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….�

[brianbbs67]

I seem to be unable to post the rest of my answer to RR. I'll try again to post part 3 tomorrow. I haven't even gotten to the meat of it.

I don't know what I'm doing wrong. I notice that others can post lengthy messages.

Must be a glitch, looking forward to the rest. I think looking pre 300 is the best way to sort the truth

[RightReason]

[Replying to tigger2]

The gospel reading last Sunday during mass confirms what all of Christendom has taught from the beginning.

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. – John 14:6

…7If you had known Me, you would know My Father as well. From now on you do know Him and have seen Him.� 8Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father,and that will be enough for us.� 9Jesus replied, “Philip, I have been with you all this time, and still you do not know Me? Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?… -John 14:18

Notice Jesus' outrage that they still do not know Him. He straight up tells them, they've seen the Father and that anyone who has seen Him has seen the Father. What more do you need?

Jesus' unity with the Father means he is not just a prophet who conveys God's truth, but, like God, he is the truth.

Jesus, like God himself, is truth and life, and declares Himself such, while simultaneously establishing Himself as distinct. In other words – the Trinity!

And Jesus' affirmation to the disciples that they have seen the Father is blatant ‘in your face’ Trinity!

Only someone in need of proving some alternative theory, say like suggesting Jesus was an angel, would deny the obviousness of these passages.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tigger2]

The gospel reading last Sunday during mass confirms what all of Christendom has taught from the beginning.

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. – John 14:6

…7If you had known Me, you would know My Father as well. From now on you do know Him and have seen Him.� 8Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father,and that will be enough for us.� 9Jesus replied, “Philip, I have been with you all this time, and still you do not know Me? Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?… -John 14:18

Notice Jesus' outrage that they still do not know Him. He straight up tells them, they've seen the Father and that anyone who has seen Him has seen the Father. What more do you need?

Do you really hear outrage when you read that?


I don't. I hear gentle and patient explanation, given out of love.

(And Christ is the image (the reflection) of His Father, so yes, one sees and knows the Father, when one sees and knows Christ. He is the One who reveals to us the truth of His Father.)

Jesus' unity with the Father means he is not just a prophet who conveys God's truth, but, like God, he is the truth.

Jesus, like God himself, is truth and life, and declares Himself such, while simultaneously establishing Himself as distinct. In other words – the Trinity!

And Jesus' affirmation to the disciples that they have seen the Father is blatant ‘in your face’ Trinity!

The most you could try and argue for here would be two, not three.

Only someone in need of proving some alternative theory, say like suggesting Jesus was an angel, would deny the obviousness of these passages.

This does not apply to me (and I have to disagree with that alternative theory for the same reasons as I have to disagree with the trinity: my Lord did not teach either of them)... and still, I do not see what you see in those passages.



Not meaning to be contentious. Just sayin'



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 89 by tigger2]

Part 3
Clement of Alexandria:

"The purpose of this appendix is to show that translations of the works of the early Church Fathers were made from very late copies of the original works, and in the case of Clement’s [of Alexandria] works, the translations were made from just one surviving Greek manuscript which is dated no earlier than the 11th century. If this situation obtains for most of the other Church Fathers, then this severely undermines using them as reliable witnesses and reliable translations." Dr. Leslie McFall - https://lmf12.files.wordpress.com/2015 ... dria4.pdf

Not only is the manuscript evidence highly questionable, (including the influence of the trinitarian copyists through the ages), but your quotation is incomplete:

Clement of Alexandria: "The universal Father is one, and one the universal Word; and the Holy Spirit is one and the same everywhere, and one is the only virgin mother."- book 1, ch. 6, The Instructor.

Obviously the word "one" here is in a different sense from what you think - probably in the sense of 'one' at John 17:21-23. It is odd that there doesn't seem to be influences of a trinity doctrine here, given the urges of the trinitarian copyists who wrote the existing copy.

Justin Martyr:

Justin Martyr’s ‘Apology’ and ‘Dialogue {With Trypho}’ “are preserved but in a single ms (Cod. Paris, 450, A.D. 1364)� - Britannica, 14th ed.

