Name:Mark-Tao •
Title: A QUESTION TO CHRISTIANS •
Date posted: 03/08/07 22:09
Q: If we accept every argument made on this forum against the documentary....
What then?
Are you suggesting that we just,
"Move along folks. Nothing to see here."
ARE YOU SERIOUSLY SUGGESTING THAT YOU HAVE IT ALL FIGURED OUT? THAT THERE'S NO NEED TO INVESTIGATE THIS ANY FURTHER?
Name:guahould •
Date: 03/08/07 22:38
A: Hey Mark,, good on ya !!!! I think the freaks do figure that no real truths need be known,, they already have a crazy idea stuck in their minds and they are not going to change for anything or anyone. We have all came from a froth of incest after all right? Noah and his family produced all of us after the big flood that cleaned the earth right?? (this is only a small part of the nonsense that most believe in or know nothing about and still believe,, ha ha ha ) We will have to move along and behave though ,, just watch.
What should be happening , is a further , deeper investigation with D N A samples from all ossuaries in question and have some educated non-believers conduct the whole investigation using all information. And of course the bible should never ever be treated as some sort of encyclopedia, it should be on the same shelves as the Wizard of Oz, OR Peter Pan, or Chris Kringle, or Spider man , or Superman. It is the FAITH that these folks have stuck in their brains that keep blinding them to any facts at all ,, no matter how absolutely believable they are!!
Name:Bob •
Date: 03/09/07 0:02
A: Mark, are you interested in a serious discussion of your question? Obviously guahould is more interested in throwing out insults and names. I have some thoughts on the matter, but I'm not interested in talking with people who dismiss me as a freak or shout their questions (ie: BY TYPING IN ALL CAPS). Let me know if you're interested in a conversation instead of an argument. Thanks!
Name:KRS •
Date: 03/09/07 1:56
A: I don't mind any tomb being investigated further; I would submit, however, that every argument here needs to be dumped unless they can be proven in a scholarly manner. So far the evidence comes to . . . we have an ossuary with a name on it named Jesus son of Joseph, like three others we have already found and dismissed as not useful. So far, there really isn't any evidence to consider this something but hack scholarship.
Name:Mark-Tao •
Date: 03/09/07 19:03
A: guahold,
I agree that investigation needs to proceed, and that we can expect there to be people who will argue with great intelect that there is nothing to any of this. Some of the arguments against the Jesus Tomb really do point us in the direction of where more research needs to be done. A lot of what I see is pure apologetics that are more an attempt to defend a theology than any real debunking of this material.
I disagree with your assumption that the bible is of no use in regards to historical events. It is a mix of things, and it does offer clues to the past. The very names that are being used to suggest the tomb belonged to Jesus come right out of the bible. You don't have to be a defender of religion to find historical value in the bible.
Bob,
I used all caps because, unlike so many forum entries I read, I respect the fact that people have time limitations. I wanted the reader to be able to see my actual question easily and fast. Sorry if you were offended, or if it caused you to read the question outloud in such a manner that you felt you were being yelled at. IT WAS NOT MY INTENTION TO YELL AT YOU.
KRS,
you say that every argument here should be dumped unless it can be proven in a scholarly manner. Don't you mean INVESTIGATED in a scholarly manner? Why don't you just give this idea the same amount of latitude as say... a guy walking on water.
You don't need to write a reply to that question. It was rhetorical. In past entries, you've taken some of my rhetorical questions and treated them with the utmost seriousness. Let's just stick to the heart of the matter.
3 things your forum entries tell me:
1.You personally invested in the beliefe that the Bible is a literal representation of events.
2.You have enormouse amounts of information to back up your belief in a literal interpretation of the Bible.
3.It would take a miracle to convince you otherwise.
Am I wrong?
It's this strong handedness to your arguments that makes me think that what you really want is for people to just stop entertaining any idea about Jesus leaving his physical bones in an ossuary.
My point is that if you can't even allow yourself to enterain the possibility that Jesus didn't take his physical body to Heaven, then you really have no business claiming any objectivity here.
Name:Bob •
Date: 03/09/07 19:22
A: Maybe it's different where you are, but where I am, writing in all caps is generally understood as raising your voice (unless it's an attempt to emphasize one or two words and there's no other way to do so). I wasn't offended. I don't know you to be offended by you. I was just wondering if your decision to write in all caps was an attempt at being aggressive.
