The Trinity

[ShaunZero]

Ok, I'm undecided at wich to beleive.

God and Jesus are one.

Jesus and God are 2 seperate beings.

I need as much information as possible to get a better understanding of this subject.

I'm leaning towards the fact that Jesus and God are NOT one.

If you beleive in the Holy Trinity, please post all of your proof. I do not have alot of knowledge on the subject, but I will try to defend the idea of God and Jesus being seperate.

Hey, you never know, in the end I may be a trinitarian. I do have a few questions you may be able to answer for me though:

1) If Jesus is God, why did Satan tempt Jesus to rebel against God? Would it make since to rebel against yourself?

2) Why did Jesus pray "My God, my God, why have you forasken me?"(I think that's how it goes)

3) Why does Jesus teach that his father is "greater than I".

4) And Jesus also admits to not knowing certain things, meaning he's not all powerful.

John 5:44 How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?

John 5:44 states that the Father is the only God. If Jesus and God are one, then why is the Father God alone?

Edited October 17, 2005 by ZeroShadow

[mako]

It probably doesn't matter....here is something CD posted months ago on the subject:

The Trinity

The Creed of Nicea defines the Trinity of Christianity as a merging of three distinct entities in to one single one, while remaining three distinct entities. These three gods must be regarded as one because they are co-eternal, co-substantial and co-equal, though only the first has a life of his own! The others emanated from him.

Of course this doctrine is Neo-Platonic and pagan not Jewish; since the Old Testament makes up a large part of the Christian Bible, it is heretical (Isaiah 41:10) to imagine the Trinity as three separate gods. This mental gymnastics arises because the first bishops tried to merge nascent Christian sect of Judaism with paganism. Most ancient religions were built upon some sort of threefold distinction. Ancient deities were always trinities of some sort or consisted of successive emanation in threes.

Classical Hinduism dating back to at least 500 BCE with roots extending back as far as 2000 BCE has the oldest and probably original form of the Trinity. The Hindu doctrine call Tri-murti (Three-forms) describes the divine trinity as consisting of Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva: Brahma being the Father or supreme God, Vishnu being the incarnate Word and Creator, and Siva, the Spirit of God/Holy Ghost. It is an inseparable unity though three in form. Worshipers are told to worship them as one deity.

In the Puranas (one of the Hindu bibles), more than two thousand years ago, a devotee addressing the Trinity of gods, Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva, saying that he recognized only one God. He asks the Three Lords which is the true divinity that he might address to him alone his vows and adorations. The three Gods, Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva, becoming manifest to him, replied, “Learn, O devotee, that there is no real distinction between us. What to you appears such is only by semblance. The single being appears under three forms by the acts of creation, preservation and destruction, but he is one.”

Hindu worshippers had no problem accepting such a concept, they were quite used to worshipping curious gods; Ganesh had the body of a man and head of an elephant, Hanuman was monkey-faced and gods and goddesses had 4, 6 or 8 arms. Their gods were strange entities, so a 3 in 1, 1 in 3 god was simple to accept.

To quote Sir William Jones:

Very respectable natives have assured me, that one or two missionaries have been absurd enough to in their zeal for the conversion of the Gentiles, to urge that the Hindus were even now almost Christians; because their Brahma, Vishnu, and Mahesa (Siva), were no other than the Christian Trinity.

By an almost unanimous decision, the Church fathers declared the concept of the Trinity as a leading tent of the faith, a doctrine directly revealed from heaven. Yet a pagan religion over 2000 years older than Christianity had long accepted and practiced the tenet of the Trinity. Quite independently the Brahmins, Persians, Chaldeans, Chinese, Assyrians, Phoenicians, Scandinavians, Druids, Siberians, Peruvians, Mayans, Aztecs and Greeks held the doctrine of the Trinity long before the council of Nicea of 325 CD officially recognized God’s Trinitarian nature.

A Trinity was worshipped by the pagan Romans, after an oracle declared that there was First God, then the Word, and with them the Spirit. Once again, we see the distinctly enumerated, the Father, the Logos, and the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost, this time in ancient Rome, where the most celebrated temple of this capital—that of Jupiter Capitolinus—was dedicated to three deities, which were honored with joint worship!

Those sages of the ancient world, the Egyptians, also worshipped a trinity. The wing, the globe and the serpent together stood for the different attributes of their god. The Buddhists of China and Japan (Chungkuo and Nippon)worship Fo, a name for Buddha. When they worship his, they say “Fo is one god but has three forms.” This trinity of Vajrapani, Manjusri and Avalokitesvara is a divine union of three gods into one god – Buddha.

