Did Jesus preach or proclaim the doctrine of the Trinity?

[Christian3]

Indeed, Jesus had the perfect opportunity to proclaim his divinity in Mark 10:18. Yet he failed to do so. In John's gospel we are presented with a figure that, while entirely alien, is still reluctant to equate himself with the Father. He makes that quite clear when he tells his disciples that "the Father is greater than I". John's Jesus can do nothing without the Father and John's Jesus makes it clear that "What I speak, therefore, I speak just as the Father has told me.” [my emphasis]

Your comments here leads me to believe you don't know what the concept of the Trinity is.

What do you think it means for Jesus to be called "the Son of God."?

Please explain your understanding of the concept of the Trinity.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Your comments here leads me to believe you don't know what the concept of the Trinity is.

An idea that has its roots in Neoplatonism.

What do you think it means for Jesus to be called "the Son of God."?

To whom? A first century Palestinian Jew? Or a gentile residing in late first century Corinth or Antioch?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Things again were not formalized until the Athanasian Creed.

That is nonsense. I am not sure from whence you get your information, you seem remarkably reluctant to cite any reputable sources.

Oh. If this or that didn't happen, then things today would be different. This has no argumentative benefit for whatever you are trying to say. If I wasn't born ... wait ... I was born.

History is a continuum. Whether you care to acknowledge it or not your religion would not have achieved its international success had it not been recognised [and supported] by a fourth century Emperor for whom holding the empire together and maintaining social cohesion were paramount.

Given your comments I must assume you know nothing of the years prior to Constantine I becoming emperor and the bloodshed and rivalries occurring across the empire.

The Jewish bloodline for the Messiah could have been cutoff by the extension of one event or another. Yet, the Messiah was born.

That is nothing but myth. Unless you are one of those who leans to the eccentric theories espoused by books like The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail.

So, it is a fact of history that what came before often affects what comes after it. Christianity relies on the testimony of scripture to correct things that later are found contradictory to scriptures. But I guess you know this aspect. Partly, I'm saying if there are improper influences (e.g., Hellenistic) in conflict with scriptues, they can be removed when recognized.

Your religion exists because of the Hellenistic culture and ideas in which it developed. Even its texts were written in Greek.

The basic recognition on the synoptic gospels is they were written before the fall of the temple.

It might be the “basic recognition” of those who believe in a literal and inerrant bible, it is not the opinion held within the academic discipline of New Testament studies.

If they were written afterwards, the writers would have noted the fulfillment of prophecy.

They do. The texts wherein Jesus prophesies the destruction of the Temple were written post factum. It is remarkably easy to prophesy something that has already occurred. There is a broad consensus of opinion which holds that the parable in Matthew 22:7 looks back to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Likewise the rending of the Temple curtain may be regarded as a reference to the Temple’s destruction.

The interpolations and redactions can be sorted out. The scriptures went to various groups so the changes can be traced rather well so that we can identify the original writings.

How? What evidence do you have to support that comment?

It is a weak claim within a historical context to say there were late redactions. –

Once again you are alleging I have written things that I have not. That is a somewhat duplicitous tactic. However, you might like to explain the textual omissions and variants that are to be found in different later copies of various NT texts. Might I suggest you start with Siniaticus and Vaticanus?

As to the issue of your conspiracy theories

I ask again, where have I mentioned any “conspiracy theories”?

you say which is hardly aligned with common understanding or common sense.

And what is this “common understanding or common sense”? You are very keen to make these remarks and yet provide nothing to substantiate them.

already mentioned that the trias term was introduced roughly AD 180

The term was introduced in an “apology” by Theophilus of Antioch. It does not follow from his reference that the idea was firmly established throughout the entire Christian community of the late second century.

, so it is hardly reasonable to put emphasis on Nicea as the time the concept was formed.

Once again I must correct your assumptions. Theophilus developed the Logos theology more than any previous writers had done and his ideas were the precursor for the dominance of the Logos school in the next century [see Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, and Origen].

You imply (or say?) that Constantine determined the outcome rather than just having bishops gather to come to agreement.

There was no agreement among Christians. Do you have any understanding of the origins and history of your religion? I ask because from what you have written below you do not appear to.

To redact the scriptures in any comprehensive fashion, people would have to gather all the old copies and destroy them (lest they be found 1000 years later). This would be done without any record of it happening. Then they would have to write in new things to imply or state that Christ is God. If I follow you, the gospels were also altered to show Christ as deity. Yet, counter to this, the redactors did not feel inclined to put words on Jesus lips to show him directly stating "I am God."

[Christian3]

An idea that has its roots in Neoplatonism.

To whom? A first century Palestinian Jew? Or a gentile residing in late first century Corinth or Antioch?

The concept of the Trinity according to Bible Scriptures written in the first century.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The concept of the Trinity according to Bible Scriptures written in the first century.

No such concept existed in the first century and no scripture that existed in the first century [i.e. the Septuagint] refers to a Trinity.

Later Christian apologists torturing the Hebrew bible's text is another matter, as is the periphrastic language we find mainly in the gospel of John which is generally accepted to have been composed sometime in the late first or early second century CE.