Okay. The question was addressed to Christians: are we seriously suggesting that we have it all figured out? All of what figured out? All of the tomb issues? As far as I know, it's the archeological community that has been instrumental in shooting Cameron and Jacobovici's premises down. Sure, Christians aren't going to buy it. Why should we? It's a joke. But we don't have to tear it down. The scientists have done a sufficient job of doing so. Read the Discovery Channel website re: their decision not to air the show again, as was originally planned, in spite of the great ratings they got for the first airing -- the best they've had in a year. The archeological community has risen up (no pun intended!) and shout this faker down. Cameron and Jacobovici have been made to look like the fools they are. That's a good thing. Charlatans deserve to be shot down. You can't blame the Discovery Channel for not wanting to be dragged down with them.
Is there any need to investigate this further? Frankly, no. It's been thoroughly disposed of to everyone's satisfaction except those with an emotional investment against orthodox Christianity and the conspiracy theorists. This blog is about the only place where this matter is still be seriously discussed, and it's turning into beating a dead horse. I just read a post from a guy who is asking all the first questions all over again. Where has this guy been? This is over, and I'm moving on. God's peace to all of you!
Name:Mark-Tao •
Date: 03/09/07 19:56
A: thanks for your answer Bob,
I will refrain from all caps, unless I feel the need to raise my voice.
I simply wish to point out to those of you who are defending a literal interpretation of the bible, that the rest of us can see through that.
I can't count how many times, on this forum, I've seen a Christian Apologist claim to know the motives of other people. You claim to know the motives of the Discovery Channel. I've read people who claim to know my motives. I've read claims that the documentary was only motivated by greed. The most common motivational claim is that the real purpose of this documentary is cause people to lose their faith.
I just wanted to flush out the real motives of Christian Apologists. Instead of telling you what your motives are, I wanted to let you speak for yourself.
Name:Mark-Tao •
Date: 03/09/07 20:08
A: Bob,
I gotta give you the Discovery Channel motive, seeing that they published an article explaining their reasons for not airing the show.
You do understand that in the corporate world it is common practice to give politically correct responses, and not to openly talk about your real motives for controversial actions?
However, I can't exactly argue against your claim to know the Discovery Channel's motives, since your argument is in line with their spin on the story.
Name:KRS •
Date: 03/09/07 20:14
A: Mark,
I'd say that "proven in a scholarly manner" differs from investigated in a scholarly manner in the assumptions that one must assume a priori to accept the arguments that have been put forward.
As for walking in water, I can't prove that, (I realize it was rhetorical, but it indicates some misunderstanding), that is something I take on faith. I would simply state that, based on the facts, there is good reason to take the source this is in seriously. The most I can say from the standpoint of scholarship, is that within 20 years of Jesus death, his followers seem to have believed that it happened.
Name:Mark-Tao •
Date: 03/09/07 20:39
A: KRS,
you love this word, priori. I see it in a lot of you entries. Can we accept the fact that the entire Christian Religion is based on a number of PRIORI.
If you don't go along with some of the unprovable claims of the faith, then a lot of the other stuff falls apart. Such as the need for Jesus to be born to a Virgin, and the need for him to have taken his physical body to heaven. Those are PRIORI that you are using.
In your Wolrd View, Jesus must be a supernatural being. That's your PRIORI. So your use of the word to discount the theories that are put forth in this documentary is ironic at best.
Name:guahould •
Date: 03/10/07 2:03
A: Ok , sorry , maybe there is some hints about the past in the bible. But there are also other wild stories in the same set of pages?? So just how much could possibly be taken as fact?
Name:KRS •
Date: 03/10/07 2:10
A: Is faith a presupposition? Yes. Are presuppositions provable? No. Can they be examined, objectively? Yes.
One can argue that everything in the Bible is false, what one can't argue is that this is some large layer of traditional material that has accumulated over time - the New Testament gospels are simply to early for that - particularly when one considers that the urban legends of the ancient world didn't have an internet, telephone, telegraph, etc., for them to spread quickly.
It is argueable that the New Testament is a fraud.
Name:KRS •
Date: 03/10/07 2:14
A: FYI, I am not arguing against people having presuppositions. I am arguing that they need to be objective with what can be proved from evidence. Frankly, I found the film intriguing, then I starting looking at their evidence. It has been a principle of mine for a long time that I would not ignore evidence. I also make a point to keep a mental note on what is truly fact, my logical development of those facts, and my conclusions. The problem is, most people are stating conclusions (many of them overthrown) as fact.
Do I believe, yes. But I can't claim to have proven the Bible. The most I can say is that, during years of doubt, I have proven that belief in Scripture is not irrational.
Name:mark •
Date: 03/10/07 8:04
A: Simple fact: until DNA from the bones themselves can be extracted and analyzed any relationship between them is pure speculation. I truly hope that one day this will be allowed, whatever the outcome.
mark
Name:Panluna •
Date: 03/11/07 15:59
A: I think we need to get to the grain of truth.You can believe in something or see it for what it really is.Our intellects and curiosity advances humans willing to embrace a new direction and deal with facts instead of fiction.Science can explain rationally .Faith can move mountains and inspire.