Robert M. Grant (trinitarian) notes:

“[Justin] ... identifies the God whom Christians worship as ‘most true and Father of justice.... And he goes on to speak of reverencing and worshiping ‘the Son who came from him and taught us these things, and the army of other good angels who follow and resemble him, as well as the prophetic spirit.’� - p. 59 [quoting from “The First Apology of Justin,� Ch. VI].

Justin wrote:

"God alone is unbegotten and incorruptible, and therefore He is God, but all other things after him are created and corruptible {Justin has just concurred that the world was begotten by God} .... take your stand on one Unbegotten, and say this is the Cause of all." - ANF 1:197 (‘Dialogue’).

And,

"Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten by God, being His Word and first-begotten" - ANF 1:170 (‘Apology’).
Irenaeus:

Irenaeus actually teaches the following concerning the Christian doctrine of God and Jesus:
“The Church ... [believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit ...� (1:330, Ante-Nicene Fathers [ANF], by the trinitarian Rev. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Eerdmans Publ..)
* * * *
“... neither the prophets, nor the apostles, nor the Lord Christ in His own person, did acknowledge any other Lord or God, but the God and Lord supreme .... the Lord Himself handing down to His disciples, that He, the Father, is the only God and Lord, who alone is God and ruler of all; it is incumbent on us to follow ... their testimonies to this effect.� (ANF, 1:422, ‘Against Heresies’)
* * * *
“Such, then, are the first principles of the Gospel: that there is one God, the Maker of this universe; He who was also announced by the prophets ... which proclaim the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and ignore any other God or Father except Him.� (ANF, 1:428, ‘Against Heresies’)
* * * *
“And that the whole range of the doctrine of the Apostles proclaimed one and the same God ... That He was the Maker of all things, that He was the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, that He was the God of glory, - they who wish may learn from the very words and acts of the Apostles, and may contemplate the fact that God is one, above whom is no other.� (ANF, 1:434, ‘Against Heresies’)

Hippolytus:

"Hippolytus (2) Romanus. Though so celebrated in his lifetime, Hippolytus has been but obscurely known to the church of subsequent times. He was at the beginning of the 3rd cent[ury] unquestionably the most learned member of the Roman church, and a man of very considerable literary activity .... A century after his death Eusebius evidently knew nothing of him beyond what he could infer from such works of his as had reached him. These works were soon superseded by those of other more able and learned writers. Scarcely one has come down to us without mutilation, and the authenticity of almost every work assigned to him has been disputed." - http://www.ccel.org/ccel/wace/biodict.h ... Hippolytus Romanus

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church admits that we cannot honestly say that Hippolytus definitely taught that the Logos (the pre-existent Christ) was even a person before being born on earth. This, of course, would mean that Hippolytus certainly didn't consider him to be the always-existent, second Person of the orthodox trinity doctrine. This trinitarian publication also tells us that Hippolytus did not even consider the Holy Spirit as a person (let alone a person who is God!). So much for the trinity doctrine being taught by “the most important 3rd century theologian of the Roman Church�! - p. 652, F. L. Cross, Oxford University Press, 1990 reprint.

Theophilus (ca. 115 to 181 A.D.)

Notice how Theophilus explains his knowledge of God:
"ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. ... He is unbegotten; and He is unchangeable,.... And He is called .... Father, because he is before all things... the Highest, because of His being above all; and Almighty" - ANF 2:90.

Origen (185–254)
Origen writes:
"there are certain creatures, rational and divine, which are called powers [spirit creatures, angels]; and of these Christ was the highest and best and is called not only the wisdom of God but also His power. "- ANF 10:321-322.

Yes, Origen, like Justin Martyr, calls the Son of God a created angel, the highest of the angels, the Angel of God. He calls Jesus, the Word:

“the Angel of God who came into the world for the salvation of men�- p. 568, vol. 4, ANF.

