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?

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.

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. >.>

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.

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.

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.

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

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...

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

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.

The egg example was a good one.

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.

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?

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 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.

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.....

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.

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.)

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.

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

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.

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

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

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 .

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.

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.

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.

No sh**, it was originally the Jewish religion sherlock.... Your one smart guy!

Hmm, I hope someone can answer my questions. If not, I'm going to learn even more towards the idea of anti-trinity XD.

Yep, too bad some of us are so ate up with superstition that they ignore studying other things. Judaism is only 2600 years old, the others mentioned in CD's little dissertation are much older, so it stands to reason that the Christians stole that concept from the older religions (as well as the savior god thing) just as their Jewish predecessors stole the idea of duality and monotheism from older religions.

gee-that makes it so weird, since the writers of the n.t. didn't know anything about jewish practices or beliefs. please don't insult the jewish religion like that again.please.

[quote]Probably less than one-one millionth of the Roman Empire's documents have survived antiquity[/quote]
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.

[quote]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.[/quote]
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.

[quote]it is extremely odd that you so steadfastedly maintain this Jesus never existed despite the numerous accounts to the contrary[/quote]
Name one contemporary mention of Jesus.

[quote]Ancient man was just as sophisticated, and wary of fraud as modern man.[/quote]
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.

[quote]Wouldn't you be sceptical of following a new religion if there was no proof its founder ever existed? [/quote]
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.

[quote]Christianity could not have gotten anywhere if its followers could not prove Jesus really lived.[/quote]
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!

[quote]To my knowledge the Jews never questioned Jesus existence (for how could they since they caused his death)[/quote]
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.

[quote]It is probable Mithras was dead for a century or more before he became the object of a new religion[/quote]
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

[quote]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[/quote]
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

[quote] In some ways you are being as ridiculous[/quote]
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.

[quote] Some things are just too obvious and cannot be denied.[/quote]
With no evidence, I deny them.

Zero Shadow: i would recommend reading the articles about the trinity on JP Holding's website here: http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trinitydefense.html and http://www.tektonics.org/qt/quietthird.html
if those dont answer your questions, i would try asking somewhere else like www.theologyweb.com.

We are debating a topic that has no basic in historic fact, even though some want to fall back on personal interpretations and present them as legitimate. The only historic reference we have to the trinity is found in the records of church councils such as Nicaea and Constantiople but these were, of course, men CREATING a trinity for the interests of the early church. Neither the plurality of the "gods" in the creation tale or the recorded comments of Jesus in reference to his father provide evidence. Every qualified Biblical expert will agree that there were countless additions and amendments made to the Scriptures and like the trinity, all were designed to best serve a new, emerging dogma. In 1960 Professor Morton Smith of Columbia University discovered what is probably the earliest known copy of the Book of Mark and it did not contain a resurrection tale or any event after Jesus was placed in the tomb. This is a classic example of the tampering and doctoring of the gospels as done by early church fathers and scribes.

I have been reading the gospels lately... but im too lazy to cite my beliefs.

Here is my views of the trinity though.


Trintity= father, son, holy spirit.

Holy Spirit: Highest positive energy, consists of love hope compassion and everything that is "good"

Father: Highest God, Metaphysical, Entity of Holy Spirit.

Son: aka christ, son of man, morning star. Christ is human. All humans, after christ's sacrifice carry the holy spirit. we can all be jesus christ. But Jesus was the christ, and "perfect". So Christ, the son, is the physical entity of god, who is the metaphsyical creator.


In the bible jesus says you can blasphemize the father and the son and you can be forgiven. He then says there will be no forgiveness for talkin sh** about the holy spirit. The holy spirit is kinda like the "hope" that was in pandoras box.

I did some looking around but those 2 main questions still remain.

1) Why would God pray to God?
All they can say is "To show respect".

2) How can Satan temp the creator of all things with riches?


Jesus said: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. (From the NIV Bible, Mark 12:29)"

Notice also how Jesus said "our God", which included him to be under GOD Almighty's creation and Divine Authority, and not someone or an entity that is equal to GOD Almighty. And he did not say "We are one" but "The Lord is one",


"I and the Father are one" THAT text, at John 10:30, is often cited to support the Trinity, even though no third person is mentioned there. But Jesus himself showed what he meant by his being "one" with the Father. At John 17:21, 22, he prayed to God that his disciples "may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us, . . . that they may be one just as we are one." Was Jesus praying that all his disciples would become a single entity? No, obviously Jesus was praying that they would be united in thought and purpose, as he and God were.—See also 1 Corinthians 1:10.

