Is Trinity in the Bible?

[Popeyesays]

Are you being fecetious? Cause I can't tell......

The idea that the Trinity was invented at Nicea is so dubious that it's hard to take serious.

Before Nicaea it was one of several competing theological points of view. The Council decided which of those theological points of view might be accepted and which might constitute heresy.

The decision was often based on political in-fighting rather than the fine points of theology.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Quiddity]

Before Nicaea it was one of several competing theological points of view. The Council decided which of those theological points of view might be accepted and which might constitute heresy.

The decision was often based on political in-fighting rather than the fine points of theology.

Regards,
Scott

Constantine wasn't calling a Council because he knew there were competing factions, but rather because he knew there were movements that were springing up within the walls of Christendom. This is perhaps where we differ. Your bias looks into history, spots variations, and thinks it’s made a discovery of just how unstable and diverse Christendom really was. Where as we see variations as different movements arising from within our own walls or from a close proximity from the very beginning (I don’t know how any sincere historian can’t see this). There was no such thing as "denominations" as you seem to imply.

 

[Francine]

Before Nicaea it was one of several competing theological points of view. The Council decided which of those theological points of view might be accepted and which might constitute heresy.

Before the Council of Jerusalem (recorded in the book of Acts), there were competing theological points of view between the Judaizers and the Orthodox. The council admitted four points from the Judaizers and told them to pack sand on the rest. But they didn't "invent" the anti-Judaizer position, they merely made it official.

 

[Popeyesays]

Arianism in Early Christianity

by Octavian Sarbatoare (BA USyd)



"Arianism was the first of the great heresies centred, nearly all of them, upon the divine nature of Jesus Christ.6 As an attempt to rationalise the orthodox view upon the dual natures of the Christ, as being at the same time fully God and fully Man, Arianism arose as a summing up and conclusion of various movements which did not accept the full mystery of the dual natures of Jesus.7 But, Arianism was not heretical in the sense of denying the basic tenets of Christianity; it was willing to grant Jesus every kind of honour short of full divine nature of the Godhead.8 As we shall see further down the track of our study, Arianism has significant doctrinal substance. This notable feature made this Christian heresy of the Early Christianity establishment a real doctrinal threat in the sense of replacing the strong orthodox views upon the Father - the Son consubstantiality. The Alexandrian priest Arius (c.250-c.336) was the chief proponent of this early Christian heresy.
It is believed that the new Christian theological development, which later on became known as Arianism, was initially articulated by Arius's teacher Lucian of Antioch (according to historians).9 Arius became a promoter of a doctrine that created much theological disturbances, both in the West and the East, for its more rationalistic views into the issues of the natures of God and his Christian Son Jesus, and their intrinsic spiritual relation.

Arius's work of bringing forth a new doctrine became apparent a decade before 319 CE, the year in which he published his ideas10 in a work known as Thalia (The Banquet), that was a summary of his doctrine.11 Thalia as composite work did not survive to the present days. It is believed that Arius as priest became frustrated with the doctrinal ideas of his Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, who was supported by Athanasius (296-373) in the key ideas of consubstantiality of the Father and the Son.

According to it, the Son is present in the Father without birth (agennetos), he was ever-begotten (aeigenes), and is unbegotten-begotten (agennetogene). But, Arius' logical assumption was that a father must somehow precede his son, such an inference leading to the idea that the Son has a beginning of his existence.12 As Arius puts it in one of the surviving letters known as Arrii ad Eusebium ('Arius to Eusebius'), the Son 'before being united or created or defined or established, He was not.' (Latin: antequam genitus esset aut creatus vel definitus aut fundatus, non fuit.).13 As we have mentioned already, Arius' main writing Thalia did not survive, but his ideas could be deduced from what his opponents refuted concerning Arianism.14