Now perhaps you can answer my question re Jesus as the Son of God. Are you referencing a first century Palestinian Jew? Or a gentile living in late first century Corinth or Antioch?

[Christian3]

No such concept existed in the first century and no scripture that existed in the first century [i.e. the Septuagint] refers to a Trinity.

Later Christian apologists torturing the Hebrew bible's text is another matter, as is the periphrastic language we find mainly in the gospel of John which is generally accepted to have been composed sometime in the late first or early second century CE.

Now perhaps you can answer my question re Jesus as the Son of God. Are you referencing a first century Palestinian Jew? Or a gentile living in late first century Corinth or Antioch?

There is evidence what the Gospel of John was written prior to 70AD.

The second person of the Trinity is the Word of God ("son" by relationship). It is the Word of God who incarnated Jesus of Nazareth making Jesus one person with two natures.

God creates via His Word, see Hebrew Scriptures.

Colossians 1: For everything was created by Him,
in heaven and on earth,
the visible and the invisible,
whether thrones or dominions
or rulers or authorities—
all things have been created through Him and for Him.

Colossians, written, summer 58AD.

The Didache has the Trinitarian Baptism formula, "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Most scholars date the Didache 100AD, a few as early as 50AD.

[mikewhitney]

Hypatia_Alexandria,

I tell you what. If you are not interested in following our Lord and Creator, you can keep making up a story around the coming of the prophesied Messiah and the work He did in the First Century to make justification available to all humanity. Right now you are following some model contrived in your head that pursues only the outcome that you want -- that there is no justification -- or worse, that the there is no god. However, it is a foolish goal to try to overlay your human-contrived history model over the scritpures ... and to pass that among followers of God.

Do you have some book that has provided you most or all of the imaginative historical model that you propose? It would be easier to get it from a book rather than in the scattered pieces that you have offered here. You seem so smart on one hand, but on the other you are just repeating bias directed against the more natural progression of Christianity. Then you claim (without providing references) that my statements lack references. Go figure. You claim that the Christian doctrine is a result of politicians, which is a lunatic farfetched theory. You would have to explain why the earliest Romans would come to Judaism through the Messiah, when people would be chastized for not worshiping the community gods.

You seem smart, but that intelligence often becomes a stumbling block that keeps people from knowing God. Do keep searching, though.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

There is evidence what the Gospel of John was written prior to 70AD.

Please provide it.

The second person of the Trinity is the Word of God ("son" by relationship). It is the Word of God who incarnated Jesus of Nazareth making Jesus one person with two natures.

A concept that has its roots in Neoplatonism and the writings of Plotinus concerning a “One,” the Ultimate Being, who is supernatural, above all material being, self-caused and absolutely good.

The Didache has the Trinitarian Baptism formula, "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

It appears we are back to my question. What did the writer of that text understand by the phrase "the Son" and “the Holy Spirit”? I suspect you are retrojecting your own beliefs, premised upon much later theological constructs, back to a very early proto-Christian community probably somewhere in Syria and a text that is quite probably based on an earlier Jewish source.

Most scholars date the Didache 100AD, a few as early as 50AD.

I think you will find that Audet [died 1993] placed it as early as the 60s CE, although most academics now accept it is late first century.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Hypatia_Alexandria,

I tell you what. If you are not interested in following our Lord and Creator, you can keep making up a story around the coming of the prophesied Messiah and the work He did in the First Century to make justification available to all humanity. Right now you are following some model contrived in your head that pursues only the outcome that you want -- that there is no justification -- or worse, that the there is no god. However, it is a foolish goal to try to overlay your human-contrived history model over the scritpures ... and to pass that among followers of God.

Do you have some book that has provided you most or all of the imaginative historical model that you propose? It would be easier to get it from a book rather than in the scattered pieces that you have offered here. You seem so smart on one hand, but on the other you are just repeating bias directed against the more natural progression of Christianity. Then you claim (without providing references) that my statements lack references. Go figure. You claim that the Christian doctrine is a result of politicians, which is a lunatic farfetched theory. You would have to explain why the earliest Romans would come to Judaism through the Messiah, when people would be chastized for not worshiping the community gods.

You seem smart, but that intelligence often becomes a stumbling block that keeps people from knowing God. Do keep searching, though.

I am quite happy to provide my references but I am waiting for you to provide yours. After all you are the one who has made emphatic statements without one iota of supporting evidence.

I would also remind you that this board is titled "Comparative Religions 101". It is not a board for proselytising. I am quite prepared to discuss the historical origins of Christianity within its social context with anyone who wishes to do so.

Your reluctance to answer my earliest question re Segal's Two Powers in Heaven wherein I asked you to cite the passages to which you referred as they appear in the text, leaves me thinking you have not read it and have no understanding of the origins of your religion within the first century world.

[mikewhitney]

Please provide it.

A concept that has its roots in Neoplatonism and the writings of Plotinus concerning a “One,” the Ultimate Being, who is supernatural, above all material being, self-caused and absolutely good.