"Acknowledge that I alone am God and that there is no one else like me."—Isaiah 46:9, TEV.
If God and Jesus are one, how is God truly God just by himself?



Jehovah Witnesses have been murdered for the things they beleive.
Source

Dude i'm sorry, but if you think the people who wrote the New Testament didn't know anything about Jewish practices or beliefs you just don't know what your talking about, end of story. The only person insulting the jewish religion here would be you if anybody was to begin with....

The original Christians were Jewish to begin with, who ever sat down and wrote down the n.t. knew this, and knew about Jewish practices and beliefs, which is why they kept the old testament in the bible. But most modern day Christians don't practice all the same things Jewish people do because they believe the Jewish religion and old testament are part of the old covenant with God (the one Moses made with God when he received the 10 commandments)....Christians follow the new covenant with God (they still follow the things like the commandments in the old testament, but they believe Jesus is the way to salvation and that we don't need to do all the same things that Jewish people did like the Sabbath Harvest every 7 years and stuff like that). So you see the writers of the n.t. did know the Jewish traditions I assure.

Now, you may think they didn't, I can't stop you from thinking that......but since no one can say exactly who wrote each book of the Bible because they usually took on different names while writing, nobody can say with certainty since no one knows exactly who the writers were......and that "no one" would include you my friend.

Mako, 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 that could have very easily used the historical records to verify the existence of Jesus. As I said before, many sceptics denied the existence of Pontius Pilate just as vehemenately, and ultimately had egg on their face when the Pilate stele was discovered in Caesarea. 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.
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.

Essence, I believe you are taking Gideon's words out of context, but if the truth be told, Christianity has only a thin veneer of Judasim which even some Popes wanted to eliminate altogether by completely removing the Old Testament books from the Christian scriptures! Christianity is in fact filled with blasphemous and sacrilegious ideas taken from Pagan Greek and Asian souces. This has been intelligently discussed on many threads in this forum, and there are dozens of scholary works on the subject you can find in most libraries above the "Bible Belt" (where books are still burnt just like the Nazis did).

Unfortunately, most Christians rather ignorantly dismiss these facts or claim Satan "magically" created the historical evidence that many aspects of Jesus were copied from Mithras, that the demons that fill the New Testament were pagan Greek superstitions, that the concept of a fiery Hell punishment was copied from the Greek Hades, the whole idea of the "evil Satan" and dualism were directly copied for Zorastrian religious thought, complete with its own evil dragon to also be bound with chains and cast into a pit for 1000 years, which the Apostle John shamelessly stole and added to the Christian theology.

The vast majority of early Christians were recruited from the Pagans. The only reason it was even accepted by so many pagans of that day was becasue it was filled with familiar, pagan ideas they had already accepted. On the contrary, these Christian ideas were too pagan-like and blasphemous for most Jews to accept. This is historical fact.

I do not blame Jesus for this. He was obviously sincere, and the Hellenic Jews of his time had also strayed greatly from the original word of God, and pagan influences had crept into their theology by that time. Jesus spoke against this, and his original purpose was probably more to reform Judaism than create a new religion. But when Jesus departed, his followers clearly failed him. Maybe not intentionally, but the New Testament is filled with Pagan doctrines, and Jesus' own life was rewritten to be an imitation of Mithras which only damages the credibility of Christian doctrine when examined by intelligent people who are fully aware of other ancient cultures and religious beliefs. Modern Christians should recognize these facts and seek to reform their doctrine rather than ignorantly claiming that historical facts are "the work of the devil". It is this ridiculous stand that is largely turning Christianity into a "joke" among educated people.

IJohn 5:7 (King James version) For there are three that bear record in
heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are
one.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and
the Word was God.
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us,
In the book of Revelation, it says that Jesus’ name is the Word of God.
Revelation 19:13 And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
The Bible refers to Jesus as the Word that was made flesh and dwelt
amongst us. In IJohn 5:7, the "Word" in that passage is referring to
Jesus. In the account of the baptism of Jesus in Luke 3:21, 22, you can
see all three members of the trinity existing separately at the same
time.
Luke 3:21,22 ...that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven
was opened. And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove
upon Him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou Art My beloved
Son; in thee I am well pleased.
The Father spoke from heaven, while Jesus the man was on Earth and the
Holy Spirit descended in a bodily shape as a dove. Three separate
persons. The phrase " these three are one" in IJohn 5:7 means this.
Definition of the word one: The American Heritage Dictionary
ONE: 1. being a single entity, unit
2. characterized by unity; of a single kind or nature; undivided:
with one accord.
The use of the word One in IJohn 5:7 is using it according to this
definition number 2. It means that Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Ghost
have a unity, they have the same nature and they act with one accord.
That is how "these three are one".

