Absolute Proof Jesus Christ is God

a reply to: ElectricUniverse


Sigh..........

My post speaks for itself. But, here's a little additional history that you may not know about that probably accounts for the Tacitus and Suetonius comments on rioters in Rome.

Pilate’s political ruin came about through his own folly. A Samaritan put forth the claim that he knew where on top of Mt. Gerizim, Moses had hidden golden objects pertaining to the Tabernacle. This claim proceeded from ignorance and fanaticism, for Moses had never crossed the Jordan and thus could not have visited Mt. Gerizim. A large assembly of Samaritans, however, gathered at the base of the mountain, intending to climb to the summit to search for the alleged treasures.

Foolishly they were armed with weapons which Pilate interpreted as a threatened insurrection. Many of the Samaritans were killed by Pilate’s soldiers. The Mt. Gerizim affair, however, was a mere passing incident and certainly no real threat to Rom. rule in Pal. Pilate had killed so many people that the Samaritans filed a complaint with Pilate’s superior, Vitellius, the Rom. governor of Syria. Vitellius deposed Pilate as procurator of Judea and ordered him to Rome for the judgment of the emperor on his rash conduct in the Gerizim affair. This ended Pilate’s ten years as procurator.
www.biblegateway.com...

The complaints over Pilate's cruelty were never answered and Pilate was never brought to justice, because of the death of Vitellius.

In spite of his former experience of the sensitiveness of the Jews with regard to images and emblems, Pilate hung up in Herod's palace gilt shields dedicated to Tiberius, and again nearly provoked an insurrection. The shields were removed by a special order of Tiberius, to whom the Jews had protested. Pilate's last deed of cruelty, and the one which brought about his downfall, was the massacre of a number of Samaritans who had assembled on Mount Gerizim to dig for some sacred vessels which an impostor had led them to believe Moses had buried there. Concerning this massacre the Samaritans lodged a complaint with Vitellius, legate of Syria, who ordered Pilate to repair to Rome to defend himself.jewishencyclopedia.com...

So, in 68-69 AD Pilate was called back to Rome to answer for the massacre of a large group of outcast Jews, including their leader, now called an "imposter", the "Good Samaritan(s)", or "The Chrestus". Nero died in 68 AD, so the riot that Tacitus and Suetonius referred to was most likely a result of the "Good Samaritan Massacre", not the death of Jesus of Nazareth.

Romans 1:25

25 They exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated* and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the Creator, who is praised forever. Amen. [*: Or “worshipped.”]

Some of the evidence that Jesus was created as "the beginning of the creation by God" (Rev. 3:14):

The videos below have some errors or misleading (distracting) ways of phrasing a few things but the main points should be clear enough so that I hopefully don't have to mention the caveats I have with them again (see also my commentary in the thread What does God created mankind in his own image mean; you can also checkout the highlighted timeframes for a debate that I shared in that thread regarding whether or not Jesus is the uncreated eternal God whose name is Jehovah for more information about several of the bible verses and theological concepts that have come up so far in this thread, in particular the discussion about John 10:31-36).


OK, one caveat regarding part 2 (and you can ignore the remark about "atomic..." around 5:30):

Not a co-Creator. The Son’s share in the creative works, however, did not make him a co-Creator with his Father. The power for creation came from God through his holy spirit, or active force. (Ge 1:2; Ps 33:6) And since Jehovah is the Source of all life, all animate creation, visible and invisible, owes its life to him. (Ps 36:9) Rather than a co-Creator, then, the Son was the agent or instrumentality through whom Jehovah, the Creator, worked. Jesus himself credited God with the creation, as do all the Scriptures.—Mt 19:4-6; see CREATION.

Source: Jesus Christ: Insight, Volume 2

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: filthyphilanthropist
Do you believe what Jesus taught?