In Arius' thought were present some ideas formulated already by Origen (c.185-c.254) earlier, but Arius articulated the concept of the Father - the Son relation in his own deductive way. Basically, Arius emphasised upon the Father as the first and the unique absolute principle of divinity. As a logical consequence, any other divine reality, namely Jesus Christ as Son of God in particular, is secondary to the Father. According to Arius, the Son became created, so that he has a beginning in time just as the Word of God has been as instrument of the divine plan of creation. It follows logically that the Son is not eternal as the Father, because he is generated by the Father, and consequently has a subordinate position.15 Such kinds of theological matters became subject to great scholarly debates in which the Alexandrian priest Athanasius was a leading proponent. A collection of writings known as The Orations of St. Athanasius Against the Arians (TOI AGIOI ATHANASIOI KATA AREIANON LOGOI) consists of four discourses in which Athanasius makes clear his position against the Arians by criticising Arius' ideas from his work Thalia.16 Most relevant to mention are the extracts from the Thalia of Arius17 in Discourse I.5, those ideas that Athanasius criticises. We learn Arius' main ideas thus: 1. God was not always a Father; 2. Once God was alone and not yet a Father, but afterwards He became a Father; 3. The Son was not always; 4. The Son had an origin of creation; 5. Once God was alone, and the Word as yet was not, nor the Wisdom.18 Furthermore we learn more in detail about Arius's ideas from Athanasius's critique thus:

Arius dares to say that the Word is not the true God. When He is called God, he says, it is only a figure of speech, referring to the privileges He is endowed with by God. All things connected with Him are distinct and separate from the Father. The Son has to do with created things and persons, of whom He is one. And he proceeds to assert, with devilish arguments, that the Father is invisible to the Son, and that the Son is incapable of a true and perfect knowledge of the Father.19

Jesus Christ's limitations as human being, which were emphasised by Arius in his Thalia, are criticised by Athanasius thus:

When the Son is said to know and behold Him, it is only meant that He does so as far as He has the capacity to do so, just as we imperfectly apprehend Him. Through this deficiency the Son is not only ignorant of the nature of the Father, but of his own.20

 

[Dirty Penguin]

John 20:28 is borderline: Thomas' "My Lord and my God" could be taken to be directed to Jesus (i.e. "Jesus, you are my Lord and my God"). However, it could also be taken to just be an exclamation (like "oh my goodness") or an expression of something else (e.g. "behold the power of God").

The later is the case. There are scholars that have translated that verse with an esclamation mark. Now it is evident that the KJV and a few others don't. The RSV list this verse with an esclamation mark at the end. I use the RSV amongst others but this version was translation by 32 scholars of the highest eminence and backed by 50 cooperating denominations. They were all christians. Now if there is a problem with what they did it's not from me. If it is trinitarians that have a problem with other christian scholars that have translated it with that mark then it may be on then to debate that with their bretheren.....Additionally they may have to show why that mark should not be there.

To find out if his followers really thought him to be God just look at the scriptures......


His Mother nor Followers thought he was God
Luke 2:22
And when the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord

Should we assume that his own mother believed him to be God? She had been told of the coming of Yeshua and informed that even though she had not been with her husband she would conceive. Out of all this important info he was giving her did the angel neglect to inform her she was also giving birth to God? In the RSV and a few other bibles it says "their purification". I've noticed the KJV only list it as (her perification). I'm not exactly sure why they did that. They could have just as well used (their) but maybe the translators of the KJV thought that it didn't fit with their trinitarian view. Now, if Yeshua was God who were they bringing him to be presented to?


John 11:22
But I know, that even now, whatever you will ask of God, God will give you.

Are we to assume that Martha thought Yeshua was God in the above quote? She didn't. The context above is the actions of Yeshua requesting something that he did not posses. So there is no way that this follower thought him to be God. She clearly separates the two.

Matthew
16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16:16 And Simon Kepha answered and said, Thou art the Messiah, the Son of the living God.

Yeshua is the one asking the question here. Simon DID NOT take him to be God. He called him the son of the living God (their god). In the next verse (16:17) Yeshua tells Simon that this was something that was revealed to Simon from God in heaven. This verse serves two purposes. His followers did not think he was God nor did Yeshua view himself as God.




Yeshua did not believe of teach he was God

John6:38
For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

Some say God and Yeshua do not have separate wills but as you can see Yeshua said otherwise.


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.

Well this one is self explanatory. Yeshua has a god. Some say this is Yeshua speaking as a human......PLEASE!!!!!!!......There is no evidence in the scripture to support such conjecture. It appears that everytime Yeshua prays, talks to his god etc... some one tells us this is the human talking to God....but everything else is God and not Yeshua....That is utter nonsense and faulty reasoning. Everything Yeshua did was because his god gave him the power to do so.