Name:Krystyna •
Date: 03/12/07 3:53
A: Mark,
I do not believe that extracting the DNA from the bones is ever going to happen, because the bones have been reburied (along with others I've heard, in a mass grave,) Perhaps in accordance with Orthodox Jewish traditions.
Name:jsm •
Date: 03/12/07 5:46
A: mark,
Even if the DNA analysis shows that they were related, the burden of proof that it was Jesus of the bible could be proven how?
Name:Delyn •
Date: 03/12/07 16:13
A: Hey, I consider myself a devout Christian. I'm not opposed to more investigation. In fact, I'm hoping for more. I objected to 1) the name of the documentary. "The Tomb of Jesus" They have no idea if this is the tomb of Jesus. They should just have presented their evidence without the manipulations that they did which appeared "hurry up and get money before it's discovered a fraud." Other than that I would embrace their search for the historical NT family.
I hope a full, unbiased investigation is sought with real experts. I'm not afraid of truth, only of liars who twist things for their own agenda. Also, sometimes people use science in error. So I hope Cameron and Simcha persue their effort to get to the bottom of this with honestly and dignity, and remember that Jesus is special to most of the billions of people on the planet. Don't kick us in the teeth, but do give us the facts. Thanks, that's my two cents.
Name:Achaney •
Date: 03/13/07 21:57
A: Hey Deylen, there is no deception. The name for the tomb as being jesus' deals with the fact the ossuary has his name on it plus with a big cross next to it. The facts are present and I know it must be hard for you to find out that your Jesus was buried like anyone else. It's tough and I know you really want to hold on to those things that are unseen and based on faith but, the facts are present and thats proof of my faith that Jesus was just a man.
Name:Msprof68 •
Date: 03/13/07 23:30
A: I am a professor, and new to this forum. My doctoral training taught me that you create a hypothesis, and then you test it. That's solid research... it's done in the medical field, the biology field, etc. Archaeology is no different.
Now, to say that someone created a null hypothesis of "The bones in this tomb are not the real Jesus family," would be the way this should have been approached. And then, the search for evidence would be to find something overwhelmingly positive to convince us that we can REJECT the null hypothesis. If we did not find that, then we would NOT reject teh null hypothesis (that does not, however, make it conclusive without questioni that the hypothesis was false to begin with--it just means the existing data don't support it.).
You do not approach research with the idea that "This tomb is that of Jesus," and then look for clues to prove what you want. You will get what we call a "false positive" result in a lot of cases... you'll think you're right when in reality you aren't.
The makers of this film clearly did not follow the scientific method in their approach. They used drama and semantics to suggest that they were right . I can appreciate that criticism, and I share it.
But what has Christianity done, as a religion, to truly explore its validity? Naysayers who found the idea that the tomb might actually be that of their Savior were absolutely ripping the idea apart before the movie even aired.
I find it amusing that the same people who want me to reject the information in the movie are the same ones who do expect me to believe the following:
virgin birth (along with a husband who actually understood and accepted that proposition and didn't have his wife thrown out on her butt).
Physically leaving one's grave and then being spotted later... doing what? Did I hear something about walking on water?
Turning water into wine? (Hey, why do baptists say it's a sin to consume alcohol?)
Some old guy built a gigantic boat out of wood, without the benefit of modern ship building techniques (you know, things like welding, ballasts, etc), grabbed two of every animal, the world got flooded and then he repopulated it. Of course, this is after Adam and Eve showed up and populated it in the first place.
Point: Christians have no more proof that they are "right" than the filmmakers do that they are "right." I find it a rather sad commentary on the state of modern Christianity that so many who profess to have a very strong faith seem so threatened by the idea that maybe some of the facts in their reference book might be slightly different than they initially assumed.
Name:wiremite •
Date: 03/13/07 23:48
A: I was raised a Christian but always argued that the works of Christ would be more inciteful coming from a flesh and blood human than some supernatural mythical creature wearing a human disguise.
The documentary gives me a basis to plant my Christian beliefs and now that we have an actual tomb that was his last resting place, the pilgramages will be overwhelming. I only hope that I will be able to get close enough to this holy site to actually feel close to the historical Jesus and Mary.
John
Name:roy •
Date: 04/02/07 23:26
A: Qoran witnesses same doctrine with old and new testament, pointing to the same God sent them.
Mohammads teaching were unlike any other books, memorized by hundreds of muslims systematicaly and diligently. The simple words of him Hadiths were forbidden to be written or recorded in order prevent mess up with revelations.
Records of bible were not kept in order and deliberately distorted. However muslims believe the original is kept by God and it is true that it was given to Jesus.