That's a good question for everyone who says they believe in Jesus, as asked in the video below as well before presenting some of Jesus' teachings (all bible quotations are from the KJV a.k.a. AV, all of whom are conveniently ignored by those claiming that the AV is the only preserved Word of God or those using the AV or similar translations whenever it's convenient for their argument as demonstrated earlier in this thread regarding Hebrews 1:8):

Trinity Doctrine, A False Teaching Of Man, Council of Nicaea

A bit more regarding earlier claims made in this thread:

And since the weird "I AM"-argument has been used already in this thread as well (neither Exodus 3:14 nor John 8:58 says "I AM" in any honest translation of the bible; it's only translated that way by bible translators that want to provide support for this particular card in the house of cards that is supposed to prove or indicate that God is a Trinity or that Jesus is the One who is referred to as "God Almighty" and "Jehovah God" or simply "Jehovah" in the bible):

I didn't dven bother with the second two videos because already on the first video the guy speaking doesn't fully grasp what he is reading. He read the answer. "He is the son of man". Jesus also called himself the son of man. Now if you know what that is referencing, then you'll know that there is a claim of diety in just that one phrase alone.

So the guy in the video based his arguement on context, but he failed to actually puy it all into context. Ergo, his take on that point is flawed and invalid.

But... here is a pretty decent link to support Jesus as God in the flesh.

link

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: filthyphilanthropist


Tacitus never mentions Jesus.

[Quote] Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of ... Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition (Tacitus, Annals 15.44, cited in Strobel, The Case for Christ, 82.)

a reply to: filthyphilanthropist

Christus, from whom the name had its origin

That's not "Jesus" is it? His name, supposedly, was Jesus of Nazareth.

Assuming that Suetonius and Tacitus did mean to write "Christus" instead of "Chestus", I will repeat, from you Bible:

Matthew 24:23 At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it.

Matthew 24:25 For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray.

Matthew 24:26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.

Clearly, Jesus Christ wasn't the first, the last or the only person who have been claimed to have been a "Christ". Besides, during the first century AD there was no cohesive "Christian" church, scriptures or cohesive belief among the followers of Christ. Many believed the Christ existed only in spirit, and had never incarnated in human form. Therefore, Tacitus provides no PROOF that Jesus of Nazareth ever existed.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: filthyphilanthropist

Christus, from whom the name had its origin

That's not "Jesus" is it? His name, supposedly, was Jesus of Nazareth.

Assuming that Suetonius and Tacitus did mean to write "Christus" instead of "Chestus", I will repeat, from you Bible:

Matthew 24:23 At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it.

Matthew 24:25 For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray.

Matthew 24:26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.

Clearly, Jesus Christ wasn't the first, the last or the only person who have been claimed to have been a "Christ". Besides, during the first century AD there was no cohesive "Christian" church, scriptures or cohesive belief among the followers of Christ. Many believed the Christ existed only in spirit, and had never incarnated in human form. Therefore, Tacitus provides no PROOF that Jesus of Nazareth ever existed.

Proof by itself? No, but add that to the mountain of things amongst my link from earlier in the thread, and there is a preponderance of evidence. There were many gnostic "Christians" sure, but they were the Joel Osteens of their time by which I mean they perverted the gospel according to their own wills. At least, that is my current understanding which is always subject to change with new information.

As for Tacitus, who else could he possibly be referring to? 'The Christ from whom the Christian name had its origin ... was executed by Pontius Pilotus.'

Jesus was called many different things, e.g., bridegroom, son of man, Jesus, Christ, Immanual, etc. Historically, remembering him as the Christ by whom the Christians named themselves is more relevant than the name Jesus of (from) Nazareth. Surely, over time there would be many people named Jesus who were from Nazareth, but there will always be only one man called Christ by whom the Christians named themselves (who was also executed for those reasons by that man).

Also, I don't think you used "therefor" very effectively...

'Many people claimed to be Christ. Many believed Christ was only a spirit. Many so-called [gnostic] Christians held different beliefs. Therefor, there is no good evidence from Tacitus who didn't write about a spirit or those other "Christs" at all thereby making the qualifying statements irrelevant.'

Instead, Tacitus specified one human Christ who fits a certain criteria that none other can.

a reply to: filthyphilanthropist

Proof by itself? No, but add that to the mountain of things amongst my link from earlier in the thread, and there is a preponderance of evidence.

There is no mountain of nor a preponderance of evidence of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. I'm not following that other thread, but I'm no newbie to this argument.

