Nicene Creed

originally posted by: EasternShadow

originally posted by: Disturbinatti
a reply to: EasternShadow
Mar is Syriac Aramaic not Hebrew-Aramaic.

Regardless it's a human title.

Mar Jacob, Mara bar Serapion, etc.

Martha is the female version.

We are talking about the passage in Corinthians 1. What is that has to do with other people names? Paul isnt talking about human title, he is talking about Jesus. And Paul is a Jews, not Syrian. Obviously he is speaking Armaic Jews.

originally posted by: Disturbinatti
You also don't have evidence of trinity before the people I mentioned.

For a simple reason I wasn't incorrect in saying what I did. Might want to accept that because you don't have proof and the Bible wasn't written in Syriac until Tatian probably.


Diatesseron was the Syriac Gospel.

Unless you stop taking away evidence out of context then we will never have any evidence. If you read the Council of Nicea properly, it's main purpose was to resolve dispute among Arianism and Homoousianism, which mean the trinity has long been established before that.

What does this even mean?


Paul didn't call Jesus pbuh God.

Lord doesn't mean God. Humans are called "My lord" in the Bible and in Rabbinical Judaism sometimes, Baal.

Baal Shem Tov.

Baal Hasulam.

Can you not tell that I just know more than you? I don't want to brag but how else can I make it clear to you?

You are not going to win in a debate because I know what I am talking about. Am not an amateur.

The passage in Corinthian 1 for god sake. How is that suppose to be Baal Adon etc human title?
I did fact checking that is why I said around 30s 40s AD Aramaic Speaking Jews are refering Mar as Lord God because its been used in prayer. Do you understand what prayer mean? Prayer mean speak to God. Since Conrinthians 1 is about Jesus, who else this Lord refer to? Baal? Adon? Mara bull #?

a reply to: Disturbinatti

Sorry, another 8ne from me... *oh no not that again, right**pokes you in the back with her shoulder:

Al Mazel_tov means is "good luck"? I just went to find out what tov means. Good. It means good...how f*cked up...

See I use these conversations which look like fights, to learn.
Sorry, again.

Theophilus was the first Church Father to mention Trinity.


Second century.

Not EVEN Iranaeus, Justin, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Ignatius.

But 2nd century Theophilus!!!

I just Googled it.

So I was EARLY, not later, than the "First recorded useage" by Theophilus.

a reply to: Disturbinatti

And another question, if you or any present expert could please explain:

If Akhenaten invented this one god thing and all that followed then, why is he dead since 3352 years, while the Jewish calendar states it's 5777? A whooping 2 425 years difference?

The Mayas first day of calendar sometime around 3114 bc (+2017=5131) is only 646 years off. Maybe something happened back then and "god stepped in" because we were killing ourselves for a pantheon of "imaginary friends"?

This is another interesting case of straight denial that he is God. Even though I am pretty sure all the Christians have had enough of me and are done with hearing me demolish the Nicene Creed. At least I didn't put in theology and did in conspiracies in religion. I would have been a @#$& if I did that.

Luke 18:18

But Jesus pbuh is here called "Good Teacher,... what must I do to gain eternal life? "19. Jesus said to him, "why do you call me good? No one is good BUT GOD ALONE."

I mean how is it that 2 billion people or so worship a man, Prophet, Messiah pbuh who preached a pure message like all Prophets pbut before him did to WORSHIP YHVH-Elohim and he didn't like being called GOOD so imagine his reaction to being called GOD!!!

"Why do you call ME good?"

Says Jesus pbuh.

"No one is good but God alone."

That's clear as country air. Not God.

Of course John the Baptizer pbuh is called righteous and that makes you have to reconcile that but I will side with the Bible and says good and righteous technically aren't the same word.

It means assuming Jesus and John aren't good pbut. I don't really think that's a literal statement plenty of people are good and Righteous is good, better than good, I would rather say it's one of his parables and is designed to create in a sense of reverence in the rich man for God.