There are too many proofs that Bible was edited, added many false claims, manupulated according to politics, finally diverted from its true path. Muslims hadiths books were similar in their destiny. They were overly biased, lies alleged to Mohammad (sas) added, religion overburdened with unnecessary hardships, bigotry, bidat (added ruling, principles).
They took their toll to the extent that, they claimed Mohammad, as the imam of all prophets, for whom the earth was created for. In one hadith they claim he went several times between God and Moses to reduce repetition of prayer in a day from 50 times down to five times. It was claimed on some occasions inspired by christian faith, God had shank (God forbid! Never).
Early Christian belief was too much different than todays versions. I put down the historic events and different sects of Christians, some still in effect today, which have been very close to Muslim version of religion. It shows only one truth that God has sent several prophets, prescribing same religion at basic concepts ,ie.. pray one God only, give charity, not kill or commit adultry, etc.. I hope this will give a secular insight to our beliefs.
Roys script: Please bear in mind that the notes were written according to Biblical names, here Jesus was referred as son instead of prophet, many times. (it is misleading attribute as the true meaning should be God slave and Messenger according to muslim faith.)
NONTRINITARIANISM
Nontrinitarianism is any of various Christian beliefs that reject the doctrine that God is three distinct persons in one being, (the Trinity).
The notion of the Trinity is not of particular importance to most nontrinitarians. Persons and groups espousing this position generally do not refer to themselves affirmatively by the term, although some nontrinitarian groups such as the Unitarians have adopted a name that bespeaks of their belief in God as subsisting in a theological or cosmic unity. Modern nontrinitarian groups views differ widely on the nature of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
Various nontrinitarian views, such as Arianism, existed alongside what is now considered mainstream Christianity before the Trinity was formally defined as doctrine in AD 325. Nontrinitarianism was very rare for hundreds of years. It surfaced again in the Gnosticism of the Cathars and in the Enlightenment and Restorationism.
Forms of Nontrinitarianism
ALL NONTRINITARIANS ARGUE THAT THE DOCTRINE OF THE EARLIEST FORM OF THE CHURCH WAS NOT TRINITARIAN. Typically, nontrinitarians explain that the Church was altered as a direct and indirect consequence of the edicts of Constantine the Great, which resulted in toleration of the Christian religion, and the eventual adoption of Trinitarian Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. Because it was at this time of a dramatic shift in Christianity's status that the doctrine of the Trinity attained its definitive development, nontrinitarians typically find the development of the doctrine questionable. It is in this light that the Nicene Creed is seen by nontrinitarians as an essentially political document, resulting from the subordination of Church to State interests by the leaders of Catholic Church, so that the Church became, in their view, an extension of the Roman Empire.
Although Nontrinitarian beliefs of a great variety continued to multiply, and among some people (such as the Lombards in the West) it was dominant for hundreds of years afterward, the Trinitarians now had the immense power of the Empire behind them. NONTRINITARIANS TYPICALLY ARGUE THAT THE PRIMITIVE BELIEFS OF THE CHURCH WERE SYSTEMATICALLY SUPPRESSED (EVEN TO THE POINT OF DEATH), AND THAT THE HISTORICAL RECORD, PERHAPS ALSO INCLUDING THE SCRIPTURES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, WAS ALTERED AS A CONSEQUENCE.
Nontrinitarian followers of Jesus fall into roughly four different groups.
Some believe that Jesus is not God, instead believing that he was a messenger from God, or Prophet, or the perfect created human. This is the view espoused by modern day Unitarianism and ancient sects such as the Ebionites. A specific form of Nontrinitarianism is Arianism, which had become the dominant view in some regions in the time of the Roman Empire. Arianism taught the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit but held that the Son was not co-eternal with the Father. However, Arians did not consider worship of Jesus as wrong.[citation needed] Another early form of Nontrinarianism was Monarchianism.
Others believe that the one God who revealed himself in the Old Testament as Jehovah revealed himself in his Son, Jesus Christ. This is a doctrine known originally as Sabellianism or modalism, although it is explained somewhat differently in the churches which hold these beliefs today. Examples of such churches today are Oneness Pentecostals and the New Church.
Several denominations within Mormonism (including the largest, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) accept the divinity of Jesus, but believe the three persons of the Trinity to be separate. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints specifically holds that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate and distinct individuals (D&C 130:22), but can and do act together in perfect unity as a single monotheistic entity (the "Godhead") for the common purpose of saving mankind, Jesus Christ having received divine investiture of authority from Heavenly Father in the pre-existence.