John 12:49
For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.

12:50
And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.


So hold up....God commanded Yeshua what to say, talked to Yeshua, taught him the doctrine and sent him into the world to spread this word?????? Where in all of this does it prove Yeshua is God. In order to be sent there must be a sender. In order to be commanded there must be a commander. In order to be given there must be a giver. That is "Common Sense"........


John 13:16
Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his master; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.

Well it goes without saying that Yeshua said he was sent. He calls himself the servant and that he was not greater than his master who sent him. How do we know Yeshua has a master? well observe HIS PRAYER........

Matthew 11:25
At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank you, O Father, Master of heaven and earth, because you have hid these things from the wise and prudent, and have revealed them to babes.

 

[Popeyesays]

Constantine wasn't calling a Council because he knew there were competing factions, but rather because he knew there were movements that were springing up within the walls of Christendom. This is perhaps where we differ. Your bias looks into history, spots variations, and thinks it’s made a discovery of just how unstable and diverse Christendom really was. Where as we see variations as different movements arising from within our own walls or from a close proximity from the very beginning (I don’t know how any sincere historian can’t see this). There was no such thing as "denominations" as you seem to imply.

There was no such thing as Protestantism until Luther, of course; but extreme arguments within the church often ended bloodily by someone wearing the heretic's crown and paying for it.

Calling one disagreement the Reformation and another a Heresy does not argume against there being "denominations" within the Church pre-Luther. The Church authorities were very disinterested in compromise as a general rule.

Regards,
Scott

 

[sojourner]

As official doctrine it was invented at Nicaea.

Tertullian's view was hotly disputed by Athanasius, Arius and others.

Regards,
Scott

Arius was considered heretic, too. "Official doctrine" does not = theology, as it was accepted, obviously since the 2nd century, over 100 years before Nicea.

 

[sojourner]

100% man and 100% God
There is no proof of this concept in the four gospels. It is speculation at best.

Yeshua gave up his power before coming here
There is not proof of this theory in the four gospels. The gospels show he did have power and it shows his power was given to him by his god.

The four gospels reveal Yeshua to be God
This "proof" is not in any of the four gospels. Yeshua says otherwise.

His followers believed he was God
This is incorrect. NONE of them thought him to be God. They called him son of God or son of the living God. (emphasis on the "of" or "of the").

Hmm. Philippians 2 would seem to refute that.

Hmm. Philippians 2 would seem to refute that, too.

Jesus says otherwise, because the fully human Jesus (which was the one the disciples knew -- remember, Jesus said, "Have you been with me all this time, and still you do not know me? He who has seen me has seen the Father") was not to be worshiped.

That's right. Jesus, himself, claims that they do not know him.

 

[Popeyesays]

Arius was considered heretic, too. "Official doctrine" does not = theology, as it was accepted, obviously since the 2nd century, over 100 years before Nicea.

From Wikipedia:
"
Arius (AD ca. 250 or 256 - 336) was a Christian priest in Alexandria, Egypt in the early fourth century. In about the year 318, he was involved in a dispute with his bishop, Alexander of Alexandria, maintaining against him that the Son of God was not consubstantial or coeternal with God the Father, but that there was once a time, before he was begotten, that he did not exist. Arius, with a following of other priests, was excommunicated, but debate continued throughout the Eastern Roman Empire. Many bishops, particularly those who studied under Lucian of Antioch, agreed with Arius. By the time Constantine took over the East in 324, debate was fierce, with various councils condemning and approving Arius's views on the Son.[citation needed]
Constantine summoned the Council of Nicaea in 325. The Council condemned Arius’s teaching, exiling him. Arius was recalled within a few years, and seems to have spent the rest of his life trying to be readmitted to communion in Alexandria; Athanasius seems to have frustrated his efforts. Just as Arius was to be readmitted to communion in Constantinople in 336, he is said to have died suddenly. Several scholarly studies suggest that Arius was poisoned by his opponents.[1]
The controversy was far from over, and would not be settled for decades to come (continuing later into the West as well). Those who agreed that the Son was not consubstantial were already at that time being labeled “Arians”, especially by Athanasius of Alexandria, and the name Arianism remains the descriptor of this teaching. The naming is incidental, as Arius’ role was only to ignite the controversy. The issue of the Son’s relationship to the Father had been discussed before in church history, only never so fervently and universally. Other “Arians” like Eusebius of Nicomedia and Eusebius of Caesarea were much more influential. In fact, some later "Arians" disavowed the name, claiming not to have been familiar with Arius. Nonetheless, Arius' (and his bishop's) stubborn insistence had brought the issue to the theological forefront, and so it is labeled as his."