St. Jerome pointed out that all the ancient nations believed in the Trinity.

The Greeks also had their trinities. When making their sacrifices to their gods, they would sprinkle holy water on the altar three times, they would then sprinkle the people three times also. Frankincense was then taken with three fingers and strewed upon the alter three times. All of this was done because the oracle had proclaimed that all sacred things ought to be in threes. An ancient Greek inscription on the great obelisk at Rome read: The Mighty God, The Begotten of God, and Apollo the Spirit. The Greeks had a first God, and second God, and third God, and the second was begotten by the first. And yet for all that they considered all these one.

The Christian Trinitarian nature of God was primarily based on the philosophy of the Greeks. This was done through the writings of the Greek philosopher Plato, who set forth the doctrine of the Trinity in his Phaedon, written four hundred years BC. His terms conform most striking with the Christian doctrine on this subject. Plato's first term for the Trinity was the Agathon, the supreme God or Father. Next was the Logos meaning the Word and then Psyche meaning the soul, spirit or ghost, the Holy Ghost. The first person was considered the planner of the work of creation, the second person the creator and the third person the ghost or spirit which moved upon the face of the waters, and infused life into the mighty deep at creation. The three names of the Christian Trinity, Father, Word, and Holy Ghost are given as plainly as possible. If Plato expressed the Christian Trinity four hundred years BC, how then was it divinely originated with the incarnation of Jesus?

The works of Plato were keenly studied by the Church Fathers. The passage : “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word Was God” is a fragment of Platonic philosophy. A Christian bishop wrote several centuries ago: Such a similitude of Plato's and John's Trinity doctrines bespeaks a common origin. St Augustine agreed that he had found the beginning of John's Gospel in Plato's Phaedon. So even Christian saints concur that the doctrine preceded Christianity. Amelius, a Pagan philosopher, says it is strictly applicable to Mercury who was the Logos. A Christian writer of the fifth century declared: The Athenian sage Plato marvelously anticipated one of the most important and mysterious doctrines of the Christian religion - meaning the Trinity. The gospels of the bible were called the Greek gospels not just because they were written in Greek but also because they entertained Greek philosophy. Either both are from heaven or both are pagan. If the former, then revelation and paganism mean the same. If the latter, then Christianity is pagan. Applying the title Word or Logos to Jesus is a pagan amalgamation with Essenism, and was not fully accepted until the middle of the second century. The Trinity is a pagan doctrine.

Divine Trinities were male Gods. No female was admitted into the triad of Gods composing the orthodox Trinity. Plainly there can never be males without females, so the whole idea is an obvious Patriarchal variant of an earlier belief in which one of the spirits in the Trinity must have been female. The truth is that the Trinity grew from a belief in the feminine principle as the mother and therefore creator of everything. The Patriarchs imposed a male Supreme god relegating the female principle to the role of his assistant as, his spirit, Word or Wisdom. That was not sufficient however and the divine son was introduced. Finally the female principle, now reduced to the Holy Ghost, the Word having been allocated to the Son, had a sex change and became masculine or neuter. Once again, we see that very little of Christianity is original.

[ShaunZero]

Heh, I was thinking more along the lines of showing me how the bible points to God being 3 entities(sp?). Excuse me if some things I say do not make since, I havn't slept in over 15 hours. >.>

[draconic chronicler]

Zero S. as Mako stated, you will not find the "Trinity" in the Bible, and you have already listed several contraditions to the trinity idea in a previous post. Understand that Jesus was a Jew who believed in the Judaism of the Bible, which then was only the books of the Old Testament. Virtually everything in the New Testament which strays from Judaic theology are things introduced by the Pagan converts that flocked to Christianity. Many of these ideas stem from Pagan Greek theology, and many from Asian Zorastrianism, such as reseurrection ideas and a dualistic cosmic battle between good and evil (God vs. Satan-Ahriman).

Jesus himself would certainly have regarded the trinity idea a terrible blasphemy, as would any other pious Jew.

[ShaunZero]

Do you beleive that Jesus is the son of God? Or that he was just a normal human who beleived in the bible? And yeah, I already knew the word "Trinity" isn't in the bible.