Several denominations within the Sabbatarian Church of God and certain groups within Seventh-day Adventism accept the divinity of the Father and Jesus the Son, but do not teach that the Holy Spirit is a Being. The Living Church of God, for example, teaches, "The Holy Spirit is the very essence, the mind, life and power of God. It is not a Being. The Spirit is inherent in the Father and the Son, and emanates from Them throughout the entire universe". This view has historically been termed Semi-Arianism or Binitarianism.
kingdomready.org/topics/god.php
[ GOD IS 1 NOT 3 ]
Only the Father, Yahweh, is God. Jesus is the Son of God, His only begotten Son, the Messiah. The Bible emphatically and repeatedly sets forth Yahweh's supremacy and exclusivity. There are no other gods besides Him. God is all powerful, everywhere present, immortal, invisible, and all knowing. He did not become a man, His word (reason, intent, plan, self-expression) did. Jesus is the perfect human who always did what God wanted done and always spoke what God wanted said. In fact, it was Jesus who said that the Father is the only one who is truly God (John 17.3). Paul likewise confessed belief in a single deity when he said, "Yet, for us there is but one God, the Father...and one Lord, Jesus Christ..." (1 Corinthians 8.6). Below are resources that aim to describe what the Bible teaches not the philosophies of men.
Origins and basis for Nontrinitarianism
Nontrinitarians claim the roots of their position go back farther than those of their counterpart Trinitarians. The biblical basis for each side of the issue is debated chiefly on the question of the divinity of Jesus. Nontrinitarians note that in deference to God, Jesus rejected even being called "good", that he disavowed omniscience as the Son,[1] and that he referred to ascending unto "my Father, and to your Father; and to my God, and to your God", and that he said "the Father is the only true God." Additionally, Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 6:4 when saying in Mark 12:29 "The most important one (commandment)," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one."
Siding with nontrinitarians, scholars investigating the historical Jesus often assert that Jesus taught neither his own equality with God nor the Trinity (see, for example, the Jesus Seminar). Jesus Seminar is a research team of about 135 New Testament scholars founded in 1985 by the late Robert Funk and John Dominic Crossan under the auspices of the Westar Institute.[1][2] The seminar's purpose is to use historical methods to determine what Jesus, as a historical figure, may or may not have said or done. In addition, the seminar popularizes research into the historical Jesus. The public is welcome to attend the twice-yearly meetings. They produced new translations of the New Testament plus the Gospel of Thomas to use as textual sources. They published their results in three reports The Five Gospels (1993),[3] The Acts of Jesus (1998),[4] and The Gospel of Jesus (1999).[5] They also run a series of lectures and workshops in various U.S. cities.
The text of the Nicene Creed and the Trinity state that the three are "coequal". This is the term actually used in the Doctrine. One might consider co-owners of a business as being equal owners but with different roles to play in operating the business. But nontrinitarians point to a very important statement by Jesus that contradicts the use of the term equal or "coequal". It is a simple passage where Jesus stated his explicit subordinance to the Father: "for my Father is Greater than I(John 14:28)."
In addition, the Trinity and the Nicene Creed were doctrines established over 300 years after the time of Christ on Earth as a result of conflict within the early Church. It is curious to note that Jesus had forewarned the reader in Matthew "beware the doctrines of men".
Some nontrinitarians accept that Scripture teaches Christ is divine in some sense, and the son of God, but deny the personality of the Holy Spirit.
Main Points of Dissent
1. The Trinity as being irrational
Criticism of the doctrine includes the argument that its "mystery" is essentially an inherent irrationality, where the persons of God are claimed to share completely a single divine substance, the "being of God", and yet not partake of each others' identity. It is also pointed out that many polytheistic pre-Christian religions arranged many of their gods in trinities, and that this doctrine may been promoted by Church leaders to make Christendom more acceptable to surrounding cultures.
2. Possible lack of Scriptural support
The New Catholic Encyclopedia, for example, says, "The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught [explicitly] in the [Old Testament]"[14], "The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established [by a council]...prior to the end of the 4th century"[15], and The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia adds, "The doctrine is not explicitly taught in the New Testament". The question, however, of why such a supposedly central doctrine to the Christian faith would never have been explicitly stated in scripture or taught in detail by Jesus himself was sufficiently important to 16th century historical figures such as Michael Servetus as to lead them to argue the question. The Geneva City Council, in accord with the judgment of the cantons of Zόrich, Bern, Basel, and Schaffhausen, condemned Servetus to be burned at the stake for this, and for his opposition to infant baptism.
3. Divinity of Jesus
For some, debate over the biblical basis of the doctrine tends to revolve chiefly over the question of the deity of Jesus (see Christology). Those who reject the divinity of Jesus argue among other things that Jesus rejected being called so little as good in deference to God (versus "the Father") , disavowed omniscience as the Son, "learned obedience" , and referred to ascending unto "my Father, and to your Father; and to my God, and to your God" .