As for Tacitus, who else could he possibly be referring to? 'The Christ from whom the Christian name had its origin ... was executed by Pontius Pilotus.'

From my previous post, www.abovetopsecret.com...

Pilate’s political ruin came about through his own folly. A Samaritan put forth the claim that he knew where on top of Mt. Gerizim, Moses had hidden golden objects pertaining to the Tabernacle. This claim proceeded from ignorance and fanaticism, for Moses had never crossed the Jordan and thus could not have visited Mt. Gerizim. A large assembly of Samaritans, however, gathered at the base of the mountain, intending to climb to the summit to search for the alleged treasures.



Foolishly they were armed with weapons which Pilate interpreted as a threatened insurrection. Many of the Samaritans were killed by Pilate’s soldiers. The Mt. Gerizim affair, however, was a mere passing incident and certainly no real threat to Rom. rule in Pal. Pilate had killed so many people that the Samaritans filed a complaint with Pilate’s superior, Vitellius, the Rom. governor of Syria. Vitellius deposed Pilate as procurator of Judea and ordered him to Rome for the judgment of the emperor on his rash conduct in the Gerizim affair. This ended Pilate’s ten years as procurator.

www.biblegateway.com...

The complaints over Pilate's cruelty were never answered and Pilate was never brought to justice, because of the death of Vitellius.

In spite of his former experience of the sensitiveness of the Jews with regard to images and emblems, Pilate hung up in Herod's palace gilt shields dedicated to Tiberius, and again nearly provoked an insurrection. The shields were removed by a special order of Tiberius, to whom the Jews had protested. Pilate's last deed of cruelty, and the one which brought about his downfall, was the massacre of a number of Samaritans who had assembled on Mount Gerizim to dig for some sacred vessels which an impostor had led them to believe Moses had buried there. Concerning this massacre the Samaritans lodged a complaint with Vitellius, legate of Syria, who ordered Pilate to repair to Rome to defend himself.jewishencyclopedia.com...

So, in 68-69 AD Pilate was called back to Rome to answer for the massacre of a large group of outcast Jews, including their leader, now called an "imposter", the "Good Samaritan(s)", or "The Chrestus". Nero died in 68 AD, so the riot that Tacitus and Suetonius referred to was most likely a result of the "Good Samaritan Massacre", somewhere areound 66-67 AD, not the death of Jesus of Nazareth.

Why would there be an unhappy group of "Christians", AKA followers of Jesus Christ, rioting over his death if they believed that his resurrection, having risen from the dead as "The Christ", was the sign of a God's conquering sin and death and "new covenant". That makes no sense!

Jesus was called many different things, e.g., bridegroom, son of man, Jesus, Christ, Immanual, etc. Historically, remembering him as the Christ by whom the Christians named themselves is more relevant than the name Jesus of (from) Nazareth. Surely, over time there would be many people named Jesus who were from Nazareth, but there will always be only one man called Christ by whom the Christians named themselves (who was also executed for those reasons by that man).

Not by 67-69 AD he wasn't! This happened in Rome under Nero, who died in 68 AD. Maybe by a handful of survivors in Judea or Jerusalem called those names, but not massive rioters in Rome! Don't forget, the Siege of Jerusalem, a long drawn out affair lasting from around 67-69 AD was also going on at the time. That had nothing to do with Jesus or Christianity.

Tacitus who didn't write about a spirit or those other "Christs" at all

You have no idea who Tacitus was talking about, or how many other Christ cults there were in existence at the time and before.

a reply to: StandingTallForChrist



I have better proof.


If everyone in the world were able to follow the teachings of Christ, the world would be at peace, there would be no hunger war murder or hate. Just simply to love your neighbor as yourself. That is my proof.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

There was only one person who founded the Christian religion, and that religion was named after him.

Did Paul Invent Christianity?

Jesus was certainly not the only founder of said religion

Whose name was Christianity named and founded under?

a reply to: windword

You see...people like you who adamantly don't want to accept anything as evidence that dispute your claims, always go off tangent...

I wasn't talking about "all other people that were killed under Pontius Pilate". Learn to stay on topic, and understand what is being argued. Tacitus among many other pagans, Hebrew and Christian historians and sources were talking about the person under which Christianity was named, and whose teachings were taught who was crucified under orders of Pontius Pilate...