Regards,
Scott

 

[Popeyesays]

And the debates continued with Nestor in the fifth century:
(from Wikipedia)

"
Nestorianism is the doctrine that Jesus exists as two persons, the man Jesus and the divine Son of God, or Logos, rather than as a unified person. This doctrine is identified with Nestorius (c. 386–c. 451), Archbishop of Constantinople. This view of Christ was condemned at the Council of Ephesus in 431, and the conflict over this view led to the Nestorian schism, separating the Assyrian Church of the East from the Byzantine Church.
The Assyrian Church of the East refused to drop support for Nestorius or to denounce him as a heretic. That church has continued to be called "Nestorian" in the West, to distinguish it from other ancient Eastern churches. However, the Church of the East does not regard its doctrine as truly Nestorian: it teaches the view of Babai the Great - Christ has two qnome (essences) that are unmingled and eternally united in one parsopa (personality). According to some interpretations, the origin of this belief is mostly historical and linguistic: for example, the Greeks had two words for 'person', which translated poorly into Syriac, and the meanings of these terms were not even quite settled during Nestorius's lifetime.
Nestorianism originated in the Church in the 5th century out of an attempt to rationally explain and understand the incarnation of the divine Logos, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity as the man Jesus Christ. Nestorianism taught that the human and divine essences of Christ are separate and that there are two persons, the man Jesus Christ and the divine Logos, which dwelt in the man. In consequence, Nestorians rejected such terminology as "God suffered" or "God was crucified", because the humanity of Jesus Christ which suffered is separate from his divinity. Likewise, they rejected the term Theotokos (Giver of birth to God/Mother of God) as a title of the Virgin Mary, suggesting instead the title Christotokos (Giver of birth to Christ/Mother of Christ), because in their view Mary gave birth to only the human person of Jesus and not the divine."



Regards,
Scott

 

[sojourner]

So? None of this refutes anything I posted.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Hmm. Philippians 2 would seem to refute that.

Hmm. Philippians 2 would seem to refute that, too.

You misunderstood me. Trinitarians have placed a percentage out there. Where in the 4 gospels do we find such a calcualtion. I dealt with the gospels because that "record" is what is referred to, to determine if his followers around him thought that or if he taught his followers that. So far there has been nothing gathered from the 4 gospels to show this. The only thing that has been offered up is the opinions of those who never met Yeshua or heard him speak.

Jesus says otherwise, because the fully human Jesus (which was the one the disciples knew -- remember, Jesus said, "Have you been with me all this time, and still you do not know me? He who has seen me has seen the Father") was not to be worshiped.

Surely no man can see God and live. Yeshua, who was God's representative (his ambassador) was here on authority by his god, the one that sent him. They wanted instant gratification. This chapter speaks of them being one in purpose as observed by 14:20. His previous statements was not that he was God but his god aided him and the things he did were by the permission of his god.

John 14:20
At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

He basically repeats this later in chapter 17 in his prayer to his god confirming they are one in purpose as we are to be as well.

Then we have Yeshua saying he and his god will perform a function or service, if you will.

John 14:23
Yeshua answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and (WE) will come unto him, and make our home with him

Surely if Yeshua AND God are one there is no need for such a redundant statement (WE will come). No. Yeshua is showing that they not one in the same but rather "their" purpose is one in the same.

John 14:26
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name,

He clearly separates himself from his god in the gospels. The only thing that eqautes him with his god are the opinions Paul and others.

 

[sojourner]

You misunderstood me. Trinitarians have placed a percentage out there. Where in the 4 gospels do we find such a calcualtion. I dealt with the gospels because that "record" is what is referred to, to determine if his followers around him thought that or if he taught his followers that. So far there has been nothing gathered from the 4 gospels to show this. The only thing that has been offered up is the opinions of those who never met Yeshua or heard him speak.