Like Irenaeus (and most, if not all, Ante-Nicene Fathers), Origen considered “Wisdom� speaking at Prov. 8:22-30 to be Christ, the Son of God. He wrote:

“we have first to ascertain what the only-begotten Son of God is, seeing He is called by many different names, according to the circumstances and views of individuals. For He is termed Wisdom, according to the expression of Solomon:

“‘The Lord [YHWH (Yahweh/Jehovah) in the ancient Hebrew Old Testament manuscripts] created me [Wisdom, ‘the only-begotten Son of God’] - the beginning {see Rev. 3:14} of His ways, and among His works, before He made any other thing; He founded me before the ages. In the beginning, before He formed the earth, before He brought forth the fountains of waters, before the mountains were made strong, before all the hills, He brought me forth.’ {Prov. 8:22-25}

“Rufinus ... (c. 345-410), monk, historian and translator .... He also studied for several years in Alexandria under Didymus the Blind [St. Didymus, a staunch Nicene trinitarian - p. 402], and was deeply influenced by his Origenism [Didymus tried to ‘prove’ that Origen had taught a trinity doctrine in his De Principiis - p. 1010] .... [Rufinus’] free translation of Origen’s De Principiis, the only complete text now surviving, was intended to vindicate Origen’s [‘trinitarian’] orthodoxy, and involved Rufinus in bitter controversy with his former friend, St. Jerome, who criticized the tendentious character of his rendering.� - p.1207, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Revised, 1990 printing, Oxford University Press.

“It is much to be regretted that the original Greek of the De Principiis has for the most part perished. We possess it chiefly in a Latin translation by Rufinus. And there can be no doubt that he often took great liberties with his author. So much was this felt to be the case, that [Roman Catholic “Saint�] Jerome [342-420 A.D.] undertook a new translation of the work; but only small portions of his version have reached our day [for obvious reasons]. He strongly accuses Rufinus of unfaithfulness as an interpreter, while he also inveighs bitterly against Origen himself, as having departed from the Catholic Faith, specially in regard to the doctrine of the Trinity.� - ANF, 4:233.

In other words, Rufinus did not translate literally, but, instead, intentionally changed (or ‘corrected’) De Principiis so as to make people believe that Origen had taught the trinity! And this is the text that has been used by trinitarians ever since to “prove� that Origen taught the trinity! Furthermore, the famed trinitarian St. Jerome (ca. 400 A.D.) who accused Rufinus of dishonestly mistranslating Origen’s work also noted with great bitterness that ORIGEN DID NOT TEACH THE TRINITY!!!!

When you have a late-dated manuscript (the result of trinitarian copyists copying and recopying through the centures) of an Ante-Nicene Father, you cannot trust that any statement supporting Church doctrines is authentic. This is especially true of statements supporting the trinity doctrine!

Statements opposing Church doctrines in these manuscripts are much more likely to be authentic.

Augustine (354 – 430) - Post-Nicene

In August of 386, Augustine converted to Christianity. The Church was fully trinitarian by this time.

How much Augustine was devoted to the authority (and traditions) and its already established doctrines of the 5th century Roman Church over and above the actual inspired scriptures can be shown by this statement from his writings,

“I should not believe the Gospel, did not the authority of the Catholic Church move me thereto." - Contra Ep. Fund. 5 as quoted in Encyclopedia Britannica, p. 684, v. 2, 14th ed.

So the fact that the “mother� Church had declared (as “encouraged� by Emperor Constantine) the new doctrine that Jesus is equally God with the Father to be true in 325 A.D. (and reaffirmed it, with the addition of the Holy Spirit, in 381 through the “encouragement� of Emperor Theodosios) was enough for Augustine! No other proof was necessary for him no matter what the scriptures might say! And so this Neo-Platonist “Christian� writer of genius became the greatest authority of the Roman Church in defense (and promotion of) its newly-established trinitarian doctrine.

[tigger2]

[Replying to RightReason]

Somehow I thought this discussion was about 'How and when did the trinity become Christian Dogma.' If, instead, it has become a diatribe against a single Christian sect, there are other discussions concerning this.