The man is said to be sad after so it's no stretch to assume he converted and was sad about losing his wealth because Jesus pbuh explains the rewards are well worth it.

I imagine he felt a lot better after hearing that!:

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Disturbinatti

And another question, if you or any present expert could please explain:

If Akhenaten invented this one god thing and all that followed then, why is he dead since 3352 years, while the Jewish calendar states it's 5777? A whooping 2 425 years difference?

The Mayas first day of calendar sometime around 3114 bc (+2017=5131) is only 646 years off. Maybe something happened back then and "god stepped in" because we were killing ourselves for a pantheon of "imaginary friends"?

Because the Jews dont count based on proleptic Gregorian calendar. They count based on lunisolar calender. A day in Hebrew Calender is not the same as a day in proleptic Gregorian Calender. The actual Jewish calender for AM 5777 began at sunset on 2 October 2016 and will end at sunset on 20 September 2017. They dont meant it by 5777 years. So the discrepancy in years happen because someone is playing with different calenders system to create imiginary "lost years conspiracy" when it doesnt. I hate doing research.

But thanks for giving info about Akhenaten. I guess I should start researching Akhenaten's one deity mythicism then. Now, allow me to travel into Eygptian's ancient past.

Good luck with trinity things.

originally posted by: EasternShadow
No. They didn't. The Christians were simply a victim to Paul sudden changing in understanding Jesus person.

Are you sure about that? John (or his community) was pretty convinced that Jesus was God (John 1:1, 1:18, 20:28), and he doesn't rely on Paul. It's possible both came to similar conclusions about Jesus's divinity independently, but it's more likely they were both informed by the same primitive tradition. And since Luke doesn't report any Christological controversy at the Council of Jerusalem, the rest of the Apostles shared that tradition, too.

originally posted by: EasternShadow
Isaiah 45:21-23,
For I am God, and there is no other.
By myself I have sworn,
from my mouth has gone forth in righteousness
a word that shall not return:
“To me every knee shall bow,
every tongue shall swear.”

Isaiah chapter 45 reads much better in its entirety in an honest translation accompanied by some music (a bit less dry):

Some more from Jehovah's word: the bible. As per the advice at Jeremiah 23:27,28: "They intend to make my people forget my name...just as their fathers forgot my name...but the one who has my word should speak my word truthfully.”

originally posted by: FurvusRexCaeli

originally posted by: EasternShadow
No. They didn't. The Christians were simply a victim to Paul sudden changing in understanding Jesus person.

Are you sure about that? John (or his community) was pretty convinced that Jesus was God (John 1:1, 1:18, 20:28), and he doesn't rely on Paul. It's possible both came to similar conclusions about Jesus's divinity independently, but it's more likely they were both informed by the same primitive tradition. And since Luke doesn't report any Christological controversy at the Council of Jerusalem, the rest of the Apostles shared that tradition, too.

Yes I am well aware. The Gospel of John. One of the most controversy subject for as long as it is. I just summarize why it is controversal.

The Gospel of John was dated around 90 AD - 100 AD.
So what does that mean? It means :

1. The Gospel of John is most unlikely a possible cause to the trinity. As I posted earlier, by 30 - 40 AD, the Greek Corinthians had already recited "marana tha" in their prayer. That would be 60 years before The Gospel of John was written.
2. It only served as supportiing documents, but not as an evidence of invention of trinity itself.
3. Scholars argue the authorship of The Gospel of John.

The Gospel of John is anonymous. Traditionally, Christians have identified the author as "the Disciple whom Jesus loved" mentioned in John 21:24,[15] who is understood to be John son of Zebedee, one of Jesus' Twelve Apostles. These identifications, first attested in the 2nd century by Irenaeus,[16] are rejected by the majority of modern biblical scholars.[1][17][Notes 5]

en.wikipedia.org...
It is also possible John was written last, by someone who knew about the other three Gospels, but who wished to write a spiritual gospel instead of an historical one. This would mean that the person who wrote the Gospel of John would not have been a contemporary of Jesus, and therefore would not have been an eyewitness as the author claims. There is also the possibility that the author of John did not know of Mark and hence did not have the same information.

Because we now have high degree of uncertainship pertaining the authorship, we cant attribue The Gospel of John as historical accurate and/or relevant.
4. Additional,

C. K. Barrett,[3][Notes 2] and later Raymond E. Brown,[5] suggested that a tradition developed around the "Johannine Community", and that this tradition gave rise to the gospel.[6]

A significant minority consider the traditional account of John the Apostle's authorship to be genuine. Scholars have argued that the stylistic unity of John is a significant barrier to theories of multiple stages of editing, with D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo arguing that "stylistically it is cut from one cloth".[18]

en.wikipedia.org...

Conclusion :
Although The Gospel of John included Jesus's divinity, it was not creation evidence of trinity and controversially so.

a reply to: whereislogic

Yes, I am well aware. Thank you whereislogic. I was trying to conserve spaces.

So, Paul is the culprit. I knew there's something wrong with that guy.

All roads lead to Rome, indeed. Roman-Greco Ethos transformation.

a reply to: EasternShadow

But still the "year of creation" is around 3761 bc. That seems very wrong.
For "creation" as in "God built the world".

a reply to: Peeple

Ah I see, you are refering 3761 BC as in "God build the world" according to Traditional Jews Calender which is also based on the Seder Olam Rabbah, compiled by Jose ben Halafta in 160 AD.

And I take it, you compare with Mayan Calender 3114 BC as creation date? There're 646 years difference between Hebrew Calender and Mayan Calender? Am I right?

The Mayan knows exactly the creation date, 4 Ahaw, 8 Kumk'u (August 11, 3114 BC in the proleptic Gregorian calendar or September 6 in the Julian calendar -3113 astronomical dating)

We dont know Biblical creation dates. But we know Biblical world ages based on unbroken chain in Biblical genealogy. The world ages is 5777 years old, therefore we should conclude 3761 BC as starting date. A difference by 646 years.

To understand the differeces we need to know why The Mayan pick August 11, 3114 BC as their starting date. Unfortunately I dont have that sources... yet. My Time travel machine is broken

a reply to: EasternShadow

647... which would maybe mean the n+1 cycle of "godly revelation"
....
Do the other dates Match? What n are we now, if we are identifying the cycle of 3114 bc as n+1=647?


639-ish? 7×n+1 cycles?

a reply to: Disturbinatti

www.earlychurchtexts.com...

No mentioning Jesus dying nor does it suggest the Trinity doctrine anywhere in the Nicene Creed. It does mention mother Mary's immaculate conception as being staged by the Holy Spirit where Jesus is seen as the Holy Ghost incarnate. If we agree to this and Jesus is the Holy Spirit incarnate, and there is indeed a Trinity like the one suggested by the Catholic Church, doesn't this mean that Jesus must have been a father as well? To a guy called Elimas Magus per chance? And a certain Sarah, supposed first queen in the lines of European royalty?

a reply to: Disturbinatti

You are correct, and ATS members that know history called it a few years ago when then did a poll of the top conspiracies of all time, note number 20. When I saw this I was very surprised I didn't know that many member new about that.
But they did and do.

I dont know who thinks the Nicene creed is any more authoritative than the New Testament other than yourself?

Anyone who actually knows anything about Christianity?

Christianity as we know it was created at that council, before then it was dozens of different groups with different beliefs, including some who believed that Jesus wasn't divine at all.

originally posted by: Peeple
Do the other dates Match?

No. Other dates differ by 1000-3000 years

originally posted by: Peeple
What n are we now, if we are identifying the cycle of 3114 bc as n+1=647?

639-ish? 7×n+1 cycles?