Two things: First of all, not even the gospel writers knew Jesus or heard him speak. They really are no more "reliable," in that sense, than the writers of the epistles.

Second, Christianity is not a religion that is driven by eyewitness fact. It's a revealed religion. Jesus tells Peter, upon his confession, "Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but the Father in heaven. He further tells Thomas (when thomas proclaims him as God), at his first post-resurrection appearance, "Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believe."

I think "opinion" is the wrong term. "Opinion" does not drive the Church, either. "Opinion" and "revelation" are entirely different things.

 

[Quiddity]

There was no such thing as Protestantism until Luther, of course; but extreme arguments within the church often ended bloodily by someone wearing the heretic's crown and paying for it.

Calling one disagreement the Reformation and another a Heresy does not argume against there being "denominations" within the Church pre-Luther. The Church authorities were very disinterested in compromise as a general rule.

Regards,
Scott

You misunderstand the nuances behind what developed Protestantism and the heresies prior. Many of the early heresies were infiltrated into the Church and they weren't as easy to spot as Luther's clear objection. They walked, talked, and quacked just like Catholics. It was just a whole different set of circumstances.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Two things: First of all, not even the gospel writers knew Jesus or heard him speak. They really are no more "reliable," in that sense, than the writers of the epistles.

I agree to a point here. The gospel of Mark is often cited as the forerunner for the other gospels. Some say that other gospels actually copied/borrowed from Mark. Luke in his gospels reavel that he gathered his information from those who say they were eyewitnesses.

Second, Christianity is not a religion that is driven by eyewitness fact. It's a revealed religion.

Never really knew of any religion out there that heavily relied on eyewitness accounts. Heck, the same can be said for Islam, Mormonism etc.....But I don't see christians running out to get their hands on a quran or BOM. Additionally christianity on a whole is not in question only the sects of christianity that subscribes to trinity.

Jesus tells Peter, upon his confession, "Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but the Father in heaven.

Don't forget now that the confession was that he thought Yeshua to be the son OF the living God....Not God incarnate.

He further tells Thomas (when thomas proclaims him as God), at his first post-resurrection appearance, "Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believe."

Are we back to that verse again?.....A few bibles translate it with the exclamation mark and a few don't. As I gaze upon the RSV...they do....Now if trinitarians take issue with the way their christian breatheren has translated that verse then they need to take it up with them. He didn't proclaim Yeshua to be God. The context of the verse talks about an unbelieving Thomas being surprised when Yeshua offers him evidence but I can see how you would interpret it that way.

 

[sojourner]

Additionally christianity on a whole is not in question only the sects of christianity that subscribes to trinity.

You're talking about a vast majority of Christian people, both today and throught the history of the faith -- virtually all of Christianity.

Don't forget now that the confession was that he thought Yeshua to be the son OF the living God....Not God incarnate.

Peter first called Jesus the Messiah, which, to the first century Jews, was a Divine person. For purposes of our argument of revelation, the passage is still compelling.

Are we back to that verse again?.....A few bibles translate it with the exclamation mark and a few don't. As I gaze upon the RSV...they do....Now if trinitarians take issue with the way their christian breatheren has translated that verse then they need to take it up with them. He didn't proclaim Yeshua to be God. The context of the verse talks about an unbelieving Thomas being surprised when Yeshua offers him evidence but I can see how you would interpret it that way.

Again, still compelling for purposes of our revelation argument. Also, the passage says, "My Lord and my God!" Not, "My God! It's my Lord!" A first century Jew wouldn't have used an expletive like this. Further, upon that exclamation, Jesus says, "Have you believed...," making it clear that what Thomas said was a statement of belief, not an expletive.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You're talking about a vast majority of Christian people, both today and throught the history of the faith -- virtually all of Christianity.

So what's the point? The fact that there are many sects that believe Yeshua is part of a trinity doesn't make it truth. You recently commented on a mormon thread...they call themselves christian. Not only do they have a "companion" to the bible they say they believe in the Messiah as well. Just because they believe what they do doesn't make it truth as evident in your post to them. But we can't deny that there are a lot of christians, i'm not just talking about in the US, that do not believe Yeshua to be God. So for the purpose of this discussion I'm only talking about trinitarians.