Edited October 6, 2005 by ZeroShadow

[mako]

Do you beleive that Jesus is the son of God? Or that he was just a normal human who beleived in the bible?

Actually, I do not believe a historical Jesus existed. He is either a composite of several Jesuses that lived in the preceding centuries before his supposed existence or he is a total make up like Jehovah, Zeus, Mythra, Appollo etc.

[Irish]

Sometimes from the mouths of babes there is wisdom.

When my daughter was about 7 years old she was listening intently to a conversation I was having about the trinity to a Jehovah Witness missionary. I was not convincing them on my take of the trinity from scripture when she suddenly interrupted the conversation with the question “is the yoke the egg” curious of her question I replied, No but it is part of an egg, she then explained that the white stuff was also apart of the egg and so was the shell, but they were not an egg unless they were all together. I thought I would share that bit of wisdom from a child’s perspective; sometimes the answer is too simple for us to comprehend.

All the Best

Irish

[Jesusfan]

Ok, I'm undecided at wich to beleive.

God and Jesus are one.

God and jesus Christ are one in essense, both partake of the same"stuff", each one is GOD.

Jesus and God are 2 seperate beings.

Though each one is Divine and is GOD, each one also has a seperate conscience at work.

I need as much information as possible to get a better understanding of this subject.

I'm leaning towards the fact that Jesus and God are NOT one.

If you beleive in the Holy Trinity, please post all of your proof. I do not have alot of knowlage on the subject, but I will try to defend the idea of God and Jesus being seperate.

Hey, you never know, in the end I may be a trinitarian. I do have a few questions you may be able to answer for me though:

1) If Jesus is God, why did Satan tempt Jesus to rebel against God? Would it make since to rebel against yourself?

There is the GODHEAD, which is comprised of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit... Each one distinct and seperate, yet each one also GOD.. There are nor 3 Gods, but only one, but GOD is not a God of Moldulaism... There is a Being called the father, Son, and Holy Spirit, yet there is only One God...

When the Son came to earth incarnated as Jesus of Nazerath, than Divine essence put on sinless Human flesh... So Jesus is God and Man within same body...

So as a Man, He would experience hunger, thrist, pain, tempatations, in fact hebrews make it plain that he was tempted all us of us are, yet He never did give in to it and sin..

Remember, Satan tried to tempt Adam + Eve, and it worked, and Jesus is called the second Adam in Bible... So if he could get Jesus to obey him, rather to obey God, than plan goes kaput, and we are still in our sins...

2) Why did Jesus pray "My God, my God, why have you forasken me?"(I think that's how it goes)

Couple of reasons... He was fulfilled scriptures right up to the end of his life... While on the cross, he quoted Psalm of King david, where God had forsaken him..

Also, Paul the Apostle said that Christ became our sin bearer and offerring to God, so that at that moment on the cross Jesus was experience the full reality of God turning away from him as being sin bearer, and was facing "Hell".....

3) Why does Jesus teach that his father is "greater than I".

Son is subordinate to the Heavenly father, while on the Earth, Jesus did not freely exercise his rights/abilities as God, but humbled Himself, and chose to instead rely totally upon the Holy Spirit to lead, guide, and empower Him... Once he resurrected and returned back to heaven, than he reclaimed what he always had, his full knowledge, power as the Son of God...

4) And Jesus also admits to not knowing certain things, meaning he's not all powerful.

See above posting... Jesus allowed himself to be "emptied" while coming to earth, which is a way to state that he allowed himself to be ignorant of knowing all things, do everything on his own initive and power... He said many times whatever he said /did was what the Father showed/told him to do, in the power of the Holy Spirit...

John 5:44 How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?

John 5:44 states that the Father is the only God. If Jesus and God are one, then why is the Father God alone?

Same author, John , has Apostle Thomas, after seeing the ressurected Christ call him, literally in the Greek, The God and Lord of me......

Peter calls Jesus ourr great God and Saviour

Paul gives unto him the very name of GOD in the OT... the LORD

Bible is quite clear that from the early on in the community of his believers, all who were strict believers in jewish God being one, that in some fashion jesus was both Lord and Christ, and that he is God...

[Yelekiah]

What if the Trinity were essentially "one"? Then you could definitely say Jesus is God incarnate. Quite a few people believe that.

