Did Jesus Claim to be God? ..Yes..a lot.

[neo1234]

I am posting this by popular request.

This is just an example of a reply I got in another thread:

Originally Posted by SilverWolf

I dont understad why you are so sure that Jesus was God Incarnate. This would imply that |God came down to earth in a mans body. But doesnt Jesus talk about himself as seperate from God. He prays to god and says that the father is much greater than he is. Furthermore I cant find any quotes from the bible where Jesus says directly that he is God. I dont mean to sound confrontational but i was just wondering if you could tell me why you are so sure that Jesus was God incarnate?

This is a podcast that answers all those questions and more:

NTR - Did Jesus Claim to be God? ..Yes..a lot.

You can listen to it in your browser, or download it as an mp3 file, whichever you prefer.

Quote from the description of this podcast episode:

Did Jesus ever say he was God? was Jesus God? was the messiah supposed to be God? what did the apostles think? could it have been an idea added later?

I also answer questions like:
Why did jesus pray to the father?
Why didnt they name Jesus Immanuel?
why did Jesus say "By Myself I can do nothing." if he was God?
Why did Jesus say My God my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
what about the I AM sayings of Jesus?

The podcast show is documented with links to references and other informatoin on the subject, for those that want to look into it more.

[Later edit:] BTW, Jesus did not say that we are all god, or gods.

.

[joelr]

In the Thomas Gospel he did imply we are all Gods.

That podcast doesn't "prove" anything. It's highly interpretive - meaning the conclusions they draw are just one possible truth.
One of the speakers even used the "Q" Gospel to prove his idea that the quotes he was using were the actual words of Jesus. But the crux of the Q Gospel is that Jesus was NOT a godlike being, the supernatural aspects were added way after the time of Jesus. So if Q is correct (which he assumes it is) that negates his whole point!? Completely!! That guys speech is the cornerstone of the whole program and he just acknowledges that Q is correct.
I can't prove Q to be accurate of course but it's VERY anti modern Christian. Why would he use it as a reference?

Besides the fact that no one HAS to believe the 4 gospels that were put together in 4AD are the ultimate last word on Jesus.

They also left out any evidence from the Gospels that he was not actually God but the son of God, like: John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

There are many more. So did Jesus claim to be not actually God...yes a lot.

Point is you cannot form a historical argument that %100 proves that thesis.
You can believe it with faith or find ways to support the idea in the Gospels but there are always counter points. In fact some of those interpretations are really a stretch.
Although why does it matter? Son of God, God, why does that matter?

[songwriter]

anyway if we hold the belief that Jesus (or anyone) was always right (that's a religion) there's nothing we can discuss...

like in some people minds something like "he said he was God/the son of the God, SO he was"

We also would have to believe the Earth is flat and hundreds of similar things, I'm not with that really. I just see as any other philosopher. Aren't we all sons of God/source/consciousness? I guess he meant more that. Like "the kingdom of God in inside you". We're all God, as God is everything.

[newsbone]

Originally Posted by joelr

In the Thomas Gospel he did imply we are all Gods.

In the gospel according to John,

Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods? If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken”
John 10:34, 35.

He borrowed these verses from the book of Psalms the Almighty God said,
"I said, 'You are "gods";
you are all sons of the Most High. Psalms 82:6

So man being a god is not only unique to the ‘Thomas Gospel’

Originally Posted by joelr

They also left out any evidence from the Gospels that he was not actually God but the son of God, like: John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

This does not prove that he wasn’t a god either just that his father is greater. “I am a cop but the sergeant is greater than I”

Now compare it to this;
"You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!" "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "Before Abraham was born, I am!" John 8: 57, 58.
Abraham was the father of the Jewish and Arabic nations.
And Jesus affirms;
I and the Father are one." John 10:30.

Originally Posted by joelr

There are many more. So did Jesus claim to be not actually God...yes a lot.?

Not a single one that I know, he only wanted to draw a parallel between him and the father.

Originally Posted by joelr

Although why does it matter? Son of God, God, why does that matter?

Yes it does matter Joelr, yes it does.

[newsbone]

Originally Posted by songwriter

. I just see as any other philosopher. Aren't we all sons of God/source/consciousness? I guess he meant more that. Like "the kingdom of God in inside you". We're all God, as God is everything.

Not according to the Bible songwriter may be the other gods but not the Judeo-Christian God for the Bible clearly says;

He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God. John 1: 10-13

There are specific expectations that must be met for one to qualify to be a SON of GOD, we choose to be via a committed and dedicated obedience.

[songwriter]

Originally Posted by newsbone

Not according to the Bible songwriter may be the other gods but not the Judeo-Christian God for the Bible clearly says;

He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God. John 1: 10-13

There are specific expectations that must be met for one to qualify to be a SON of GOD, we choose to be via a committed and dedicated obedience.

well, cause you hold the belief that the Bible is always right, I guess.
I don't. I see the Bible as just another book. With some wrongs and rights.
So there's nothing people like me can discuss about it with people like you.
You're vision of reality is the one on that book.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by neo1234

BTW, Jesus did not say that we are all god, or gods.

.

Except in John 10:34, which I was going to post here but saw that someone beat me to it.

[joelr]

Originally Posted by newsbone

Not a single one that I know, he only wanted to draw a parallel between him and the father.

Oh. I shall show them to you.
Have shortened them for obvious reasons.

Matthew 19:17, Mark 10:18
And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34
My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Mark 16:19
So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

John 8:40
But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God.

John 14:28
My Father is greater than I.

John 20:17
I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Acts 17:31
Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

1 Corinthians 11:3
The head of Christ is God.

1 Corinthians 15:28
And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Colossians 3:1
Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.

1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

Originally Posted by newsbone

Yes it does matter Joelr, yes it does.

Ok but I'm looking for neo1234s answer.





"And Jesus affirms;
I and the Father are one." John 10:30."


But he also said as you pointed out we are all Gods. If we understand that to mean Gods who are "separate" from the actual God we can easily assume Jesus is also separate and not actually "God".
I think the logic is sound.

[newsbone]

Originally Posted by songwriter

well, cause you hold the belief that the Bible is always right, I guess. .

Yes that is me but it does not close my mind to other suggestions and discussions

Originally Posted by songwriter

I don't. I see the Bible as just another book. With some wrongs and rights.
So there's nothing people like me can discuss about it with people like you.
You're vision of reality is the one on that book.

Where is your vision of reality?

[MillenniumMike]

When the Roman Empire adopted Christianity, there were three denominations trinitarians, Gnostics, and Arians. Gnostics were in the middle east and closely related to Zoroastrianism, the Trinitarians and Arians were the ones really fighting it out in Rome. Trinitarians argued that God, Holy Spirit, and Jesus were one and the Arians disagreed. It eventually came to a vote arbitered by pagan Romans, the Trinitarians won and the Catholic Church was created and the exposed Arians were killed by the Praetorian Guard or Urban Cohorts.

[newsbone]

Originally Posted by joelr

But he also said as you pointed out we are all Gods. If we understand that to mean Gods who are "separate" from the actual God we can easily assume Jesus is also separate and not actually "God".
I think the logic is sound.

No he is actually God but separate from the Father! The point is that Jesus never said that he was not God! Jehovah and Jesus both are God except that one is superior to the other, and the following verses I believe strongly support my view.

God is spirit and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth. John 4:24

He (Jesus) is the image of the invisible God, Colossians 1:15.

"In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like (Jesus) a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days (Jehovah) and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed”. Daniel 7:13, 14.

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Isaiah 9: 6.

All the above verses I think prove the separate but eligibility of the Godhood of Jesus, at least Biblically speaking.

[newsbone]

Originally Posted by MillenniumMike

When the Roman Empire adopted Christianity, there were three denominations trinitarians, Gnostics, and Arians..

Was the Apostle Paul a Trinitarian, Gnostic or Arian?

[rocksupreme]

Originally Posted by neo1234

The podcast show is documented with links to references and other informatoin on the subject, for those that want to look into it more.

The thing is, none of this matters. You can have a thousand people claim that a man 2000 years ago said something, but it doesn't prove anything. Especially considering the utter lack of academic rigor that passes in religious study these days.

Using modern linguistic analysis ("Why did he say X?" or "Why didn't they call him Y?") has zero veracity. These things were said in languages and cultures that we are not able to experience (not the mention the multiple translations through the centuries). People who attempt this kind of reasoning have almost never learned a foreign language (because doing so teaches you very quickly that translation is almost never totally accurate).

Why does it matter anyway? You're free to believe what you want, but trying to prove that the Bible is a historical document or that the statements it makes can be taken for gospel (excuse the pun) is an asinine, Quixotic undertaking. A semi-literate teenager could poke any such argument full of holes.

[MillenniumMike]

I am almost certain Paul is a Trinitarian. Logically he could not be any other. The Bible was not written in a linear fashion. It was a compilation of articles passed around at the time. Corinthians is just letters Paul wrote to the city of Corinth. Lots of books were excluded from the Bible like Enoch. Arians were wiped out for the most part.

Gnostics are a unique breed of Christianity, it would be the Kabbalah of Christianity. It has much more mysticism included. One of the most interesting differences was Gnostics believe Jesus and Christ were two different beings. Jesus was a Carpenter and Christ was a spirit. Christ tricks Jesus into being nailed on the cross to display how weak the material world is. This is how Zoroastrianism and Gnosticim relate, instead of good and bad, it is a fight between the spiritual and physical.

On the linguistics post, many mistranslations are strewn throughout the King James version and all other Bibles. Some big ones are, when Jesus walks across the water, in Greek which is where it is translated from, walking on water, swimming, and walking next to the water would have the same root word. Another possible mistranslation is the Virgin Mary, Virgin and Young girl have the same root word.

Jesus is also misrepresented all the time. He is pictured as a skinny white guy with long hair. He would be a brown muscular guy with short hair. This is because he is in the middle east, he is a carpenter before heavy machinery, and long hair was looked down upon in that era.

The rabbit hole can get insanely deep. Christianity if you look at it is just a copy of the Egyptian religion. Jesus is Horus, Horus thousands of years before Christ, dies on a cross, performs miracles, resurrected after three days, and has 12 disciples.

[newsbone]

Originally Posted by rocksupreme

The thing is, none of this matters. You can have a thousand people claim that a man 2000 years ago said something, but it doesn't prove anything. Especially considering the utter lack of academic rigor that passes in religious study these days. .

A thousand people deserve to be heard just as a biased academic stand point, don’t you think so? Just because something has not passed a test to satisfy a certain aspect of curiosity does not make it wrong either!

Originally Posted by rocksupreme

These things were said in languages and cultures that we are not able to experience (not the mention the multiple translations through the centuries). People who attempt this kind of reasoning have almost never learned a foreign language (because doing so teaches you very quickly that translation is almost never totally accurate). .

You have a point there but it still does not make your argument authoritative.

Originally Posted by rocksupreme

Why does it matter anyway? You're free to believe what you want, but trying to prove that the Bible is a historical document or that the statements it makes can be taken for gospel (excuse the pun) is an asinine, Quixotic undertaking. A semi-literate teenager could poke any such argument full of holes.

The Old Testament is an authority on the Jewish history; historians can prove that it is neither stupid nor unrealistic (historically). Unless you want to say that it can not withstand modern academic rigor! As a document of faith you are at liberty to think what you want.

[newsbone]

Originally Posted by MillenniumMike

Lots of books were excluded from the Bible like Enoch. Arians were wiped out for the most part..

Yes there are a lot of insinuations on the matter of excluding some books in the Bible but does the Torah corroborate your argument? Enoch must have been part of the Old Testament, which is somehow related to the Torah.

Originally Posted by MillenniumMike

Arians were wiped out for the most part..

How did they come about? Forgive my urge to know.

Originally Posted by MillenniumMike

On the linguistics post, many mistranslations are strewn throughout the King James version and all other Bibles. Some big ones are, when Jesus walks across the water, in Greek which is where it is translated from, walking on water, swimming, and walking next to the water would have the same root word..

I think the aspect Peter invalidates most of that argument; one- Peter being a fisherman by profession must have been good at swimming, two- he would have not asked Jesus to be made to walk next to water.

Originally Posted by MillenniumMike

Another possible mistranslation is the Virgin Mary, Virgin and Young girl have the same root word. .

I consider both as true by virtue of the significance and preeminence of virginity in marriage the early Israel, don’t you think?

Originally Posted by MillenniumMike

Jesus is also misrepresented all the time. He is pictured as a skinny white guy with long hair. He would be a brown muscular guy with short hair. This is because he is in the middle east, he is a carpenter before heavy machinery, and long hair was looked down upon in that era..

I agree with you because no picture can be an exact representation of Jesus.

Originally Posted by MillenniumMike

Christianity if you look at it is just a copy of the Egyptian religion. Jesus is Horus, Horus thousands of years before Christ, dies on a cross, performs miracles, resurrected after three days, and has 12 disciples.

Food for thought!

[rocksupreme]

Originally Posted by newsbone

A thousand people deserve to be heard just as a biased academic stand point, don’t you think so?

Do they? I don't agree. I don't feel anyone deserves much of anything. You earn the right to be heard by saying things that make sense.

Just because something has not passed a test to satisfy a certain aspect of curiosity does not make it wrong either!

Nor does wanting to believe it make it right.

You have a point there but it still does not make your argument authoritative.

That's fine. I'm not claiming authority. Actually, I'm claiming that nobody can claim authority on this matter.

The Old Testament is an authority on the Jewish history; historians can prove that it is neither stupid nor unrealistic (historically). Unless you want to say that it can not withstand modern academic rigor! As a document of faith you are at liberty to think what you want.

I appreciate your permission to to think what I want - it really means a lot to me.

I'd really like to see some document where historians have authoritatively, logically proven something. It seems to me that the primary conceit of history is that we can't know for sure. We can only guess based on how we choose to interpret what evidence we choose to consider.

I do, in fact, say the the Old Testament dies not withstand academic rigor as a historical document.

[newsbone]

Originally Posted by rocksupreme

Do they? I don't agree. I don't feel anyone deserves much of anything. You earn the right to be heard by saying things that make sense.
.

Sense is relative depends with a person, for what is sensible to you might not be so to me.

Originally Posted by rocksupreme

That's fine. I'm not claiming authority. Actually, I'm claiming that nobody can claim authority on this matter. .

There is no harm in trying then if no one can be trusted for and with the truth.

Originally Posted by rocksupreme

I'd really like to see some document where historians have authoritatively, logically proven something. It seems to me that the primary conceit of history is that we can't know for sure. We can only guess based on how we choose to interpret what evidence we choose to consider. .

So nothing can be proved historically to be true; this point rubbishes all the professed evidence I have been bombarded with against the eligibility and authenticity of Christianity and the infallibility of the Bible as the Word of God. Thanks for your input!

[spacedout]

Did Jesus Claim to be God?

Today; nobody really knows what he said. I don't think they understood what he said when he said it.

[joelr]

Originally Posted by newsbone

No he is actually God but separate from the Father! The point is that Jesus never said that he was not God! Jehovah and Jesus both are God except that one is superior to the other, and the following verses I believe strongly support my view.

God is spirit and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth. John 4:24

He (Jesus) is the image of the invisible God, Colossians 1:15.

"In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like (Jesus) a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days (Jehovah) and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed”. Daniel 7:13, 14.

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Isaiah 9: 6.

All the above verses I think prove the separate but eligibility of the Godhood of Jesus, at least Biblically speaking.

But the other verses you posted in this thread give Godhood and "son of god" title to others also.

Jesus did imply he was not "the God". A separate God? That might make sense in light of mythology. How is that still mono-theism?
I know you have formulated a way to take both views, both represented in verse, and mold them. I choose to see them as inconsistencies because he is clearly God in some and others clearly not.

But the point of the thread is to provide a separateness between God/Jesus. That has been achieved. The thread creator actually has long since fled as usual. I understand that this story needs to view Jesus as some type of God like you say. I generally assume in this version of the story he is to be thought of as supernatural. Like many stories he is obviously the Demi-God figure. Still a god but not as powerful as the main God. Son of man/God. Very popular theme.
Again though, if he has Godhood, and some verses say he is not God, how do you arrive at "1 God".

[newsbone]

Originally Posted by joelr

Jesus did imply he was not "the God". A separate God? That might make sense in light of mythology. How is that still mono-theism?".

Simple! Man is in three parts the Body, the Soul and the Spirit and without one man is but a ghost. God is also in three the Father,the Son (Word of God) and the Holy Spirit (the force). The difference between the two is that while man can not live in three independent perspectives God does. Let me expand on these;

Then God said, "Let 'US' make man in our image, in 'OUR' likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
So God created man in 'HIS' own image, in the 'IMAGE OF GOD' he created him; male and female he created them. Genesis 1:26, 27.

“Let ‘US’ make” points out to more than one person and am ruling out the angels because of obvious reasons, God does not ask them before he does anything but rather directs them to (Biblically speaking). And again “OUR IMAGE” then “IN HIS OWN IMAGE”, why does God recognize himself as ‘more than one but acts as one?’ this I think is the more reason the phrase ‘TRINITY’ was coined. These verses also in a way attest my point:

The LORD appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. Abraham looked up and saw ‘THREE’ men standing nearby. Genesis 18:1, 2.

But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let ‘US’ go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other. Genesis 11: 5-7.

Originally Posted by joelr

Still a god but not as powerful as the main God. Son of man/God. Very popular theme.
.

‘It is evident that man in his limitations cannot climb to God then God must somehow stoop to man’ Plato.

[cylon]

WAY TOO COMPLICATED. Good lord (pun intended).

Next time God decides to create a religion to worship himself, he should learn the lessons of the last several thousand years and make it as straightforward as possible, without any possible misunderstandings. It is a matter of life and death after all. This is a volatile situation. A creator who is so insecure about being loved by his own creations that he kills them all in a great Flood, then later, STILL is worried he is not loved by his creations, so he has a bastard son who is forced to die a slow, painful death to satisfy God's S&M fantasies of being loved by the people who he holds over a pit of fire of his own creation.... the term "God Fearing" is no joke. He has a hell of a temper.

Maybe he should read some Steve Pavlina articles about taking responsibility for your life.

My personal opinion is that after every child reaches the age of six or so, (and can understand slightly more complex things) God should give each child a 'Jesus Buddy' who walks on water, turns water into wine, kills himself then arises, etc. All while the young kids are watching. This will definitely put them in the 'Christian' camp for life.

By giving the young children active witnessing of miracles, God can avoid having to only be revealed through ancient texts. Great, 2,000 years ago, Jesus performed miracles. That's awesome. What we need are miracles for the new millennium, that can be broadcast on PBS in-between episodes of Sesame Street.

And, by performing miracles in front of the children before they become too impressionable, these kids can avoid all the second-guessing and thinking for themselves that is characteristic of adolescence. Watching a man walk on water is not likely to be forgotten soon, and will still leave an impression after the young adult hormones kick in (or I should say, the satanic impulse of self-awareness that kicks in after puberty.)

This is the BEST WAY to train and army of dedicated soldiers that can rise up and defeat Satan's voluminous yet vacuous hordes of demon warriors.

And so it is. Amen.

[newsbone]

Originally Posted by cylon

WAY TOO COMPLICATED. Good lord (pun intended).

Next time God decides to create a religion to worship himself, he should learn the lessons of the last several thousand years and make it as straightforward as possible, without any possible misunderstandings. It is a matter of life and death after all. This is a volatile situation. A creator who is so insecure about being loved by his own creations that he kills them all in a great Flood, then later, STILL is worried he is not loved by his creations, so he has a bastard son who is forced to die a slow, painful death to satisfy God's S&M fantasies of being loved by the people who he holds over a pit of fire of his own creation.

My personal opinion is that after every child reaches the age of six or so, (and can understand slightly more complex things) God should give each child a 'Jesus Buddy' who walks on water, turns water into wine, kills himself then arises, etc. All while the young kids are watching. This will definitely put them in the 'Christian' camp for life.