Peter first called Jesus the Messiah, which, to the first century Jews, was a Divine person. For purposes of our argument of revelation, the passage is still compelling.

And again, that's not a problem for me that they viewed the coming of the messiah as a divine person but they never believed the messiah as God. Ask any Jew if the messiah they believe to come will be God incarnate and I'm quite sure you will get a stern NO....

What's most compelling is not that he thought Yeshua to be the messiah but for the purpose of this discussion we do not see him believing for one moment he thought Yeshua was God. He rightfully called Yeshua the son OF God...meaning he was not God.

16:16 And Simon Kepha answered and said, Thou art the Messiah, the Son of the living God.

Again, still compelling for purposes of our revelation argument. Also, the passage says, "My Lord and my God!" Not, "My God! It's my Lord!" A first century Jew wouldn't have used an expletive like this. Further, upon that exclamation, Jesus says, "Have you believed...," making it clear that what Thomas said was a statement of belief, not an expletive.

We shall agree to disagree on that quote because it really does not indicate he thought Yeshua was God. You think that expletive is taking God's name in vain some how? It's not even remotely close. Yeshua supposedly said "my god, my god, whay have you left me?" Do you think after beaing beaten, starved of food and water, made to carry his own cross, tied AND nailed to a cross and left in the hot baking sun that he was being very calm when he made that epletive??? Yeshua let out his cry because he was in pain and he rightfully called out to his god because of the situation he was in. Thomas made that statement after finally believing Yeshua was alive. At first he held his position that no matter what the brothers said he would except what they said until he saw Yeshua. When Yeshua appears to them he tells Thomas......."touch my hand"....and "touch my side"...."stop doubting and believe"........after Thomas did that he exclaimed "my lord and my god!"......He finally recognized and acknowledged that this was truly Yeshua who he loved standing in front of him in the flesh. He thought Yeshua was dead and was shocked to see him standing there and alive. Yeshua says to him "because you have SEEN me you now believe. He, seeing Yeshua believed he was alive. He was surprised by this. (I don't) think that if they truly believed he was God then with God by their side they wouldn't have fled days earlier when Yeshua was being arrested.

Luke 24:19
........."Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, .........

They never saw him as God either before or after his supposed crucifixion.

Here was something interesting I found....
I do not affirm that Thomas passed all at once from the extreme of doubt to the highest degree of faith, and acknowledged Christ to be the true God. This appears to me too much for the then existing knowledge of the disciples; and we have no intimation that they recognized the divine nature of Christ before the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. I am therefore inclined to understand this expression, which broke out in the height of his astonishment, in a figurative sense, denoting only “whom I shall ever reverence in the highest degree”…Or a person raised from the dead might be regarded as a divinity; for the word God is not always used in the strict doctrinal sense” (Concessions of Trinitarians, pp. 23-25, cited)

Some trinitarians get the picture......Ahhh...refreshing....:drool:

 

[sojourner]

So what's the point?...So for the purpose of this discussion I'm only talking about trinitarians.

Additionally christianity on a whole is not in question only the sects of christianity that subscribes to trinity.

The point is that you are talking, virtually, about Christianity as a whole.

And again, that's not a problem for me that they viewed the coming of the messiah as a divine person but they never believed the messiah as God. Ask any Jew if the messiah they believe to come will be God incarnate and I'm quite sure you will get a stern NO....

The problem is that the writers of the gospel accounts were not strictly Jewish. They would have, by that time already, have developed at least a rudimentary Christology.

What's most compelling is not that he thought Yeshua to be the messiah but for the purpose of this discussion we do not see him believing for one moment he thought Yeshua was God. He rightfully called Yeshua the son OF God...meaning he was not God.

I think we do see that. Regardless, the argument for which the passage is compelling is the argument, not of eyewitness proof (as I originally stated), but of revelation. The passage is still compelling.