[draconic chronicler]

Though we agree on many things, here we don't Mako. Jesus of Narareth has to have been a real person or his religion could never have been accepted. Remember that this religion began immediately after his death. In many respects, the Roman empire was as "modern" as our world today, with historians, lawyers, court records, etc. There is no way the historical Jesus of Nazareth could have simply been "invented". This would be a ridiculous if I made up the myth today that a guy named "John Doe" was the Son of God and killed in the Alabama Electric Chair in 1957. Anyone skeptic could quickly verify this information, just as people in the the Roman world could verify the historical Jesus.

The contemporary Jewish enemies of Jesus never dared to claim he never really lived, for there were tens of thousands of witnesses who listened to him speak, in addition to official Roman records of his execution, etc. Instead, they denied he was conceived by a virgin, dismissed the miracles attributed to him, and stated his teachings were blasphemous.

Flavius Josephus, the best historian of ancient Judea, and a contemporary, or near contemporary of Jesus, verified he lived, and as a historian certainly would not have invented something he could not document, because Roman record keeping was very thorough, and records of Jesus unquestionably existed. In fact, it would have been very convenient for Joesphus to have claimed Jesus never existed because he was a patron of the Flavian dynasty, which in fact was engaged in brutal persecutions of the Christians. It would have been in his interests to claim Jesus never existed to please the Emperors he served, but he could not make this up of course, because Roman records existed, and thousands of eyewitnesses to Jesus existence still were alive at that time.

There is no question that a man named Jesus of Nazareth existed, and was executed by the Roman authorities. We know this same man preached a doctrine thought to be blasphemous by the Jewish religious authorities of the time, and created a lasting bitterness between the Jews and the new "Jewish" cult of Christians. Could this historical Jesus really have been the Son of the Jewish God as he claimed? Or did he even make this extraordinary claim himself, or was it made up by his followers? These are mysteries many are still trying to solve, and ones I will attempt to address in an entirly unique manner in my upcoming book. But to blindly accept so much of the Christian doctrine and scriptures which any intelligent examination reveals is really nothing more than a rehash of pagan Greek, Mithraic and Zorastrian doctrines is simply ignorant, and presents Christians in a ridiculous light among educated people who are knowledgable of the much earlier pagan origins of so much of Christian theology which cannot be denied.

Edited October 6, 2005 by draconic chronicler

[ComplicatedParadise]

The egg example was a good one.

[Jesusfan]

Though we agree on many things, here we don't Mako. Jesus of Narareth has to have been a real person or his religion could never have been accepted. In many respects, the Roman empire was as "modern" as our world today, with historians, lawyers, court records, etc. There is no way the historical Jesus of Nazareth could have simply been "invented". This would be a ridiculous if I made up the myth today that a guy named "John Doe" was the Son of God and Killed in Alabama Electric Chair in 1957. Anyone doubter could quickly verify this information, just as people in the the Roman world could verify the historical Jesus.

The contemporary Jewish enemies of Jesus never dreamed to doubt he really lived for there were tens of thousands of witness who listened to hem speak, etc. Instead, they denied he was conceived by a virgin, and doubted the miracles attributed to him.

There are many mentions of jesus by non Christian sources outside of the Bible, amd that if you compare them and bring their statements together... There is a common consesus that there was a Jewish teacher/rabbi, who had a loyal following, who performed miracles and taught much about the Kingdom of God, and who was crucified under reign of pontius Pilate, and whose followers early on claimed to have risen from the dead, and claimed was Son of God...

Not saying that the other historical records believe in this, just that they agree with idea that early followers of this jesus believed this...

Flavius Josephus, the best historian of Judea, and a contemporary, or near contemporary of Jesus, verified he lived, and as a historian certainly would not have invented something he could not document, because Roman record keeping was very thorough, and records of Jesus unquestionably existed. In fact, it would have been very convenient for Joesphus to have claimed Jesus never existed because he was a patron of the Flavian dynasty, which in fact was engaged in brutal persecutions of the Christians. He could not make this up of course, because Roman records existed, and thousands of eyewitnesses to Jesus existence still were alive at that time.

Paul said that there were some eyewitnesses to the risen Christ still alive at time of his writting, and that there werer over 500 who saw Him after being raised up....

All the people who disagreed with this new movement had to do was either produce the dead body, or else get the Apostles and eyewitnesses to recant... Well , all but one of the Apostle died a horrible death, and many of early followers died burned alive, eaten byt the Lions, etc, yet they would not recant and crack...