May I assume that your vitriol concerning the teaching concerning Michael (as taught by only one certain group) will now also be poured out on the following:

In Early Christian Doctrines, J.N.D. Kelly writes concerning The Shepherd of Hermas, of the 2nd or 3rd century:
 
In a number of passages we read of an angel who is superior to the six angels forming God's inner council, and who is regularly described as 'most venerable', 'holy' and 'glorious'. This angel is given the name of Michael, and the conclusion is difficult to escape that Hermas saw in him the Son of God and equated him with the archangel Michael...Christ's pre-existence, was generally taken for granted, as was His role creation as well as redemption. This theme, which could point to Pauline and Johannine parallels, chimed in very easily with creative functions assigned to Wisdom in later Judaism...There is evidence also...of attempts to interpret Christ as a sort of supreme angel ... Of a doctrine of the Trinity in the strict sense there is of course no sign, although the Church's triadic formula left its mark everywhere—pp. 94-5.  (see also Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible)-The Shepherd of Hermas was so near and dear to the ante-Nicene Fathers that many of them considered it canonical scripture.

William L. Alexander, Doctor of Divinity, stated:
There seems good reason for regarding Michael as the Messiah.  Such was the opinion of the best among the ancient Jews.... With this all the Bible representations of Michael agree. He appears as the Great Prince who standeth for Israel (Dan. xii. I), and he is called "the Prince of Israel" (Dan. x. 21)--William L. Alexander, ed., A Cyclopedia Of Biblical Literature, originally edited by John Kitto, 3d ed. (Edinburgh: A & C Black, 1886). vol. 3, p. 158.

Back in the early 1800's, Bible scholar Joseph Benson stated that the description of Michael as found in the Bible "manifestly points out the Messiah." -  Daniel 12:1 - Joseph Benson's Commentary of the Old and New Testaments.

……………………………
 
Nineteenth-century Lutheran E. W. Hengstenberg - "Christ appears in the Revelation ... under the name of Michael" - Revelation of St. John, p. 35.

……………………………. 

 Clarke’s Commentary (Adam Clarke)
Jude :9
“Let it be observed that the word archangel is never found in the plural number in the sacred writings. There can be properly only one archangel, one chief or head of all the angelic host. Nor is the word devil, as applied to the great enemy of mankind, ever found in the plural; there can be but one monarch of all fallen spirits. Michael is this archangel, and head of all the angelic orders; the devil, great dragon, or Satan, is head of all the diabolic orders. When these two hosts are opposed to each other they are said to act under these two chiefs, as leaders; hence in Revelation 12:7, it is said: MICHAEL and his angels fought against the DRAGON and his angels.  The word Michael  lakym, seems to be compounded of  ym mi, who,  k ke, like, and la El, God; he who is like God; hence by this personage, in the Apocalypse, many understand the Lord Jesus.�
…………………………..
 
The 1599 Geneva Study Bible: Revelation
“12:7 And there was war in heaven: 14 Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
“(14) Christ is the Prince of angels and head of the Church, who bears that iron rod….�
………………………….. 

John Gill, A Body of Doctrinal Divinity, Book 7 Chapter 5:

“1b2. Another prophecy in Daniel 12:1-3 respects the second and personal coming of Christ; for he is meant by Michael, who is "as God", as his name signifies, equal to him; the ‘great prince,’ the prince of the kings of the earth, and the head of all principalities and powers.�

John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible.
Daniel 12:1

“Ver. 1. And at that time shall Michael stand up,.... The Archangel, who has all the angels of heaven under him, and at his command, the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ;�
 
And even trinitarian Bible scholar W. E. Vine (“recognized as one of the world’s foremost [NT] Greek scholars�) tells us that this “voice of the archangel� (1 Thess. 4:16) is apparently “the voice of the Lord Jesus Christ�! - p. 64, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.

……………………………
 
The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia:

“The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the preincarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the “child� and the archangel in Rev. 12, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Daniel� – vol. 3, p. 2048, Eerdmans Publishing, 1984 printing.

………………………………..

"Michael ... in Dan. 10:13,21; 12:1, is described as having a special charge of the Jewish nation, and in Rev. 12:7-9 as the leader of the angelic army. So exalted are the position and offices ascribed to Michael, that many think the Messiah is meant." -- International Bible Dictionary -- Illustrated (Plainfield, NJ, Logos International, 1977), p. 35.
………………………………
Fairbairn’s Imperial Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Patrick Fairbairn, D.D., editor, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing, 1957, Vol. IV, pp. 238, 239; Revised 1997, Vol. Seven, p. 800. (originally published as The Imperial Bible Dictionary, 1891), states this:

“MI’CHAEL … there have in general been two rival opinions, either that he is the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, or that he is one of the so-called seven archangels. We hold the former opinion�

………………………………

Protestant Reformer John Calvin said regarding "Michael" in its occurrence at Daniel 12:1:
"I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of his elect people." - J. Calvin, Commentaries On The Book Of The Prophet Daniel, trans. T. Myers (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), vol. 2, p. 369.
………………………………...