We shall agree to disagree on that quote because it really does not indicate he thought Yeshua was God. You think that expletive is taking God's name in vain some how? It's not even remotely close. Yeshua supposedly said "my god, my god, whay have you left me?" Do you think after beaing beaten, starved of food and water, made to carry his own cross, tied AND nailed to a cross and left in the hot baking sun that he was being very calm when he made that epletive??? Yeshua let out his cry because he was in pain and he rightfully called out to his god because of the situation he was in. Thomas made that statement after finally believing Yeshua was alive. At first he held his position that no matter what the brothers said he would except what they said until he saw Yeshua. When Yeshua appears to them he tells Thomas......."touch my hand"....and "touch my side"...."stop doubting and believe"........after Thomas did that he exclaimed "my lord and my god!"......He finally recognized and acknowledged that this was truly Yeshua who he loved standing in front of him in the flesh. He thought Yeshua was dead and was shocked to see him standing there and alive. Yeshua says to him "because you have SEEN me you now believe. He, seeing Yeshua believed he was alive. He was surprised by this. (I don't) think that if they truly believed he was God then with God by their side they wouldn't have fled days earlier when Yeshua was being arrested.

I think your argument with regard to the expletive is eisegetical in nature.

They never saw him as God either before or after his supposed crucifixion.

Who is "they?" At some point, some Church leader saw it that way. When do you suppose that happened?

and we have no intimation that they recognized the divine nature of Christ before the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

Unsupported conjecture on your part. We do have intimation that they were beginning to recognize the Divine nature of Christ, while he was yet with them.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The point is that you are talking, virtually, about Christianity as a whole.

I've talked to plenty of Mormons who consider themselves christians as well as JWs and NO....they do not believe Yeshua is God. There are other christians on this forum who just list christian under their title and a lot of them don't think Yeshua is God. I am NOT talking about ALL of christianity because christianity on a WHOLE do not believe Jesus is God. I give you that alot of christians do but not all.

The problem is that the writers of the gospel accounts were not strictly Jewish. They would have, by that time already, have developed at least a rudimentary Christology.

I can agree with that. Luke is a prime example of that. But that still doesn't mean that Yeshua in the gospels said he was God, equated himself with God or any of the followers thought him to be God. We have no problem making out what the writer believed or what the writer reported. Again, Luke is a prime example because declares that his information came from those who were eyewitnesses.

I think we do see that. Regardless, the argument for which the passage is compelling is the argument, not of eyewitness proof (as I originally stated), but of revelation. The passage is still compelling.

Compelling? Yes...but to what degree? It was no mystery they called him "The Messiah." That title can be found numerous times throughout the four gospels. That's not in question at all. What's in question is, is he God which would make him part of a trinity? Looking at the beginning of Simon's answer is trivial to this discussion. The latter part of his answer is the meat. Yeshua is the son OF God. He did not see Yeshua as God or God in the flesh.

I think your argument with regard to the expletive is eisegetical in nature.

Really?....and you're NOT interpreting that to mean he IS God?....given the context of what was going on Thomas was merely surprised and astounded that his beloved friend was alive and with them. The last thing he knew was his friend was crucified and laid to rest in a tomb. To think that his friends would come to him and say they saw the Messiah he just couldn't believe it. He had to see it with his own eyes. This didn't just happen all in one day. Thomas had eight days to reason that this was not true then when Yeshua appeared to then and told Thomas to touch his hands and to touch his side this is when he actually believed. Yeshua says to him "Because you see me you now believe". That's all that's there. At first you didn't believe and because I have shown myself to you and you see me and can physically touch me you now believe that I am alive. What he said was not takig God's name in vain or an act of cursing God. There are other places in the scripture where people were in grief etc and call out to God. That exclaimation he made was jut one of many that can be found in scripture.

Who is "they?"

Luke 24:12 Kepha
Luke 24:18 Clepas

"They" as it is stated in 24:19. .....And they said unto him, Concerning Yeshua of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before Elohim and all the people:

At some point, some Church leader saw it that way. When do you suppose that happened?

Not really my concern. The scriptures reveal him not to be God and no one thought him to be God.

Unsupported conjecture on your part. We do have intimation that they were beginning to recognize the Divine nature of Christ, while he was yet with them.

Well this is not my statement. That was a quote from another trinitarian.

 

[Popeyesays]

I agree that Paul was "inventing" the doctrine that Jesus was Goad, but I do not believe that was a revelation from God, but rather an invention on Paul's part--a simple over-enthusiasm.

Regards,
Scott