There is no question that a man named Jesus of Nazareth existed, and was executed by the Roman authorities. We know this same man preached a doctrine thought to be blasphemous by the Jewish religious authorities of the time, and created a lasting bitterness between the Jews and the new "Jewish" cult of Christians. Could this historical Jesus have been the Son of the Jewish God as he claimed? Or did he even make this extraordinary claim himself, or was it made up by his followers? These are mysteries many are still trying to solve, and ones I will attempt to address in an entirly unique manner in my upcoming book. But to blindly accept so much of the Christian doctrine and scriptures which any intelligent examination reveals is really nothing more than a rehash of pagan Greek, Mithraic and Zorastrian doctrines is simply ignorant, and presents Christians in a ridiculous light among educated people who are knowledgable of the much earlier pagan origins of so much of Christian theology.

Actually, much of this idea that Christianity"borrowed" from the pagen religions around them has been pretty much defeated...

Understand that early Christianity was built upon foundation of OT Juaism, and that God in the Jewish mind set of the time was Holy, and they were very strict to make sure that false/pagen gods were not to be tolerated in....

That is what is so amazing about the story of jesus, that here is a commom man, who lived among the jewish people for some roughly 33 years, yet his recored deeds/words/history has influenced more than ANYONe else who has ever lived...

CS Lewis summed it up best when he said that we can either accept who jesus claimed to be, Son of God/messiah/Christ, or else accept him as a fool, or charelton...

There is no grey area with jesus of Nazerath... He either is who the early followers claim, or else it is the BIGGESt hoax the World has ever seen..

[mako]

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

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.

Remember that this religion began immediately after his death.

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.

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

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.

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

I have to agree with Beowulf (whom I work with) and myriad other students of ancient history. There is too much evidence that both mentions in Josephus’ works of Jesus 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?

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

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.

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.

Edited October 7, 2005 by mako

[TheEssenceofExcellence]

The idea that the Holy Trinity is actually one God is simple to explain...... It begins to take shape in the Bible when Jews are asking of where Jesus gets authority to forgive people himself (like God would do) to answer the Jews question Jesus answered by telling them that he does have the authority to do such things. He tells them that his father is in him and he is in his father. That pretty much gives everyone the impression that YES Jesus is the Son of God, but YES Jesus is also God as well because he taught from a position of authority and because he told them that he and his father were both in each other which pretty much means they are more or less one in the same.

It's basically like God the Father is the original form of himself or the GOD God. But from God the father sprung the Holy Spirit/Ghost and Jesus the son. I'm not sure if the Bible says exactly where the Holy Spirit came from, but from what I can conclude from what I've read of it so far......when God gave all of his creations the breath of life (man included) that breath of life (which gave us our souls) is what the Holy Ghost actually is. The Holy Ghost is like the substance of original life God is made up of that he gave to us in order for us to live, it's like our connection to him. So....in that sense the Holy Spirit is a part in us that is of the original God (the Holy Father). Jesus is also part of the original God in the sense that he was created by him from his loins sort of speak.....Jesus was like God allowing part of himself to live the life of a man hear on Earth. Although God could have had himself as just the Holy Father come down to Earth and look like pretty much a normal man (like it's said he did in the beginning of the Sodom and Gomorrah story) but Jesus was the prophisized way God was going to come as the Son of Man.

So you see, the Holy Trinity is in fact one because the other two parties of it sprung forth from the Holy Father. And since they are both two entities that are made of God, are God, but have separate purposes and reasons for existing......that's how Jesus is able to pray to the Holy Father sometimes, and how he was able accept the Holy Ghost into him when he's baptised.

God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost are all together the ONE God of Israel. God just kind of manifests himself in our world in a way that brings on multiple entities. It's kind of like Satan, he goes by many different titles and appearances as well but he is only one creature.....Satan is known as the snake, the dragon, the beast, the antichrist, Lucifer. In one part on Revelations (not 100 % positive, because I haven't read it recently) but I think at one point it says Satan and the antichrist are thrown down into hell or the pits of fire or something like that....there they say Satan and the antichrist but we know they're not really two people, they're one person, Satan just goes by many different titles.......a modern day example or pop culture one is in the movie Emily Rose where he tells the priest his six names when he isn't six demons or entities he's really only one. Well just like Satan has many different titles so does God, and that's how Jesus is the Son of God but also is God.

I hope that helped a little.....

[Jesusfan]

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.