If there are ANY OTHER person who was the founder of Christianity, and whose teachings can be found in the New Testament, and who was ordered to be crucified, present evidence that such a person fills every requirement mentioned... We are not talking about one requirement... Nor about just "all the people named Jesus"...

If you can't understand the argument, perhaps is better if you simply stop because you among some others are only trolling the thread.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Technically Christians using said term should be following "the christ" or the anointed one...

Unfortunately most don't follow his teaching, they follow Paul...

which was why i wrote that thread...

Jesus was NOT the only founder of said religion.... regardless of who the religion is named after

originally posted by: Akragon
...
Jesus was NOT the only founder of said religion.... regardless of who the religion is named after

Paul followed Jesus' teachings. Paul did not made up his own teachings. Not to mention that "The Christ" that historians like Tacitus were talking about was from whom the name, "Christianity" , had its origin, and who was ordered to be crucified under orders of Pontius Pilate.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Akragon
...
Jesus was NOT the only founder of said religion.... regardless of who the religion is named after

Paul followed Jesus' teachings. Paul did not made up his own teachings. Not to mention that "The Christ" that historians like Tacitus were talking about was from whom the name, "Christianity" , had its origin, and who was ordered to be crucified under orders of Pontius Pilate.

Yeah, no.

Christianity comes from the Greek word Christianos.

Christianos means follower of christos.

Christos means anointed one with an ending meaning belonging to or adhering to.

Christos was used to translate the Hebrew word for messiah.

Messiah means one who is anointed.

So there never was a name Christ, but a word christos.

If anything, he would have been Jesus christos. Jesus the anointed one, Jesus the messiah or a slave called Jesus.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse


The existence of Christianity isn't proof that Jesus of Nazareth existed. In fact, in the year 67-68 AD the followers of "Jesus Christ" did not call themselves Christians because Pagan cults who identified as "Christians" were already in existence. The early followers of "Jesus Christ" were called and called themselves "Nazarenes" and "The Way".

If modern believers were truly sincere in their desire for a more intimate relationship with the Lord, they would immediately want to know and question why "early believers avoided" using the name Christian? When it is realized that even the very name Christian was in use prior to the time of Jesus, we truly begin to grasp the Pagan connection. The name Christian was a term employed to describe one who was an initiate, and understood the inner meaning of the Greek and Roman mystery religions. Thus, the early followers of Jesus refused to be called Christian, and call Jesus the Christ, because the word was used in reference to enlightened Pagans and their gods.
nazirene.org...

Jesus is the Greek Translation of the name Joshua, and there plenty of cults that saw Old Testament Joshua (AKA Jesus) as a coming "Messiah", via Zachariah 3. (Look it up) Jesus was already a venerated and holy name before Jesus was Nazareth was conceived, if he ever was.

If there are ANY OTHER person who was the founder of Christianity, and whose teachings can be found in the New Testament, and who was ordered to be crucified, present evidence that such a person fills every requirement mentioned...

Now you're moving the goal posts. Tacitus doesn't claim Jesus was the founder of Christianity. In fact he wasn't, Paul was. The New Testament wasn't yet written when Nero was Emperor. Tacitus never claims that "Chrestus" was "crucified", but it wouldn't matter if he did, because the Romans crucified 10s of thousands of zealots, 6000 men alone were crucified outside the city walls during the Siege of Jerusalem.

If you can't understand the argument, perhaps is better if you simply stop because you among some others are only trolling the thread.

I understand the argument. Do you? It's about whether or not the OP has provided proof that Jesus of Nazareth is God, but it hasn't even been established for a fact that Jesus of Nazareth actually even existed in the first place. Tacitus does nothing to prove that he did.

originally posted by: filthyphilanthropist
"He is the son of man". Jesus also called himself the son of man. Now if you know what that is referencing, then you'll know that there is a claim of diety in just that one phrase alone.

2 astronauts working in the International Space Station were having a discussion on whether the earth is flat or spherical in shape, one says to the other in all seriousness:

"See, the earth is flat cause it looks spherical."

