d used in this first verse of the Bible: Elokim. This word ends in "im," which is an indication of plurality. Obviously, there must be a plurality to G-d, right? Absolutely not! If the meaning of this word were to be plural, then the verbs would agree, also being in the plural. The word for "created" is "barah," in the singular.

 

Exodus 7:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. (KJV)

 

The word for "god" used in this verse from Exodus is "elokim." How strange! Did the Almighty reconfigure Moses to be comprised of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? Did Moses become more than one person? Of course, not! According to some Christians, because a plural suffix is used, the G-dhead must be plural. Therefore, every time you find a word with a plural suffix, that word will be plural. So, there must have been a plurality in Moses, wasn’t there? The Lord is infinite and perfect. "Elokim" is simply a name that shows His very magnitude by using a plural form of the word.

 

So there you go regarding the plural wod “Elokim”

 

According to the Old Testament God is a singular being, not a 3 persons in 1 God composition. There is nothing to support a trinity in these verses unless you start creating qualifiers that make a special exception for the Trinity.

 

Isa 45:5-6

I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.

 

Isa 45:21-22

…and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.

 

Isa 46:9

Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,

 

There are none like God.

There are no co-equal to God trinity "persons" that are included in God's makeup.

The Old Testament God also instructed his people not to be enticed by concepts of God that their fathers had not known.

Those who attempted to entice others away from God were to be killed.

 

Deut 13:6,9-10

If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;

But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

 

In Greek mythology some of the Greek gods would assume human form if it suited their purpose.

The Jews certainly wouldn't accept a Greek god after God told them what he was and then warned them not to accept any other versions of God.

The Jews aren't enticed by the Christian triune version of God any more than they would be enticed by a Greek god, because their God clearly told them he was a singular being that did not change his composition.

The Old Testament God repeatedly declared that he is a sole being, not multiple persons or entities.

There are none other than him(singular).

 

Also, according to the New Testament, the ascended Jesus resides outside of God's body, and does not reside with him in a shared vessel.

 

Acts 7:55

But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

 

If Jesus is supposed to be standing at the right hand of God, then he isn't God according to the Old Testament specifications.

As the scripture states, there is none besides me(singular) and apart from me(singular) there is no God.

Jesus sounds much more like a high level celestial being than God himself.

 

According to the Old Testament there would be no doctrinal surprises that would change God's singular nature into a triune deity.

 

Isa 43:10-11

Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

 

God also declared in Mal 3:6 that he does not change.

 

The Old Testament God doesn't go by the name "Jesus" and will not give his glory to others.

 

Isa 42:8

I am Jehovah, that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

 

In Paul's doctrinal surprise, Jesus becomes an "image" of God.

 

1 Cor 1:15

(Jesus), who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;

 

If Deut 13:6 is to be taken seriously, then this "image" of God is not to be worshipped.

The Jews didn't buy any of this doctrinal hocus pocus from Paul, but Paul did find converts among the Greeks.

The Greeks were used to having Gods who became men when it suited them to do so.

The man/god Jesus was something they were already used to.

 

In chapter 3:8 "And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden" This is not a crude anthropomorphism, but an actual theophany. The "word of God," Christ in His preincarnate state, appeared in the garden for fellowship and communication with Adam and Eve. Christ is the point in the triangle that reveals himself to us again in the physical state born as both man and God. He was, and is, God incarnate in human flesh, the living Word of God. Later in 6:3 we read "My Spirit shall not always strive with man" One of the ministries of God's Holy Spirit has always been to convict man's spirit of "sin and of righteousness and of judgement"

 

Jesus is not mentioned anywhere in the OT, and all the above are pure speculation.

 

As history unfolds, more and more of God is revealed to man, and the three points of the triangle, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are clearly explained but the basic tenants of that understanding were there from the beginning, in the first of books as written by the first of men

 

The Mormon sect of christianity believes the Book of Mormon is the continutation of that revelation. So do you believe that? and I can assure you it goes even further and explain a bit more of god and this universe(like the Universe being a multiverse). Perhaps you need to get up to date with that book too.

[scotter]

Thank you ipray for sharing a new perspective.

 

And thank you pritish for an equally significant response.

[mako]

I don't have time to respond to such a lengthy post at the present time, but I will point out a minor problem that occurs at the first of iprayican's posting -

P.J. Wiseman a reknown archaeologist

A quick check will show that "In 1936 there appeared a fascinating book by Air Commodore P.J. Wiseman, an amateur Biblical Scholar " New Discoveries in Babylonia about Genesis" which caused quite a debate at the time." Not only isn't Mr. Wiseman an archaeologist, he is only amateur and writing 70 years ago when all biblical archaeologists dug "with a shovel in one hand and the bible in the other". At the time Wiseman wrote, no dessenting voice was allowed in biblical studies. The bible was real history and you better not question it. Today, more and more, the archaeologists are showing that the bible (especially the first 14 books) contains very little real history, so Mr. Wiseman's thoughts really have no impact in the question of either the trinity or the divinity of YHWH's bastard get!

[scotter]

FYI:

 

The Bible as History by Werner Keller

 

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0553279432

 

Nevertheless, the reviews are mixed.

[mako]

The Bible as History by Werner Keller

Again, obsolete material...this book was published (2nd edition) in 1983, which means it was written sometime between 1970 and 1975, well over a quarter of a century out of date. So much has been uncovered since then and so many new and more valid postulations have been formulated. Keller is to put it bluntly "so 20th century!"

[MQTA]

sounds like a great story to tell children to help them understand what you want to teach them, but other than that... not even worth commenting about.

 

read through http://www.halexandria.org , especially the Chronicles of Earth, Genesis and Enki & Enlil pages.