They also dispute that "Elohim" denotes plurality, noting that this name in nearly all circumstances takes a singular verb and arguing that where it seems to suggest plurality, Hebrew grammar still indicates against it. They also point to statements by Jesus such as his declaration that the Father was greater than he or that he was not omniscient, in his statement that of a final day and hour not even he knew, but the Father , and to Jesus' being called the firstborn of creation and 'the beginning of God's creation,' which argues against his being eternal.
In Theological Studies #26 (1965) p.545-73, Does the NT call Jesus God?, Raymond E. Brown wrote that there are "texts that seem to imply that the title God was not used for Jesus" and are "negative evidence which is often somewhat neglected in Catholic treatments of the subject."
Trinitarians, and some non-Trinitarians such as the Modalists who also hold to the divinity of Jesus Christ, claim that these statements are based on the fact that Jesus existed as the Son of God in human flesh. Thus he is both God and man, who became "lower than the angels, for our sake" and who was tempted as humans are tempted, but did not sin .
Some Nontrinitarians counter the belief that the Son was limited only during his earthly life (Trinitarians believe, instead, that Christ retains full human nature even after his resurrection), by citing ("the head of Christ [is] God" [KJV]), written after Jesus had returned to Heaven, thus placing him still in an inferior relation to the Father. Additionally, they claim that Jesus became exalted after ascension to Heaven, and regarding Jesus as a distinct personality in Heaven, all after his ascension.
4. Possible un-Biblical terminology
Christian Unitarians, Restorationists, and others question the doctrine of the Trinity because it relies on non-Biblical terminology. The term "Trinity" is not found in scripture and the number three is never associated with God in any sense other than within the Comma Johanneum. Detractors hold that the only number ascribed to God in the Bible is One and that the Trinity, literally meaning three-in-one, ascribes a threeness to God that is not Biblical.
5. Many scriptural citations lack the Holy Spirit
It is also argued that the vast majority of scriptures that Trinitarians offer in support of their beliefs refer to the Father and to Jesus, but not to the Holy Spirit. This suggests that the concept of the trinity was not well-established in the early Christian community.
6. Whether it is truly monotheistic or not
The teaching is also pivotal to inter-religious disagreements with two of the other major faiths, Judaism and Islam; the former reject Jesus' divine mission entirely, the latter accepts Jesus as a human prophet just like Muhammad but rejects altogether the deity of Jesus. Many within Judaism and Islam also accuse Christian Trinitarians of practicing polytheism, of believing in three gods rather than just one. Islam holds that because Allah is unique and absolute (the concept of tawhid) the Trinity is impossible and has even been condemned as polytheistic. This is emphasized in the Qur'an which states "He (Allah) does not beget, nor is He begotten, And (there is) none like Him." (Qur'an, 112:3-4)
Scriptural texts cited as implying opposition
Among Bible verses cited by opponents of Trinitarianism are those that claim there is only one God, the Father. Other verses state that Jesus Christ was a man. Trinitarians explain these apparent contradictions by reference to the mystery and paradox of the Trinity itself. This is a partial list of verses implying opposition to Trinitarianism:
One God
Matthew 4:10: "Jesus said to him, 'Away from me, Satan! For it is written: "Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only."'"
John 17:3: "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."
1Corinthians 8:5-6: "For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live."
1Timothy 2:5: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus"
The Son is subordinate to the Father
Mark 13:32:"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."
John 5:19: "Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does."
John 14:28: "You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."
John 17:20-23: "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me."
Colossians 1:15: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation."
1stCorinthians 15:24-28: "Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all."
Jesus is not the old testament God
John 2:16: And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.
Acts 3:13: The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up...
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.
Daniel 7:13: I saw in the night visions, and, behold, [one] like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
Psalms 110:1: Jehovah saith unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, Until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Ontological Differences Between "God" and Jesus
John 17:1-3 Jesus prays to God.
Hebrews 2:17,18 Hebrews 3:2 Jesus has faith in God.
Acts 3:13 Jesus is a servant of God.
Mark 13:32 Revelation 1:1 Jesus does not know things God knows.
John 4:22 Jesus worships God.
Revelation 3:12 Jesus has one who is God to him.
1stCorinthians 15:28 Jesus is in subjection to God.
1stCorinthians 11:1 Jesus' head is God.
Hebrews 5:7 Jesus has reverent submission, fear, of God.
Acts 2:36 Jesus is given lordship by God.
Acts 5:31 Jesus is exalted by God.
Hebrews 5:10 Jesus is made high priest by God.
Philippians 2:9 Jesus is given aurthority by God.
Luke 1:32,33 Jesus is given kingship by God.
Acts 10:42 Jesus is given judgment by God.