The other replies:

"Sorry, but I'm going home on the next shuttle cause I don't feel safe working with you and I don't exactly trust the ones that made the decision for you to work by my side."

Switching to another card in the house of cards I mentioned earlier in this thread isn't going to do one much good if the next card one plays is anything lower than a Jack anyway. Unless it's a game where one is trying to go for the least amount of points, than 2's or 3's are indeed the best to play. But if facts/truths, reasonable arguments or using electric...'s phrase "factual evidence" are worth points, don't expect to get many even if you do switch to the next card when you've got nothing higher than a 6 in hand (even if you've got 3 sixes). And all points that have already been counted and recorded on paper won't be erased by playing the next card either, best just switch the whole paper and start over again then if that was the intention (unless a pencil was used and you've got an eraser at hand).

But since someone might be here that is actually interested in what the phrase "Son of Man" is referring to...

SON OF MAN

In Hebrew this is mainly a translation of the expression ben-ʼa·dhamʹ. Instead of referring to the person, Adam, ʼa·dhamʹ is here used generically for “mankind” so that the expression ben-ʼa·dhamʹ means, in essence, “a son of mankind, a human, an earthling son.” (Ps 80:17; 146:3; Jer 49:18, 33) The phrase is often employed in parallel with other Hebrew terms for “man,” namely, ʼish, meaning “a male person” (compare Nu 23:19; Job 35:8; Jer 50:40) and ʼenohshʹ, “a mortal man.” (Compare Ps 8:4; Isa 51:12; 56:2.) At Psalm 144:3 the “son of mortal man” is ben-ʼenohshʹ, while the Aramaic equivalent (bar ʼenashʹ) appears at Daniel 7:13.

In Greek the expression is hui·osʹ tou an·throʹpou, the latter part of the phrase representing the Greek generic word for “man” (anʹthro·pos).—Mt 16:27.

In the Hebrew Scriptures the most frequent occurrence of the expression is in the book of Ezekiel, where over 90 times God addresses the prophet as “son of man.” (Eze 2:1, 3, 6, 8) The designation as so used apparently serves to emphasize that the prophet is simply an earthling, thus heightening the contrast between the human spokesman and the Source of his message, the Most High God. The same designation is applied to the prophet Daniel at Daniel 8:17.

Christ Jesus, “the Son of Man.” In the Gospel accounts the expression is found nearly 80 times, applying in every case to Jesus Christ, being used by him to refer to himself. (Mt 8:20; 9:6; 10:23) The occurrences outside the Gospel accounts are at Acts 7:56; Hebrews 2:6; and Revelation 1:13; 14:14.

Jesus’ application of this expression to himself clearly showed that God’s Son was now indeed a human, having ‘become flesh’ (Joh 1:14), having ‘come to be out of a woman’ through his conception and birth to the Jewish virgin Mary. (Ga 4:4; Lu 1:34-36) Hence he had not simply materialized a human body as angels had previously done; he was not an incarnation but was actually a ‘son of mankind’ through his human mother.—Compare 1Jo 4:2, 3; 2Jo 7; see FLESH.

For this reason the apostle Paul could apply Psalm 8 as prophetic of Jesus Christ. In his letter to the Hebrews (2:5-9), Paul quoted the verses reading: “What is mortal man [ʼenohshʹ] that you keep him in mind, and the son of earthling man [ben-ʼa·dhamʹ] that you take care of him? You also proceeded to make him a little less than godlike ones [“a little lower than angels,” at Hebrews 2:7], and with glory and splendor you then crowned him. You make him dominate over the works of your hands; everything you have put under his feet.” (Ps 8:4-6; compare Ps 144:3.) Paul shows that, to fulfill this prophetic psalm, Jesus indeed was made “a little lower than angels,” becoming actually a mortal “son of earthling man,” that he might die as such and thereby “taste death for every man,” thereafter being crowned with glory and splendor by his Father, who resurrected him.—Heb 2:8, 9; compare Heb 2:14; Php 2:5-9.