Problem is that you need to go back into the Biblical accounts themselves... Even current liberal scholarship assigns them to all have been written by end of first century at the latest, and many scholars assign pauline epistles to have been wriiten around 50-60 AD, less than a generation after time of Jesus.. Paul quotes a early Christian hymn to Christ as God in phillipians...

Too much evidence to support idea that the early Christian built up a theology in belief of a crucified and risen messiah, if in fact it was all nonsense and myths...

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.

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.

I have to agree with Beowulf (whom I work with) and myriad other students of ancient history. There is too much evidence that both mentions in Josephus’ works of Jesus 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?

Even the most ardant critics of the Christian interpolation in that writting agree that Josephus wrote that there was a man called Christ, who died under Pontius Pilate, and whom his followers believed to have been a righteous man, and whom some say was still alive...

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.

Archeology showed that there was a city called that during time of Jesus, but at best only had a stable population of around 250... No wonder scoffers said, "could anything good come out of Nazareth?"...

We really don’t know what he taught (if he is more than fiction), especially not having the monograms 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.

The foundations of Judaism, especially OT biblical, was not hashed down from the contemporary religions... The Jewish race believed and Taught that the One true God spoke through Law and the prophets to them, and the NT followers of Jesus believed that God has made his final word to us, in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, Son of Man and Son of God...

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]

The idea that the Holy Trinity is actually one God is simple to explain......

Yep, so simple that, as CD pointed out, numerous older religions had the idea long before Christianity came on the stage..As he said, there is little original about Christianity.

[draconic chronicler]

Jesus Fan, your claim that "the idea of Christians borrowing from earlier religions being pretty much defeated" is absurd. These things have been discussed at length on these forums, and I have yet to see the "Christian" argument successful. It simply can't be, for the "stones speak", or in other words the science of achaeology proves these other religions had theses beliefs long before they were imitated by Christianity. To deny this only weakens the Christian argument. It is better to acknowledge this plagiarism and throw out the "tainted" texts. Christians have been doing this for years, which is why many texts are no longer in the Bible. Terrifying people with Revelation is one of the worst crimes. John said Christ would return in that generation and he didn't. Why is there a Greek hell, why is Satan bound in chains for 1000 years just like the "bad" dragon in the Zorastrian story written hundreds of years earlier. Weed out all of the plagiarized and nonsensical dogma and hope you have something left. I'm rooting for you, after all, Judao-Christian "Heaven" is filled with dragons which seems cool, but I think you already eliminated that part of the theology since with Christianity it is all "pick and choose".

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. Nowhere during the Roman period was Jesus challenged as being a fabricated person. This was done by modern skeptics, very conveniently, almost two thousand years later after all the records were lost. You can hardly compare that with "Mithras". Josephus was most probably alive before Jesus' death as he was a Jewish Commander in the Great Revolt approximately only

30-odd years later.

I am not surprised if other Roman historians didn't mention Jesus earlier, because none were Judean-Jewish specialist historians like Josephus. Jesus wasn't important enough for most to write about until Christianity grew in popularity. Your unwillingness to accept the obvious (Jesus really lived), only hurts your argument. Sceptic even denied the existence of Pontius Pilate, until a stone monment bearing his name was found in Caesarea. (He was Prefect, and not Procurator, but this is a minor point.)

[mako]

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?

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.

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

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

Edited October 6, 2005 by mako

[draconic chronicler]

Oh, Jesus Fan,

if it is not too much trouble, I would ask you to re-edit your last post because you have intmingled your quotes with mine, for it implies my saying things which I certainly did not.

Thanks, D.C.

Edited October 6, 2005 by draconic chronicler

[Oubli]

Sometimes from the mouths of babes there is wisdom.

When my daughter was about 7 years old she was listening intently to a conversation I was having about the trinity to a Jehovah Witness missionary. I was not convincing them on my take of the trinity from scripture when she suddenly interrupted the conversation with the question “is the yoke the egg” curious of her question I replied, No but it is part of an egg, she then explained that the white stuff was also apart of the egg and so was the shell, but they were not an egg unless they were all together. I thought I would share that bit of wisdom from a child’s perspective; sometimes the answer is too simple for us to comprehend.

All the Best

Irish

Awwww

That was sweet! I believe they are three separate being, God, Jesus, Holy Spirit.