Acts 2:24, Romans 10.9, 1 Cor 15:15 "God raised [Jesus] from the dead".
Mark 16:19, Luke 22:69, Acts 2:33, Romans 8:34 Jesus is at the right hand of God.
1 Tim 2:5 Jesus is the one human mediator between the one God and man.
1 Cor 15:24-28 God put everything, except Himself, under Jesus.
Alternate views to the Trinity
There have been numerous other views of the relations of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit; the most prominent include:
Arius believed that the Son was subordinate to the Father, firstborn of all Creation. However, the Son did have Divine status. This view is very close to that of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Ebionites believed that the Son was subordinate to the Father and nothing more than a special human.
Marcion believed that there were two Deities, one of Creation / Hebrew Bible and one of the New Testament.
Modalism states that God has taken numerous forms in both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, and that God has manifested Himself in three primary modes in regards to the salvation of mankind.
Swedenborgianism holds that the Trinity exists in One Person, the Lord God Jesus Christ. The Father, the Being or soul of God, was born into the world and put on a body from Mary.
The Urantia Book teaches that God is the first "Uncaused Cause" who is a personality that is omniscient, omnipresent, transcendent, infinite, eternal and omnipotent, but He is also a person of the Original Trinity - "The Paradise Trinity" who are the "First Source and Center, Second Source and Center, and Third Source and Center" or otherwise described as "God, The Eternal Son, and The Divine Holy Spirit".
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, aka "Mormons," hold that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate and distinct individuals (Covenant 130:22), but can and do act together in perfect unity as a single monotheistic entity (the "Godhead") for the common purpose of saving mankind, Jesus Christ having received divine investiture of authority from Heavenly Father in the pre-existence.
Docetism comes from the Greek: δοκηο (doceo), meaning "to seem." This view holds that Jesus only seemed to be human and only appeared to die.
Adoptionism holds that Jesus was chosen on the event of his baptism to be anointed by the Holy Spirit and became divine upon resurrection.
Rastafarians accept Haile Selassie I, the former (and last) emperor of Ethiopia, as Jah (the Rasta name for God incarnate, from a shortened form of Jehovah found in Psalms 68:4 in the King James Version of the Bible), and part of the Holy Trinity as the messiah promised to return in the Bible.
Islam's Holy Book, the Quran, denounces the concept of Trinity (Qur'an 4:171, 5:72-73, 112:1-4), also in nonstandard forms, a Trinity composed of Father, Son and Mary (Qur'an 5:116). Inclusion of Mary in the presumed trinity may have been due to either a quasi-Christian sect known as the Collyridians in Arabia who apparently believed that Mary was divine, or use of the title "Mother of God" to refer to Mary.
Theory of pagan origin and influence
Nontrinitarian Christians have long contended that the doctrine of the Trinity is a prime example of Christian borrowing from pagan sources. According to this view, a simpler idea of God was lost very early in the history of the Church, through accommodation to pagan ideas, and the "incomprehensible" doctrine of the Trinity took its place. As evidence of this process, a comparison is often drawn between the Trinity and notions of a divine triad, found in pagan religions and Hinduism. Hinduism has a triad, i.e., Trimurti.
Some find a direct link between the doctrine of the Trinity, and the Egyptian theologians of Alexandria, for example. They suggest that Alexandrian theology, with its strong emphasis on the deity of Christ, was an intermediary between the Egyptian religious heritage and Christianity.
Nontrinitarians assert that Catholics must have recognized the pagan roots of the trinity, because the allegation of borrowing was raised by some disputants during the time that the Nicene doctrine was being formalized and adopted by the bishops. For example, in the 4th century Catholic Bishop Marcellus of Ancyra's writings, On the Holy Church,9 :
Such a late date for a key term of Nicene Christianity, and attributed to a Gnostic, they believe, lends credibility to the charge of pagan borrowing. Marcellus was rejected by the Catholic Church for teaching a form of Sabellianism.
The early apologists, including Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Irenaeus, frequently discussed the parallels and contrasts between Christianity and the pagan and syncretic religions, and answered charges of borrowing from paganism in their apologetical writings.
Hellenic influences on Christian thought
Advocates of the "Hellenic origins" argument consider it well supported by primary sources. They see these sources as tracing the influence of Philo on post-Apostolic Christian philosophers - many of them ex-pagan Hellenic philosophers - who then interpreted Scripture through the Neoplatonic filter of their original beliefs and subsequently incorporated those interpretations into their theology. The early synthesis between Hellenic philosophy and early Christianity was certainly made easier by the fact that so many of the earliest apologists (such as Athenagoras and Justin Martyr) were Greek converts themselves, whose original beliefs had consisted more of philosophy than religion.