John Wesley:

Chapter XII
A promise of deliverance, and of a joyful resurrection, ver. 1 - 4.  A conference concerning the time of these events, ver. 5 - 7.  An answer to Daniel's enquiry, ver. 8 - 13.   For the children - The meaning seems to be, as after the death of Antiochus the Jews had some deliverance, so there will be yet a greater deliverance to the people of God, when Michael your prince, the Messiah shall appear for your salvation. A time of trouble - A the siege of Jerusalem, before the final judgment. The phrase at that time, probably includes all the time of Christ, from his first, to his last coming.
 
John Wesley on Daniel 10:21 "Michael - Christ alone is the protector of his church, when all the princes of the earth desert or oppose it." - Wesley's Explanatory Notes.
………………………………......

"The two passages in the New Testament, in which Michael is mentioned, serve to confirm the result already arrived at. That the Michael referred to in Rev. xii. 7 is no other than the Logos, [the Word - the Son of God] has already been proved in my commentary upon that passage." —Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament and a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions, 1836-9, Vol. IV, pp. 304-5 (in the T. & T. Clark publication; p. 269 in the Kregel publication).

……………………………
 
Brown's Dictionary of the Bible on the words 'Michael' and 'Angel' says, that both these words do sometimes refer to Christ; and also affirms that Christ is the Archangel.

…………………………..
 
Wood's Spiritual Dictionary teaches nearly, if not exactly, the same on this subject that Brown's does. The former was a Calvinist, the latter a Methodist.

…………………

Guyse in his Paraphrase on the New Testament, on Rev. xii. 7, acknowledges that many good expositors think that Christ is signified by Michael; and also gives it as his opinion.

………………….
 
Thomas Scott, in his notes on the Bible, says the Angel that appeared to Hagar when she fled from her mistress, one of the three Angels that appeared to Abraham in the plains of Mamre, the Angel that appeared to Moses in the bush, and the Angel that spoke to the Jews at Bochim, was Jesus Christ: and also asserts that Michael the Archangel is Jesus Christ. See Gen. xvi. 9, 10. Chap. xviii throughout. Exod. iii. 2-7. Judg. ii. 1-5, Dan x. 13, 21. Chap. xii. 1, Rev. xii. 7.

[polonius]

The gospel reading last Sunday during mass confirms what all of Christendom has taught from the beginning.

RESPONSE: No. The gospels were written between 70 and 95 AD by those who were not witnesses in an effort to make converts.

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. – John 14:6

RESPONSE No, it is reported in the Gospel we call John's written about 95 AD. What other evangelist made this claim?

…7If you had known Me, you would know My Father as well. From now on you do know Him and have seen Him.� 8Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father,and that will be enough for us.� 9Jesus replied, “Philip, I have been with you all this time, and still you do not know Me? Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?… -John 14:18

Notice Jesus' outrage that they still do not know Him. He straight up tells them, they've seen the Father and that anyone who has seen Him has seen the Father. What more do you need?

RESPONSE: How about some historical facts. Perhaps you will quote Matthew, Mark, or Luke making a claim that Jesus said that he was God.

Jesus' unity with the Father means he is not just a prophet who conveys God's truth, but, like God, he is the truth.

Jesus, like God himself, is truth and life, and declares Himself such, while simultaneously establishing Himself as distinct. In other words – the Trinity!

RESPONSE: Once again, please provide your evidence establishing that Jesus actually claimed to be God.

And Jesus' affirmation to the disciples that they have seen the Father is blatant ‘in your face’ Trinity"

.

RESPONSE: But they had not seen God, so John's claim is meaningless.

Only someone in need of proving some alternative theory, say like suggesting Jesus was an angel, would deny the obviousness of these passages.

RESPONSE: Some of us may prefer Peter's statement in Acts that Jesus was only a man through whom God (not Jesus) performed signs.