Not sure if I follow you on "the cycle of 3114 bc as n+1=647". LOL

Mayan Last End Date ( the 12th Baktun ): December 21 of 2012 AD which is 13.0.0.0.0 ( 4 Ahau 3 Kankin )

The 13th Baktun start at 13.0.0.0.1 which is December 22 of 2012 AD
Therefore, Today: 26 June 2017
Mayan Long Count Date : 13.0.4.10.8 or 13 baktun 4 tun 10 uinal 8 k'in

If you are interestd, here's the formula:

public void Julian2Gregorian(int JD, out int Y, out int M, out int D, out int WD)
[
/*---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Convert a Julian Day (JD) to Gregorian calendare
* Information from Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org...
* algorithm converted to C#

* Let J = JD + 0.5: (note: this shifts the epoch back by one half day,
* to start it at 00:00UTC, instead of 12:00 UTC);
* let j = J + 32044; (note: this shifts the epoch back to astronomical year -4800
* instead of the start of the Christian era in year AD 1 of
* the proleptic Gregorian calendar).
* let g = j div 146097; let dg = j mod 146097;
* let c = (dg div 36524 + 1) × 3 div 4; let dc = dg ? c × 36524;
* let b = dc div 1461; let db = dc mod 1461;
* let a = (db div 365 + 1) × 3 div 4; let da = db ? a × 365;
* let y = g × 400 + c × 100 + b × 4 + a; (note: this is the integer number of full
* years elapsed since March 1, 4801 BC at 00:00 UTC);
* let m = (da × 5 + 308) div 153 ? 2; (note: this is the integer number of full
* months elapsed since the last March 1 at 00:00 UTC);
* let d = da ? (m + 4) × 153 div 5 + 122; (note: this is the number of days elapsed
* since day 1 of the month at 00:00 UTC,
including fractions of one day);

* let Y = y ? 4800 + (m + 2) div 12; let M = (m + 2) mod 12 + 1; let D = d + 1;
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------*/

int j, g, c, b, a, y, m, d;
int dg, dc, db, da;

j = (int)JD + 32044;
g = Math.DivRem(j, 146097, out dg);
c = (dg / 36524 + 1) * 3 / 4;
dc = dg - (c * 36524);
b = Math.DivRem(dc, 1461, out db);
a = (db / 365 + 1) * 3 / 4;
da = db - (a * 365);
y = g * 400 + c * 100 + b * 4 + a;
m = (da * 5 + 308) / 153 - 2;
d = da - (m + 4) * 153 / 5 + 122;
Y = y - 4800 + Math.DivRem((m + 2), 12, out M);
M += 1;
D = d + 1;

Math.DivRem((int)JD, 7, out WD);
]

www.codeproject.com...

originally posted by: Disturbinatti
I can't stand Paul but they invented the Nicene Creed. Not Paul. Trinity goes back probably to Iranaeus or Ignatius, Polycarp, one of those guys. Maybe Justin.

originally posted by: EasternShadow
Iranaeus ( 130 AD - 202 AD ), Ignatius ( c. 35 – c. 107 ), Polycarp ( 69 AD - 155 AD ), Justin Martyr ( 100 AD - 165 AD )
Those people arrive at late stage when trinity was already developing.

“The doctrine of the trinity . . . is not a product of the earliest Christian period, and we do not find it carefully expressed before the end of the second century.”

Source: Library of Early Christianity—Gods and the One God.

‘WHERE is there any likeness between the Christian and the philosopher? between one who corrupts the truth, and one who restores and teaches it? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church?’ Such bold questions were raised by Tertullian, a writer in the second and third centuries C.E. He came to be known as “one of the most prolific sources of the history of the Church and of the doctrines which were taught in his time.” Virtually no aspect of religious life escaped his attention.

Tertullian was perhaps best known for his paradoxical, or seemingly contradictory, statements, such as these: “God is then especially great, when He is small.” “[The death of God’s Son] is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd.” “[Jesus] was buried, and rose again; the fact is certain, because it is impossible.”