It appears we are back to my question. What did the writer of that text understand by the phrase "the Son" and “the Holy Spirit”? I suspect you are retrojecting your own beliefs, premised upon much later theological constructs, back to a very early proto-Christian community probably somewhere in Syria and a text that is quite probably based on an earlier Jewish source.


I think you will find that Audet [died 1993] placed it as early as the 60s CE, although most academics now accept it is late first century.

What the heck is a proto-Christian community? Before Gentiles came to follow the Messiah of Judaism, they were just Gentiles. By proto-Christians, are you speaking of Jews, before coming to Christ? Why do you even speak of a proto-Christian community? Are these ideas that originated in your mind?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

What the heck is a proto-Christian community? Before Gentiles came to follow the Messiah of Judaism, they were just Gentiles. By proto-Christians, are you speaking of Jews, before coming to Christ? Why do you even speak of a proto-Christian community? Are these ideas that originated in your mind?

Christianity began life as a Jewish sect whose followers did not believe their leader to be some form of anthropomorphic deity. It was the work of Paul who created the new religion of which you are now a member.

[mikewhitney]

I am quite happy to provide my references but I am waiting for you to provide yours. After all you are the one who has made emphatic statements without one iota of supporting evidence.

I would also remind you that this board is titled "Comparative Religions 101". It is not a board for proselytising. I am quite prepared to discuss the historical origins of Christianity within its social context with anyone who wishes to do so.

Your reluctance to answer my earliest question re Segal's Two Powers in Heaven wherein I asked you to cite the passages to which you referred as they appear in the text, leaves me thinking you have not read it and have no understanding of the origins of your religion within the first century world.

We have not been comparing religions anyhow. This has been more of an anti-proselytizing thread on your part. I was just advocating knowing God. This ostensibly is the goal of religions.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

We have not been comparing religions anyhow. This has been more of an anti-proselytizing thread on your part. I was just advocating knowing God. This ostensibly is the goal of religions.

I have merely provided historically accepted evidence.

Let us assume [for the sake of argument] that a first century ascetic Galilean Jewish holy man whom we know as Jesus of Nazareth existed. I accept such a man did exist given the socio-political situation in Judaea and Galilee at that time. However, it has to be recognised that there is no contemporary evidence for such a man and it cannot be automatically assumed that the flesh and blood character bears much resemblance to the various Jesus' we find in the four canonical gospels, all of which were created under the influence of Pauline theology.

It is therefore generally assumed that Jesus of Nazareth founded Christianity and that Paul was the most prominent proselytising envoy of the new faith. This however was not the case. Given my above remarks with their caveat, it would appear that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who did not in fact start any new religion, but merely sought to play an accepted role within the Judaism of his own day.

It was Paul who created Christianity as a separate cult and achieved this by merging existing Judaic and Hellenistic concepts into a powerful and all embracing system, sufficient to enable the subsequent development of an innovative world religion, being by its nature, both intelligible and acceptable to contemporary Graeco-Roman society

[mikewhitney]

I have merely provided historically accepted evidence.

Let us assume [for the sake of argument] that a first century ascetic Galilean Jewish holy man whom we know as Jesus of Nazareth existed. I accept such a man did exist given the socio-political situation in Judaea and Galilee at that time. However, it has to be recognised that there is no contemporary evidence for such a man and it cannot be automatically assumed that the flesh and blood character bears much resemblance to the various Jesus' we find in the four canonical gospels, all of which were created under the influence of Pauline theology.

It is therefore generally assumed that Jesus of Nazareth founded Christianity and that Paul was the most prominent proselytising envoy of the new faith. This however was not the case. Given my above remarks with their caveat, it would appear that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who did not in fact start any new religion, but merely sought to play an accepted role within the Judaism of his own day.

It was Paul who created Christianity as a separate cult and achieved this by merging existing Judaic and Hellenistic concepts into a powerful and all embracing system, sufficient to enable the subsequent development of an innovative world religion, being by its nature, both intelligible and acceptable to contemporary Graeco-Roman society

Paul nor Jesus speak of creating a new religion. Followers of the Messiah forsook their community religions if they were Gentiles. Jewish followers continued in Messianic Judaism. To look at it different from this is to misconstrue the early stages where a bifurcation occurred. This bifurcation, as I heard it, was most strongly made when Jewish followers of Christ fled Judea, in accord with the Messiah's prophecy, which left a bad aftertaste to the Jews who sought to remain.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Paul nor Jesus speak of creating a new religion.

Paul was the creator of Christianity.

Followers of the Messiah forsook their community religions if they were Gentiles.

What do you understand by your usage of the word "Messiah"?

Jewish followers continued in Messianic Judaism.

What do you understand by your usage of the phrase "Messianic Judaism"?

To look at it different from this is to misconstrue the early stages where a bifurcation occurred.

Where in your opinion did this "bifurcation" occur, and when?

This bifurcation, as I heard it, was most strongly made when Jewish followers of Christ fled Judea, in accord with the Messiah's prophecy, which left a bad aftertaste to the Jews who sought to remain.

Do you have any supporting evidence for that statement?