The designation “Son of man,” therefore, also serves to identify Jesus Christ as the great Kinsman of mankind, having the power to redeem them from bondage to sin and death, as well as to identify him as the great Avenger of blood.—Le 25:48, 49; Nu 35:1-29; see AVENGER OF BLOOD; RANSOM; REPURCHASE , REPURCHASER.

Thus, Jesus’ being called the “Son of David” (Mt 1:1; 9:27) emphasizes his being the heir of the Kingdom covenant to be fulfilled in David’s line; his being called the “Son of man” calls attention to his being of the human race by virtue of his fleshly birth; his being called the “Son of God” stresses his being of divine origin, not descended from the sinner Adam or inheriting imperfection from him but having a fully righteous standing with God.—Mt 16:13-17.

What is “the sign of the Son of man”?
...

Source: Son of Man: Insight, Volume 2

I'm sorry, I'm using Yu-Gi-Oh! cards, perhaps not entirely fair against the more commonly known set of cards that only has Aces as their highest cards to play:

Is Jesus God?

Cardinal John O’Connor stated about the Trinity: “We know that it is a very profound mystery, which we don’t begin to understand.” Why is the Trinity so difficult to understand?

The Illustrated Bible Dictionary gives one reason. Speaking of the Trinity, this publication admits: “It is not a biblical doctrine in the sense that any formulation of it can be found in the Bible.” Because the Trinity is “not a biblical doctrine,” Trinitarians have been desperately looking for Bible texts—even twisting them—to find support for their teaching.
...
One example of a Bible verse that is often misused is John 1:1.
...
Identity of “the Word”?

Many Greek scholars and Bible translators acknowledge that John 1:1 highlights, not the identity, but a quality of “the Word.” Says Bible translator William Barclay: “Because [the apostle John] has no definite article in front of theos it becomes a description . . . John is not here identifying the Word with God. To put it very simply, he does not say that Jesus was God.” Scholar Jason David BeDuhn likewise says: “In Greek, if you leave off the article from theos in a sentence like the one in John 1:1c, then your readers will assume you mean ‘a god.’ . . . Its absence makes theos quite different than the definite ho theos, as different as ‘a god’ is from ‘God’ in English.” BeDuhn adds: “In John 1:1, the Word is not the one-and-only God, but is a god, or divine being.” Or to put it in the words of Joseph Henry Thayer, a scholar who worked on the American Standard Version: “The Logos [or, Word] was divine, not the divine Being himself.”

- Jesus made a clear distinction between him and his Father

Does the identity of God have to be “a very profound mystery”? It did not seem so to Jesus. In his prayer to his Father, Jesus made a clear distinction between him and his Father when he said: “This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.” (John 17:3) If we believe Jesus and understand the plain teaching of the Bible, we will respect him as the divine Son of God that he is. We will also worship Jehovah as “the only true God.”

JESUS often prayed to God, whom he called Father, and he also taught others to do so. (Matthew 6:9-11; Luke 11:1, 2) In prayer with his apostles—only hours before his death—Jesus petitioned: “Father, the hour has come; glorify your son, that your son may glorify you. This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.”—John 17:1, 3.

Notice that Jesus prays to One whom he calls “the only true God.” He points to God’s superior position when he continues: “So now you, Father, glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was.” (John 17:5) Since Jesus prayed to God requesting to be alongside God, how could Jesus at the same time be “the only true God”? Let us examine this matter.

Jesus’ Position in Heaven

A few hours after this prayer, Jesus was executed. But he was not dead for long—only from Friday afternoon till Sunday morning. (Matthew 27:57–28:6) “This Jesus God resurrected,” the apostle Peter reports, “of which fact we are all witnesses.” (Acts 2:31, 32)
...
...
The Trinity and the Church
...
In its 1999 issue on the Trinity, The Living Pulpit observed: “Sometimes, it seems that everyone assumes that the doctrine of the trinity is standard Christian theological fare,” but it added that it is not “a biblical idea.”

The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967) discusses the Trinity at length and admits: “The Trinitarian dogma is in the last analysis a late 4th-century invention. . . . The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.”
...
The Christian Century, in its May 20-27, 1998, issue, quotes a pastor who acknowledges that the Trinity is “a teaching of the church rather than a teaching of Jesus.”