There is more to the paradox of Tertullian than his statements. Though he intended that his writings defend the truth and uphold the integrity of the church and her doctrines, he actually corrupted true teachings. His key contribution to Christendom turned out to be a theory upon which later writers built the doctrine of the Trinity. To gain insight into how this happened, let us first get a glimpse of Tertullian himself.
...
Tertullian viewed the Son as subordinate to the Father. However, in his attempt to counteract modalism, he went “beyond the things that are written.” (1 Corinthians 4:6) As Tertullian erroneously sought to prove the divinity of Jesus by means of another theory, he coined the formula “one substance in three persons.” Using this concept, he attempted to show that God, his Son, and the holy spirit were three distinct persons existing in one divine substance. Tertullian thus became the first to apply the Latin form of the word “trinity” to the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit.

Source: The Paradox of Tertullian

A bit more info on Tertullian's contradictory teachings (and the arguments Trinitarians use to ignore inconvenient history or argue it away, twist history to something a bit more palatable to them):

originally posted by: Disturbinatti
I can't stand Paul but they invented the Nicene Creed. Not Paul. Trinity goes back probably to Iranaeus or Ignatius, Polycarp, one of those guys. Maybe Justin.

originally posted by: EasternShadow
Iranaeus ( 130 AD - 202 AD ), Ignatius ( c. 35 – c. 107 ), Polycarp ( 69 AD - 155 AD ), Justin Martyr ( 100 AD - 165 AD )
Those people arrive at late stage when trinity was already developing.

The Apologists—Christian Defenders or Would-Be Philosophers?

The apologists were educated men from the second and early third centuries. The most famous among them were Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian.
...
“Christianity” Becomes a Philosophy

The philosopher Celsus mockingly described Christians as “labourers, shoemakers, farmers, the most uninformed and clownish of men.” This mockery was too much for the apologists to bear. They determined to win over public opinion by resorting to a new tactic. Once rejected, worldly wisdom was now used in the service of the “Christian” cause. Clement of Alexandria, for example, saw philosophy as “true theology.” Justin, though claiming to reject pagan philosophy, was the first to use philosophical language and concepts to express “Christian” ideas, considering this type of philosophy “to be safe and profitable.”

From this point on, the strategy was, not to oppose philosophy, but to make supposed Christian thought a philosophy higher than that of the pagans. “On some points we teach the same things as the poets and philosophers whom you honour, and on other points are fuller and more divine in our teaching,” wrote Justin. Adorned with its new philosophical finery, “Christian” thought now claimed the dignity of old age. The apologists pointed out that Christian books were far older than those of the Greeks and that the prophets of the Bible lived earlier than Greek philosophers. Certain apologists even concluded that the philosophers copied from the prophets. Plato was made out to be a disciple of Moses!

Christianity Distorted

This new strategy led to a mixture of Christianity and pagan philosophy. Comparisons were made between Greek gods and Bible characters. Jesus was compared to Perseus; and Mary’s conception to that of Perseus’ mother, Danaë, who was said to be also a virgin.

Certain teachings were greatly modified. For example, in the Bible, Jesus is called “the Logos,” meaning God’s “Word,” or Spokesman. (John 1:1-3, 14-18; Revelation 19:11-13) Very early on, this teaching was distorted by Justin, who like a philosopher played on the two possible meanings of the Greek word logos: “word” and “reason.” Christians, he said, received the word in the person of Christ himself. However, logos in the sense of reason is found in every man, including pagans. Thus, he concluded, those who live in harmony with reason are Christians, even those who claimed or were thought to be atheists, like Socrates and others.

Moreover, by forcing the tie between Jesus and the logos of Greek philosophy, which was closely linked with the person of God, the apologists, including Tertullian, embarked on a course that eventually led Christianity to the Trinity dogma. [for further information see the earlier linked article about Tertullian in its entirety]

The word “soul” appears over 850 times in the Bible, including more than 100 times in its Greek form. It basically refers to mortal, living creatures, either human or animal. (1 Corinthians 15:45; James 5:20; Revelation 16:3) The apologists, however, twisted this Bible teaching by linking it with Plato’s philosophy that the soul is separate from the body, invisible and immortal. Minucius Felix even asserted that belief in the resurrection had its early beginnings in Pythagoras’ teaching of the transmigration of the soul. How far Greek influence had led them from the teachings of the Bible!