And since you seem to be relying on John's gospel. why did John claim that Jesus was crucified a day earlier than the Matthew, Mark, and Luke reported, and why does John's gospel lack any report that Jesus instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper?

Do you believe all the stories that you are told?

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 93 by tam]

Do you really hear outrage when you read that?

Perhaps outrage was the wrong word, but yes, I hear Jesus being disappointed/dejected/perhaps even shocked. Here He has spent all this time with them and they say, “Just show us the Father�. LOL! Imagine His disappointment. What more did they need?

The most you could try and argue for here would be two, not three.

Jesus and God are 2 parts of the Trinity AND the parts being discussed in my last post. I would be more than happy to discuss all the parts of Scripture that reference the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, but that was not this particular reference. Scripture must be read as a whole – again wanting one isolated verse that defines the Trinity simply proves you do not understand how we are to read the Bible.

I have to disagree with the trinity: my Lord did not teach either of them)... and still, I do not see what you see in those passages.

Not meaning to be contentious. Just sayin'

Our Lord said, “He who hears you, hears me . . . “ He told us He would remain with His Church. Scripture tells us the Church is the ‘pillar and foundation of truth’ so no need for a direct quote from Christ Himself regarding the Trinity. In fact, it really bothers me when people say they will only listen to that which is supposedly written that Christ Himself said. Uuuuuummmm . . . Scripture is more than Jesus quotes. After the Resurrection, we were told there is much more He wanted to tell us. So, to attempt to claim, “my Lord did not teach that� fails to listen to Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition and ironically Christ Himself! Scripture includes the OT and the NT, proverbs, epistles and letters from the Apostles, Revelation, etc. Let's not pick and choose which parts of Sacred Scripture we accept and which parts we don't. Why accept any of it? . . . Just say’n . . .

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 95 by tigger2]

William L. Alexander, Doctor of Divinity, stated:
There seems good reason for regarding Michael as the Messiah. Such was the opinion of the best among the ancient Jews.... With this all the Bible representations of Michael agree. He appears as the Great Prince who standeth for Israel (Dan. xii. I), and he is called "the Prince of Israel" (Dan. x. 21)--William L. Alexander, ed., A Cyclopedia Of Biblical Literature, originally edited by John Kitto, 3d ed. (Edinburgh: A & C Black, 1886). vol. 3, p. 158.

LOL! Doctor of Divinity? William Alexander was born in the 1800's. He and everyone else you quoted can't exactly be compared to the writings of the first Christians who lived in 1 A.D.

He and the others were also not recognized by the Church as insightful Christian witnesses that we should listen to. Sorry, but I can't really take your post serious, because it lacks credibility.

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 98 by RightReason]

they would not have said, "Well, he’s Michael the Archangel!" Not only was the very idea was unheard of before Charles Taze Russell (the founder of the WTS),

My reply showed your statement to be false. I expected an honest admission of this. Instead I get ridicule.

Also my sources spoke of the Shepherd of Hermas which was considered as scripture by many in the 2nd century. Apparently you just scanned my reply and didn't actually see much of it.

W.E. Vine is not worth reading? International Bible Dictionary ? Fairbairn’s Imperial Standard Bible Encyclopedia? Many others from different denominations before Russell's teaching?

Why the animosity and denial of recorded facts?

[tam]

Peace again to you RR,

[Replying to post 93 by tam]

Do you really hear outrage when you read that?

Perhaps outrage was the wrong word, but yes, I hear Jesus being disappointed/dejected/perhaps even shocked. Here He has spent all this time with them and they say, “Just show us the Father�. LOL! Imagine His disappointment. What more did they need?

Not sure how one could think that He was shocked. He knew Peter would deny Him; He knew Judas would betray Him. Why would He not know that it would take longer for some of them to understand that He was the image of His Father?

Regardless, mostly I was just surprised that you thought He was outraged. But if that was just poor word choice, then okay.

I have to disagree with the trinity: my Lord did not teach either of them)... and still, I do not see what you see in those passages.

Not meaning to be contentious. Just sayin'

Our Lord said...

I clipped most of the rest of your response because it does not address what I wrote. You quote-mined me and you took my quote out of context




Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy