How and when did the Trinity become Christian dogma?

[polonius]

(1) Mark 12:28-30
One of the scribes, when he came forward and heard them disputing and saw how well he had answered them, asked him, “Which is the first of all the commandments?�29Jesus replied, “The first is this: ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is Lord alone!30You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’j

(2) However, while Jesus remained a man (“Son of God, or Son of Man) and was raised from the dead by God, about 85 AD, Jesus began to be considered divine himself. His can be seen in John’s gospel written about 95 AD.
This broke with the traditional Old Testament teaching that the Lord was one, resulted in the Christians being excluded from the Hebrew synagogues, and the Christians labeled as heretics (“minim�).

(3) … According to Berakhot 28b, Samuel ha Katan (fl. c. 80-110), at the invitation of Gamaliel II of Jabneh, composed the "benediction against the minim," included in the Amidah as the twelfth benediction (see E. J. Bickerman, in HTR, 55 (1962), 171, n. 35). This was directed primarily against Judeo-Christians (specifically mentioned in one old text—see Schechter, JQR 10 (1897 / 98)), either to keep them out of the synagogue or to proclaim a definite breach between the two religions." 3
[See article Genizah Specimens / Liturgy, by Solomon Schechter, in The Jewish Quarterly Review, Volume 10, 1898, pages 654 - 659.]

(4) Arianism was a counter movement which claimed that Jesus was not divine himself and a large group of Christians reverted to this view.

(5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binitarianism#History

After the 325 Council of Nicaea defeated Arianism, the Council of Constantinople was called in 381 in order to attempt to deal with the binitarians, who were referred to as "Semi-Arians". However, as the Trinity was finalized at this time as official Christian doctrine, the offended Semi-Arians walked out. "They rejected the Arian view that Christ was created and had a different nature from God (anomoios dissimilar), but neither did they accept the Nicene Creed which stated that Christ was 'of one substance (homoousios) with the Father'. Semi-Arians taught that Christ was similar (homoios) to the Father, or of like substance (homoiousios), but still subordinate"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Cr ... itan_Creed

(6) “What is known as the "Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed" or the "Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed"[21] received this name because of a belief that it was adopted at the Second Ecumenical Council held in Constantinople in 381 as a modification of the original Nicene Creed of 325…

“It differs in a number of respects, both by addition and omission, from the creed adopted at the First Council of Nicaea. The most notable difference is the additional section "And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver-of-Life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spake by the prophets….�

[Checkpoint]

Tam posted:

I just take Him at His word on who He said He is.

What evidence do you have about what Jesus actually?. Gospels are stories written 40- 65 years after his death by non-witnesses in order to make converts. Have you been taken in too?

Taken in?

Or, rather, taken to the cleaners?

By those making judgments and drawing conclusions 2000 years later.

Such are mere posers as being reliable guides.

[Tcg]

By those making judgments and drawing conclusions 2000 years later.

I'm not sure what your are suggesting here. Are you suggesting we should not even attempt to understand the Gospels given they are so old?

Or perhaps you are claiming there is a certain group of people whose attempt to understand the Gospels is invalid because they examine the relevant facts?

[Checkpoint]

By those making judgments and drawing conclusions 2000 years later.

I'm not sure what your are suggesting here. Are you suggesting we should not even attempt to understand the Gospels given they are so old?

Or perhaps you are claiming there is a certain group of people whose attempt to understand the Gospels is invalid because they examine the relevant facts?

What you call "the relevant facts" are not a modern discovery, but have been around for 2000 years.

People chose what they accepted and what they rejected, and who, in those early days, just as they do now.

Nothing has changed.

[Tcg]

By those making judgments and drawing conclusions 2000 years later.

I'm not sure what your are suggesting here. Are you suggesting we should not even attempt to understand the Gospels given they are so old?

Or perhaps you are claiming there is a certain group of people whose attempt to understand the Gospels is invalid because they examine the relevant facts?

What you call "the relevant facts" are not a modern discovery, but have been around for 2000 years.

People chose what they accepted and what they rejected, and who, in those early days, just as they do now.

Nothing has changed.

I asked two very clear questions. You answered neither of them. Was that intentional?

[polonius]

By those making judgments and drawing conclusions 2000 years later.

I'm not sure what your are suggesting here. Are you suggesting we should not even attempt to understand the Gospels given they are so old?

Or perhaps you are claiming there is a certain group of people whose attempt to understand the Gospels is invalid because they examine the relevant facts?

What you call "the relevant facts" are not a modern discovery, but have been around for 2000 years.

People chose what they accepted and what they rejected, and who, in those early days, just as they do now.

Nothing has changed.

RESPONSE: The Gospels were written between 70 and 95 AD. long after the facts by non-witnesses who were attempting to make to make converts. Gospels aren't really aren't credible historical evidence. They contain many contradictions.