The use of the word ONE in 1John 5:7 is not numerical one.
The definition of ONE in that verse is this:
of a single nature, undivided, with one accord. Get a big dictionary and look up the word ONE. It has more than one meaning. It means that Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit have the same nature, they are undivided in their actions or purposes, they act with one accord. For proof that John uses the word ONE to mean this definition, look at these scriptures.
John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
John 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
Jesus is praying to the Father in these verses. He said, "that they may be one, even as we are one." Jesus referred to Himself and the Father as, "We", showing that Jesus and the Father are two separate persons. Jesus was talking about His disciples, which are a lot more than one person. Jesus said, "that they may be one", the definition used here can't be numerical one; it must mean the other definition of being in one accord. Then He said, "even as we are one", showing that He is using the same definition of being in one accord when He spoke about Himself and God the Father who He was praying to in these verses

The Bible says that God the Father is God.
Isaiah 43:10 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.
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.

The Bible says that Jesus Christ the Son is God.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
(Jesus is the one that was received up into Glory, after His resurection; this scripture also shows that Jesus is God.}
Philippians 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Philippians 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
Philippians 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Phillipians 2:6 plainly shows that Jesus was in the form of God and equal with God, before He became a man.

Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, [though] thou be little among the thousands of Judah, [yet] out of thee shall he come forth unto me [that is] to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth [have been] from of old, from everlasting.

This prophecy in Micah, is about the birth of the Messiah, who is Jesus Christ, and it says that His goings forth have been from everlasting, showing the deity of Jesus the Messiah.

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Isaiah 9:7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.



John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Revelation 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they [also] which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
Revelation 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.


John 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust [it] into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
ohn 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
John 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed.


Jesus referred to Himself as the Son of man:
Daniel 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, [one] like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

Daniel 7:14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion [is] an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom [that] which shall not be destroyed.
Daniel 7:16 I came near unto one of them that stood by, and asked him the truth of all this. So he told me, and made me know the interpretation of the things.

Daniel 7:27 And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom [is] an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.


In verse 7:13,14 it shows that an everlasting dominion is to be given to the Son of man , and all people should serve Him. In verse 7:27, the interpretation says that the most High has the everlasting kingdom.



The Bible says that the Holy Spirit is God.
Acts 5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
Acts 5:4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

So all three must be the one true Jehovah..

1 Corinthians 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

1 Corinthians 12:4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
1 Corinthians 12:5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
1 Corinthians 12:6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

The gifts of the Holy Spirit (1 cor. 12:8 - 1 cor. 12:11), and the administrations associated with the Lord Jesus, and the operations that are associated with God the Father; it says that "the same God worketh all in all."

Look at this scripture:
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

God called Himself, "us" and used the word "our" conscerning His image and likeness. The words "us" and "our" indicate more than one person in God.

Evidence of the trinity in the Old Testament:
Isaiah 48:13 Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together.
Isaiah 48:15 I, even I, have spoken; yea, I have called him: I have brought him, and he shall make his way prosperous.
Isaiah 48:16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.
Isaiah 48:17 Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the LORD thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go.


Jesus the Son is God; Isaiah prophesied a stone of stumbling:
Isaiah 8:13 Sanctify the LORD of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.

Isaiah 8:14 And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

Isaiah 8:15 And many among them shall stumble, and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken.

Isaiah's "stone of stumbling" is "the LORD of hosts". Here's the use the New Testament authors make of this "stone of stumbling":
1 Peter 2:7 Unto you therefore which believe [he is] precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,

1 Peter 2:8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, [even to them] which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.


Romans 9:32 Wherefore? Because [they sought it] not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

Romans 9:33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.


To the New Testament authors, Isaiah's "stone of stumbling" is Jesus Christ. The Bible testifies: Jesus Christ is the LORD of Hosts.


Look at these scriptures, they are all the same context. God the Father is sitting on a throne and Jesus takes the book out of the Father's right hand.
Certainly, Jesus and the Father are two separate persons.