Despite attempts to find passages of Scripture to support the Trinity dogma, Dominican priest Marie-Émile Boismard wrote in his book À l’aube du christianisme—La naissance des dogmes (At the Dawn of Christianity—The Birth of Dogmas): “The statement that there are three persons in the one God . . . cannot be read anywhere in the New Testament.”

“The Christian Bible, including the New Testament, has no trinitarian statements or speculations concerning a trinitary deity.”—Encyclopædia Britannica.

Sources: Who Is “the Only True God”? Awake!—2005
Myth 4: God Is a Trinity
Should You Believe in the Trinity? Awake!—2013

- The bible has no trinitarian statements or speculations concerning a trinitary deity (or Triune God)
- The doctrine of the Trinity is a teaching of the church rather than a teaching of Jesus
- ...not a biblical idea.
- ...not a biblical doctrine!
= End of story, i.e. game over.

Or is it? Some just keep on playing though (someone has been leaking cheatcodes):

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ElectricUniverse


The existence of Christianity isn't proof that Jesus of Nazareth existed. In fact, in the year 67-68 AD the followers of "Jesus Christ" did not call themselves Christians because Pagan cults who identified as "Christians" were already in existence. The early followers of "Jesus Christ" were called and called themselves "Nazarenes" and "The Way".
...

You keep on trying to twist evidence in your defiance and unwillingness to accept facts.

Even wikipedia, a left-wing source you should trust states...

The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate, and the existence of early Christians in Rome in one page of his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.[1]

The context of the passage is the six-day Great Fire of Rome that burned much of the city in AD 64 during the reign of Roman Emperor Nero.[2] The passage is one of the earliest non-Christian references to the origins of Christianity, the execution of Christ described in the canonical gospels, and the presence and persecution of Christians in 1st-century Rome.[3][4]

Scholars generally consider Tacitus' reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source.[5][6][7] Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.[8]

Historian Ronald Mellor has stated that the Annals is "Tacitus's crowning achievement" which represents the "pinnacle of Roman historical writing".[9] Scholars view it as establishing three separate facts about Rome around AD 60: (i) that there were a sizable number of Christians in Rome at the time, (ii) that it was possible to distinguish between Christians and Jews in Rome, and (iii) that at the time pagans made a connection between Christianity in Rome and its origin in Roman Judea.
...

en.wikipedia.org...

In fact that link you gave doesn't seem to come from any real scholars. The author of that website is called Allan Cronshaw, and can't find any reliable source that would have information about who he is, all i could find were his own website, facebook, and twitter. But again, no information at all corroborates that this man is a real scholar.

This is part of the homepage from that link you gave...

When I was in spirit, and I was brought into the presence of the Light, I was shown the workings of the Universal Law which was conveyed to me as such: "No one can ever possess any greater amount of Truth, than they are willing to live and manifest in Word, Thought, Desire and Deed". Hearing these universal truths that impact the lives of all here on earth, I was told to write a book that will teach the people how to live in accordance with the Word of God -- and to write this book in such a way that they need not believe me -- but rather, that they might learn the Truth directly from the One Source of all Knowledge and Truth, their Heavenly Father. This web site will be used as a resource library that will support the directive I was given directly by the Lord.
...

nazirene.org...

Now, to look for an actual reliable source...

The website of the Holy Monastery of Pantokrator provides the following information about the spread of Christianity in chronological order.

Source (greek): www.oodegr.com...

Translation: Holy Monastery of Pantokrator

c. 4 BC: Birth of Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

c. 27 AD: Beginning of Jesus Christ's public preaching.

At the time the Roman Empire was as follows: Population: 33,000,000 (50% slaves). The Jews in the empire numbered 2,300,000 (7% of the empire's population), mostly proselytes to Judaism. Palestine's population was 580,000 Jewish and 233,000 gentiles.

c. 30 AD: Crucifixion, resurrection and ascension of Christ. His commandment is given: “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations” (Matthew 28:19) .

There were approximately 4,000 believers in Christ in all of Palestine during the days of Jesus’ appearances after His resurrection.