By giving the young children active witnessing of miracles, God can avoid having to only be revealed through ancient texts. And, by performing miracles in front of the children before they become too impressionable, these kids can avoid all the second-guessing and thinking for themselves that is characteristic of adolescence. Watching a man walk on water is not likely to be forgotten soon, and will still leave an impression after the young adult hormones kick in.

This is the BEST WAY to train and army of dedicated soldiers that can rise up and defeat Satan's voluminous yet vacuous hordes of demon warriors.

And so it is. Amen.

Your personal opinion is so personal!

[joelr]

Oh right the Trinity.
That's interesting you used Plato, that's where I believe the idea directly came from! It was borrowed from a pre-Christian conception of a divine trinity held by Plato.

I hate to bring up 4AD but that was one of the main points of the Nicean Council. Some scholars dispute the authenticity of the Trinity and argue that the doctrine is the result of later theological interpretations of Christ's function.

I had to look up the specifics.

The Trinitarian view has been affirmed as an article of faith by the Nicene (325/381) and Athanasian creeds (circa 500), which attempted to standardize belief in the face of disagreements on the subject. These creeds were formulated and ratified by the Church of the third and fourth centuries in reaction to heterodox theologies concerning the Trinity and/or Christ. The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, revised in 381 by the second of these councils, is professed by the Eastern Orthodox Church and, with one addition (Filioque clause), the Roman Catholic Church, and has been retained in some form in the Anglican Communion and most Protestant denominations.

The Nicene Creed, which is a classic formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity, uses "homoousios" (Greek for "of the same essence") of the relation of the Son's relationship with the Father. This word differs from that used by non-Trinitarians of the time, "homoiousios" (Greek for "of similar essence"), by a single Greek letter, "one iota", a fact proverbially used to speak of deep divisions, especially in theology, expressed by seemingly small verbal differences.

One of the (probably three) Church councils that in 264–266 condemned Paul of Samosata for his Adoptionist theology also condemned the term "homoousios" in the sense he used it. Fourth-century Christians who objected to the Nicene trinity made copious use of this condemnation by a reputable council.[61]

Moreover, the meanings of "ousia" and "hypostasis" overlapped at the time, so that the latter term for some meant essence and for others person. Athanasius of Alexandria (293–373) helped to clarify the terms.[62]

Because Christianity converts cultures from within, the doctrinal formulas as they have developed bear the marks of the ages through which the church has passed. The rhetorical tools of Greek philosophy, especially of Neoplatonism, are evident in the language adopted to explain the church's rejection of Arianism and Adoptionism on one hand (teaching that Christ is inferior to the Father, or even that he was merely human), and Docetism and Sabellianism on the other hand (teaching that Christ was an illusion, or that he was identical to God the Father). Augustine of Hippo has been noted at the forefront of these formulations; and he contributed much to the speculative development of the doctrine of the Trinity as it is known today, in the West; the Cappadocian Fathers (Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory Nazianzus) are more prominent in the East. The imprint of Augustinianism is found, for example, in the western Athanasian Creed, which, although it bears the name and reproduces the views of the fourth century opponent of Arianism, was probably written much later.


In other words - Constantine got his way, no matter what. You can be sure of that. "was probably written much later" is my whole view on anything in there. But we've already been there.

I'll agree if you take the Bible as literal, that version seems to have more evidence of the Trinity. I can just leave it at that.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by newsbone

Your personal opinion is so personal!

This is all divinely inspired. Ignore me at your peril.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by joelr

In other words - Constantine got his way, no matter what. You can be sure of that. "

What you are leaving out is that God himself oversaw all of this.

[joelr]

Originally Posted by cylon

What you are leaving out is that God himself oversaw all of this.

Oh. Touche.

[cylon]

We (flawed, sinful, unholy) humans have our parts to play in this story. But important stuff like this, God takes over.

[newsbone]

Originally Posted by joelr

I'll agree if you take the Bible as literal, that version seems to have more evidence of the Trinity. I can just leave it at that.

You are truly one informed guy I give you that! You have done your research well and it seems to serve your purpose.

[newsbone]

Originally Posted by cylon

This is all divinely inspired. Ignore me at your peril.

I cannot afford such a mistake, trust me!