Revelation 4:8 And the four beasts had each of them six wings about [him]; and [they were] full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.
Revelation 4:9 And when those beasts give glory and honour and thanks to him that sat on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever,
Revelation 5:1 And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals.
Revelation 5:5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.

Revelation 5:6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

Revelation 5:7 And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.


Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.




To ascribe most of these names or powers to any one but God would be > blasphemous, yet the Bible clearly ascribes ALL of them to Yeshua Hamashiakh > (Jesus Christ). It points to Yeshua (Jesus) and Yahweh being one and the > same: the great "I AM." > > Used of Yahweh > Description > Used of Jesus Christ > > Exodus 3:14 > YAHWEH ("I AM") > John 8:58 > > Genesis 1:1 > GOD > Titus 2:13 > > Isaiah 48:12 > ALPHA AND OMEGA > Revelation 1:17, 18 > > Isaiah 45:23 > LORD > Philippians 2:10, 11 > > Isaiah 43:11 > SAVIOR > John 4:42 > > Isaiah 43:15 > KING > Revelation 19:16 > > Genesis 18:25 > JUDGE > 2 Corinthians 5:10 > > Psalm 27:1 > LIGHT > John 8:12 > > Deuteronomy 32:3,4 > ROCK > 1 Corinthians 10:3, 4 > > Isaiah 48:17 > REDEEMER > Ephesians 1:7 > > Isaiah 45:24 > OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS > Romans 3:21, 22 > > Isaiah 44:24 > HUSBAND > 2 Corinthians 11:2 > > Psalm 23:1 > SHEPHERD > John 10:11-16 > > Isaiah 44:24 > CREATOR > Colossians 1:16 > > Deuteronomy 32:39 > GIVER OF LIFE > John 5:21 > > Daniel 9:9 > FORGIVER OF SIN > Mark 2:1-12 > > Exodus 15:26 > LORD OUR HEALER > Acts 9:34 > > Psalm 139:7-12 > OMNIPRESENT > Matthew 28:19-20 > > 1 Kings 8:39 > OMNISCIENT > John 16:30 > > Isaiah 40:10-31 > OMNIPOTENT > Mark 1:29-34 > > Genesis 1:1 > PREEXISTENT > John 17:5 > > Psalm 102:26, 27 > ETERNAL > Isaiah 9:6 > > Malachi 3:6 > IMMUTABLE > Hebrews 13:8 > > John 4:24 > RECEIVER OF WORSHIP > Matthew 28:9 > > > > > Taken from http://www.matsati.com/comparison.html MATSATI who is my brother > in Yeshua HaMashiakh.