Pentecost. After the miraculous descent of the Holy Spirit and all that they had witnessed, 3,000 Jewish proselytes from every place of the known world were baptized as Christians, and then departed taking the Christian faith to Jews in all the places from which they had come (Acts 2:41). (Palestine, Israel, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Libya, Syria, Italy etc.)

c. 34 AD: Martyrdom of the protomartyr Stephen, and persecution of the Christians of Judaea by the Jews. The persecution forces Christians to flee to other areas and to spread the Gospel. First Christians in Ethiopia from the Ethiopian eunuch, and in Samaria from Philip. Conversion of Saul to the Christian faith, who is then named Paul.

c. 35 AD: Multiplication of Christians in Judaea and Samaria (Acts 9:31). First Christians in Armenia.

...

www.impantokratoros.gr...

As you can see Christians existed for 30 years before the text of Tacitus which was describing events in the 60s A.D.

In his Annals, Tacitus tells of a fire that swept through Rome in the 60s, for which some were blaming Nero himself...

www.mesacc.edu...

Not to mention that the claim being made by "Allan Cronshaw" and yourself seems to have been made up.

In fact, the first time that the name Christian was written is in the New Testament. in ACTs written by Luke in 62-63 A.D.

...
Early usage

The first recorded use of the term (or its cognates in other languages) is in the New Testament, in Acts 11:26,[24] after Barnabas brought Saul (Paul) to Antioch where they taught the disciples for about a year, the text says: "[...] the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." The second mention of the term follows in Acts 26:28,[25] where Herod Agrippa II replied to Paul the Apostle, "Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian." The third and final New Testament reference to the term is in 1 Peter 4:16, which exhorts believers: "Yet if [any man suffer] as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.
...

en.wikipedia.org...

Any reliable source states the name Christian was used from the beginning by the followers of Jesus Christ. There is no mention of this fantasy made up by "Allan Cronshaw" and yourself that "pagans called themselves Christians."

originally posted by: TerryDon79

Yeah, no.

Christianity comes from the Greek word Christianos.

Christianos means follower of christos.

Christos means anointed one with an ending meaning belonging to or adhering to.

Christos was used to translate the Hebrew word for messiah.

Messiah means one who is anointed.

So there never was a name Christ, but a word christos.

If anything, he would have been Jesus christos. Jesus the anointed one, Jesus the messiah or a slave called Jesus.

Christ means messiah, when using "the Christ" it is an obvious inference about "the messiah"...

Not to mention...

Christ
[krīst]
NOUN

the title, also treated as a name, given to Jesus of Nazareth (see Jesus).

EXCLAMATION

an oath used to express irritation, dismay, or surprise.

www.bing.com...

Another member trying to twist facts...

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: TerryDon79

Yeah, no.

Christianity comes from the Greek word Christianos.

Christianos means follower of christos.

Christos means anointed one with an ending meaning belonging to or adhering to.

Christos was used to translate the Hebrew word for messiah.

Messiah means one who is anointed.

So there never was a name Christ, but a word christos.

If anything, he would have been Jesus christos. Jesus the anointed one, Jesus the messiah or a slave called Jesus.

Christ means messiah, when using "the Christ" it is an obvious inference about "the messiah"...

Another member trying to twist facts...

How was what I said twisting anything?

You're just another angry Christian following the way of Paul. Like most Christians.

Read my post above. BTW, now you are trying to claim "I am an angry Christian" for pointing out your fallacious argument which in fact proved my point?... lol.

And following the way of Paul huh?... Let's try to refresh your memory angry pagan.

Paul the Apostle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Paul of Tarsus)
"Saint Paul" redirects here. For other uses, see Saint Paul (disambiguation).

Paul the Apostle (Latin: Paulus; Greek: Παῦλος, translit. Paulos; c. 5 – c. 67), commonly known as Saint Paul and also known by his native name Saul of Tarsus (Hebrew: שאול התרסי‎, translit. Sha'ul ha-Tarsi‎; Greek: Σαῦλος Ταρσεύς, translit. Saulos Tarseus),[4][5][6] was an apostle (though not one of the Twelve Apostles) who taught the gospel of the Christ to the first century world.
...

en.wikipedia.org...

So, do you understand now that Paul was teaching the gospel of Jesus, or are you once again going to try to twist facts?