[Charlie Mike]

Personally, I think God suffers from MPS (multiple personality syndrome), He has three distinct personalities that he switches back and forth to and from. He might even have a fourth personality - notice he has the normal personage, the Father, the childish personage, the Son, the weird personage, the Holy Spirit and could he also have the evil personage, Satan? Think about it, it makes sense...much more than the religious take on it! - CM

[ShaunZero]

1. Did Jesus Christ have two fathers? The Father is the Father of the Son (I John 1:3), yet the child born of Mary was conceived by the Holy Ghost (Matthew 1:18, 20; Luke 1:35). Which one is the true father? Some trinitarians say that the Holy Ghost was merely the Father's agent in conception

If Father and Son are co-equal persons, why did Jesus pray to the Father? (Matthew 11:25). Can God pray to God?

4. Similarly, how can the Son not know as much as the Father? (Matthew 24:36; Mark 13:32).

7. Did "God the Son" die? The Bible says the Son died (Romans 5:10). If so, can God die? Can part of God die?

How can there be an eternal Son when the Bible speaks of the begotten Son, clearly indicating that the Son had a beginning? (John 3:16; Hebrews 1:5-6).

Luke 4:18 8 In reply Jesus said to him: “It is written, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’”

Is "Jehovah" pertaining to all 3 or just one, the Father? If it's just the father, then why did he say it is to him alone you must render sacred service. Why doesn't Jesus say you should worship "Me", or "Us"...

Jesus continuously tells people to worship the Father. Why does he only say worship the father if he is only 1/3 of a Godhead. Why not say worship me, or worship us? And why does Jesus pray to the father. One trinitarian made an odd reply and said "He was showing respect to himself", now, why would you need to show respect to YOURSELF in such a manner that you bow down and pray to yourself? Didn't Jesus ask God things, now why would Jesus need to ask God things?

It's very possible for me to start beleiving in a Trinity, but untill all of my questions can be answered correctly, I'll still beleive they are seperate.

I also asked the question: "How can Jesus be God when Satan tempted him to rebel against God", but they say that God allowed himself to be tempted. I got a few problems with this

1) What would be the point in letting himself be tempted, against himself?

2) Satan tempted Jesus with many riches, what could Satan really offer GOD that would temp him?

There Is No Way To Have A Trinity Without First Separating Each Of The Three Things Indivdually To Declare Then A Trinity . By That I Mean , You Have To First Establish That There Is A Father One Thing And A Son Another Thing And A Holy Ghost The Thrid Thing , In order For These Things To Totally Mix And Become One Thing .

They Would Have To Start Off Equal In Rank , Quantity . Space , Density , Authority , Or Existence . In Admitting That The Son Came From The Father , Time Make The Difference , The Father Would Have To Had Been First , Before The Son . This Would Make Them Unequal And Incapable Of Becoming A Balanced Triad . No It Did Not Mean That When It Said God The Father ,,, God The Son , And God The Holy Ghost = One God .. Because Three Cannot Go Into One .

Edited October 6, 2005 by ZeroShadow

[mako]

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.

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.

[draconic chronicler]

Mako, you should know better. Probably less than one-one millionth of the Roman Empire's documents have survived antiquity. 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. Considering there are reports of NUMEROUS charlatans claiming to be the messiah during this era, it is extremely odd that you so steadfastedly maintain this Jesus never existed despite the numerous accounts to the contrary. Ancient man was just as sophisticated, and wary of fraud as modern man. Wouldn't you be sceptical of following a new religion if there was no proof its founder ever existed? Of course you would. Christianity could not have gotten anywhere if its followers could not prove Jesus really lived. To my knowledge the Jews never questioned Jesus existence (for how could they since they caused his death). They did of course, claim his reseurrection was a fraud, but never that he did not even exist.

It is probable Mithras was dead for a century or more before he became the object of a new religion. But Jesus became the object of a new religion only only weeks and months after his death, when there were thousands of witnesses to his life. Give it a break!

In some ways you are being as ridiculous as the Christians who refuse to believe most of their doctrine was just stolen from Mithraic, Zorastrian, and Platonic Greek sources. Some things are just too obvious and cannot be denied.

Edited October 6, 2005 by draconic chronicler

[ShaunZero]

The main problem I have with religion is this.

I do not know what interpretations are correct, there are tons for every damn passage, how can you ever figure out the truth before you die of old age? It would take more than a life time to figure out what's the right way to look at the bible, and what's the wrong way.

The trinity for instance, how can I beleive either side of the arguement, when both sides show proof of their point? I can't really, I just lean more towards God not being Jesus.