2 Corinthians 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, [be] with you all. Amen.


Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Trinity Old Testament
When God is referred to in the singular such as I, it is showing the being of God as the only God. When it is in the plural he is revealing something personal of his nature. What cults do is concentrate only on the single passages that describe God as I, me, myself and ignore all the plural passages such as us, we, our. They also ignore how they are used. Because of their preconceived notions that God has to be numerically one they have tunnel vision. If we look carefully we find God is usually revealing his persons when speaking of himself in the plural context. Trinitarians realize that God is described in both ways and take the whole of the Bible instead of a cut and paste theology that makes the scriptures conform to our own interpretation. God is clearly presented as a united one not only through the language but through the descriptions themselves. "In the light of the facts of the New Testament we cannot refrain from asking whether there may not have been some adumbrations of it in the Old Testament. As the doctrine arises directly out of the facts of the New Testament, we do not look for any full discovery of it in the Old Testament. We must not expect too much, because, as Israel's function was to emphasize the unity of God (Deut.6:4), any premature revelation might have been. But if the doctrine be true, we might expect that Christian Jews, at any rate, would seek for some anticipation of it in the Old Testament. We believe we find it there. (a) The use of the plural "Elohim,," with the singular verb, "bara," is at least noteworthy, and seems to call for some recognition, especially as the same grammatical solecism is found used by St. Paul (1 Thess.3:11). Then, too, the use of the plurals "our" (Gen. 1. 26), "us" (3:22), "us" (11:7), seems to indicate some self-converse in God. It is not satisfactory to refer this to angels because they were not associated with God in creation. Whatever may be the meaning of this usage, it seems, at any rate, to imply that Hebrew Monotheism was an intensely living reality". ( Dr. W. H. Griffith Thomas Principles of Theology The Doctrine Anticipated" pp. 25, 26), God has unfolded his revelation throughout history and many times we had to wait to understand it. This is especially true for prophecy. When we take all the information the Bible has on a certain subject such as the nature of God we can understand what was said in the past. What was given in Genesis, needed to have future revelation to explain its meaning. In the same way, there are only two scriptures relating to a virgin conceiving Gen.3:15, Isa 7:14 and needed the future revelation to understand their meaning. The example of this is Gen. 1:26: " And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" Let us make man in our image-Naase=let us make, adam bitzalmanu- adam bitzalmanu- nu=our, tselem= image in our likeness- keedmutenu- keedmutenu- nu=our, demuth=likeness. (dashes found in Hebrew mean 2 words in a relationship to one another) the words our and us are interconnected with other words and cannot be separated. Anti Trinitarians like Jehovah Witnesses and others entertain the only reasonable explanation from human wisdom. Trying to avoid the issue saying God talked with the angels, The Bible once again refute this logic in Isa.40:12-15 when speaking of God creating the world it asked, "With whom did he take counsel." Can anyone find this statement of his conferring with angels in the Bible. I'm sure when they do it will be right next to God is strictly one person. The speaker of Gen.1:26 is God, the other he is speaking to is of the same nature and essence because he includes him in being equal, as the source of creating. The words image and likeness are attached to the plural pronoun our and us. So the speaker and the ones addressed are of the same image. While the J.W. and other anti Trinitarians will say he speaking to the angels the very next verse settles the matter. Vs.27 verifies all this by saying "so God created man in his own image ; in the image of God he created him." There were no angels involved in making man in his image. Isa.45:11: "Thus says the holy One of Israel and his maker "I have made the earth, and created man on it. I-- My hands-- stretched out the heavens, and all their host I have commanded." Gen. 3:22:" And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us," us is indicative of number; the word one is also the word echad meaning to unite. Gen.11:7: ..." let us go down, and there confound their language,"' the us is found in this text and is the same word for us in vs.4 when the people said "come let us build ourselves a city". If one is going to say us can't be plural, then they will have to be consistent and change this to, come let myself build a city. Gen.19:24: "Then Yahweh rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah fire and brimstone from Yahweh out of heaven Yahweh who was on earth talking to Abraham in form rained it from another who is Yahweh in heaven. ISA.48:16: "from the beginning from the time that it was, I was there: ( 1st person) and now the Lord GOD (2nd person) and his Spirit, (3rd person) hath sent me(1st person)." here we have three individuals existing together, the one speaking states that he was there from before time (Jn. 1:1 ) he refers to the Lord and states that both Yahweh and his Spirit have sent me, (the speaker.) This goes perfectly in line with Isa. 6:8 God speaking to Isaiah "Who shall I send, who will go for us". Both the singular and the plural are used in the same verse. Zech.2: 8-11: Here we have an account of someone being sent from the Lord yet as the description goes on in the passages we find this person to be God himself. In vs.10 " sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion! For behold, I am coming and I will dwell in your midst says the Lord. In vs11 ..." And I will dwell in your midst. Then you will know that the Lord of hosts has sent me to you" Here are two persons mentioned the Lord said he is coming he then says the Lord of hosts is sending him, who is identified as Yahweh. It is this one who will dwell with man. Isa.41:21-26: God asks the people to present their case in vs.22 he uses the plural us, and we for himself . In vs.23 we vs.26 we . Since this is God speaking the conclusion is that he refers to himself in the plural. Isa.45:11:" Thus saith the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker, I have made the earth and created man on it, I my hands stretched out the heavens." two persons Yahweh and his maker who is God also. Singular as God, plural in persons (Isa. 45:18, ) How does this mesh with Isaiah 44:24 ? It states that the Lord made all things who stretched out the heavens all alone, who spreads out the earth by myself." There is no conflict, because the Father, Son and the Spirit are all God. As the one God alone, he made everything! In the N.T. we find this maker is Christ the Son (Col.1:16, Jn.1:3,Heb.1:2) God the Father is the source, Christ is the means and the Spirit is the power that created all things. Since all three are involved in creating they are the one God. Genesis 1:1 says that in the beginning God (Elohim) created. The word Elohim is a compound unity. It describes more than one person as a unified one as in this description of God. If all three are attributed to this event then they are Elohim. Zech.13:7: " Awake, O sword against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, says the Lord of hosts." the Hebrew word for fellow means equal, so it reads against the man who is my equal (deity). Jer.23:5-6: " Behold the days are coming, says the Lord, that I will raise to David a branch of righteousness; a King shall reign and prosper, and execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. in his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell safely; now this is his name by which he will be called THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS." Here is described a descendant of David a man who will reign on David's throne and is called the Lord, yet there is another who is Lord who raised him up. This is echoed by Isaiah 9:6 about the Son who is given, "of the increase of his government and peace, there will be no end, upon the throne of David and over his kingdom. To order it and establish it with judgment and justice from that time forward even forever." What other man could deserve the title "THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS? Except the sinless God/man. The mighty God of Isa.9:6. The ancient rabbis also believed that this verse was a reference the Messiah? This verse is applied to the Messiah in a number of rabbinical writings. Regarding Jeremiah 23:6, the ancient' of the Prophets states: 'And I will raise up for David the Messiah the Just. Rabbi Kimchi (I160-1235 C.E.), a highly respected Rabbi in his time, wrote of this prophecy: 'By the Righteous branch is meant Messiah ". In the Midrash on Psalm 23, it is interesting to note the Messiah is given a divine designation. He is called, "Jehovah is a man of war' and "Jehovah our righteousness., Also in the Midrash on Lamentations 1: 16, the name Jehovah is expressly attributed to the Messiah. If the ancient rabbis are correct, then the obvious and startling conclusion is that the Messiah (the righteous shoot) will be born into the world as a literal physical human being. Isa.11:1-5 "There shall come forth a Rod from the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots." Here we have the Branch mentioned which indicates the lineage of Jesus coming from King David's Father Jesse. (Lk.22:42) We also see him having the fullness of the Spirit even beyond what Solomon had. The Spirit is mentioned 7 times a number indicating completeness or fullness. "The Spirit of the LORD shall rest upon Him, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD. His delight is in the fear of the LORD, ." Zech.3:8-9 'Hear, O Joshua, the high priest, you and your companions who sit before you, for they are a wondrous sign; for behold, I am bringing forth My Servant the BRANCH. For behold, the stone that I have laid before Joshua: upon the stone are seven eyes. Behold, I will engrave its inscription,' says the LORD of hosts, 'And I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day". This identifies him as the branch. He is Gods servant, Jesus said he did not come to be served but to serve. He also says he will remove the sin in one day, which is exactly what happened when Jesus died. Continuing in his revelation he is told by the Lord in Zech.4:7 that he will bring forth the capstone with shouts of grace, grace to it. The day iniquity was removed was because of grace, the New Covenant. Zech.12:10:"and they will look upon me (the word "me" is given two letters the Aleph and the Tov in Hebrew which is equal to the alpha and omega in the Greek) whom they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for his only Son." There is the 1st person speaking who is God, he addresses the subject pierced as himself and then addresses himself in the 3rd person as the Son. This is a clear indication of God becoming man and dying for the sins of the world.

Zero i say you know the answer to this you don't need any of us to tell you what is obvious, you had two excellent questions and wisdom is in the question not in the answer Why would godself pray to godself??????So zero you tell me waht is the trinity??? Namaste Sheri

Well, Sherri, thanks for your input, but I posted those questions to see if they can be answered, if they can I might beleive in the Trinity, if not then I don't.

The trinity in my opinion is non-existant. There is no such thing in the bible.

antiaging, that was a good post, but it still does not answer some of my questions. Mainly why would God pray to himself, and what could possibly tempt God?

Zero why does it depend on the answering of those questions by others for you to decide on the trinity you need to decide for yourself what it means to you if anything, all anyone can tell you is what it means to them they are giving there beleifs on the matter, not wheter to beleive it or not in asking that of others you are asking them to be responsible for your decisons >> Right or wrong you need to make them Namste Sheri

I understand that, but getting more information on the subject will also help me make that decision.

Understood

Jesusfan, wish you'd learn how to use the "quotations" as your comments are intermingled with mine, and difficult for others to determine who is saying what.

I suppose no amount of evidence would be enough to prove to you that curent Christianity is filled with pagan doctrines. It is beyond any dispute, and there are hundreds of scholary books on the subject, unless you play the "Devil Card" and claim all the historical proof was magically created by Satan.

There is no evidence whatsoever many Jews accepted the early Christain doctrine, which is understandable considering it was filled with blasphemous, foreign, pagan doctrine repungent to any pious Jew. In fact all of the evidence is to the contrary. For why is the Old Testament written in the language of the Pagan Greeks, instead of the sacred Hebrew language of the Jews?

Oh, I know, "the Devil made them do it".

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!



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.


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?

I agree, I won't even attempt to read his posts for that simple matter.