Controversy over Nontrinitarianism's Status
Most nontrinitarians identify themselves as Christian. In this regard The Encyclopedia Britannica states, "To some Christians the doctrine of the Trinity appeared inconsistent with the unity of God....They therefore denied it, and accepted Jesus Christ, not as incarnate God, but as God's highest creature by Whom all else was created....[this] view in the early Church long contended with the orthodox doctrine."This view (nonrtinitarian) in the early church, still supported by some Christians, generates controversy among mainstream Christians. Most members of mainstream Christianity considered it heresy not to believe in the Trinity.
Although some denominations require their members to profess faith in the trinity, most mainline denominations have taken a "hands-off" policy on the subject of the trinity, realizing that since personal study and free thought have been encouraged for years, it is not surprising that some of the conclusions reached would be nontrinitarian. The recognition here is that the trinity is tool for pointing to a greater truth. In other words, Christianity has historically sought to look beyond its doctrines (see Apophasis) to the greater truth they are intended to address, IE God. It is not uncommon for a Methodist, Presbyterian, or Anglican to profess non-trinitarian views, even among the clergy. The response from the governing bodies of those denominations is usually neutral, so long as the disagreement is voiced in respect.
Nontrinitarian Christian groups
American Unitarian Conference
Arian Catholicism
Arianism
Bible Students
Christadelphians
Christian Conventions a non-denominational group which publishes no dogmatic positions, but which a majority of observers classify as non-Trinitarian
Church of Christ, Scientist
Church of God General Conference (Abrahamic Faith)
Church of the Blessed Hope (Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith)
Creation Seventh Day Adventism
Doukhobors
Higher Ground Online
Jehovah's Witnesses
Living Church of God
Living Hope International Ministries
Molokan
Monarchianism
New Church
Oneness Pentecostals
Polish Brethren
Socinianism
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church; see also Mormon)
The Way International
Unification Church
Unitarian Christians
Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship
Iglesia ni Cristo
True Jesus Church
Nontrinitarian people
Natalius, ~200
Sabellius, ~220
Paul of Samosata, 269
Arius, 336
Eusebius of Nicomedia, 341, baptized Constantine
Constantius II, Byzantine Emperor, 361
Antipope Felix II, 365
Aλtius, 367
Ulfilas, Apostle to the Goths, 383
Priscillian, 385, considered first Christian to be executed for heresy
Muhammad, 632, see also Isa
Ludwig Haetzer, 1529
Juan de Valdιs, 1541
Michael Servetus, 1553, burned at the stake in Geneva under John Calvin
Sebastian Castellio, 1563
Ferenc Dαvid, 1579
Fausto Paolo Sozzini, 1604
John Biddle, 1662
Thomas Aikenhead, 1697, last person to be hanged for blasphemy in Britain
John Locke, 1704
Isaac Newton, 1727
William Whiston, 1752, expelled from University of Cambridge in 1710
Jonathan Mayhew, 1766
Emanuel Swedenborg, 1772
Benjamin Franklin, 1790
Joseph Priestley, 1804
Joseph Smith, 1805
Thomas Paine, 1809
Thomas Jefferson, 1826
James Madison, 1836
William Ellery Channing, 1842
Robert Hibbert, 1849
John Thomas (Christadelphian), 1871
Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1882
Benjamin Wilson, 18??
James Martineau, 1900
Charles Taze Russell, 1916
Neville Chamberlain, 1940
William Branham, 1965
Herbert W. Armstrong, 1986
UNİTARİANİSM
Unitarianism is the belief in the oneness of God opposed to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in one God). Unitarians believe in the moral authority, but not the deity, of Jesus.
Unitarianism as a system of Christian thought and religious observance has its basis, as opposed to that of orthodox Trinitarianism, in the unipersonality of the Christian Godhead, i.e. in the idea that the Godhead exists in the person of the Father alone. Unitarians trace their history back to the Apostolic age, claim for their doctrine a prevalence during the ante-Nicene period. A small number of Unitarians claim a continuity through Arian communities and individual thinkers to the present time.
ARİANİSM
God the Father ("unbegotten"), always existing, was separate from the lesser Jesus Christ ("only-begotten"), born before time began and creator of the world. The Father, working through the Son, created the Holy Spirit, who was subservient to the Son as the Son was to the Father. The Father was seen as "the only true God."
Arianism refers to the theological positions made famous by the theologian Arius (c. 250-336 AD), who lived and taught in Alexandria, Egypt, in the early 4th century. The controversial teachings of Arius dealt with the relationship between God the Father and the person of Jesus Christ, a relationship known as the doctrine of the Trinity.
While Arianism continued to dominate for several decades even within the family of the Emperor, the Imperial nobility and higher ranking clergy, in the end it was Trinitarianism which prevailed theologically and politically in the Roman Empire at the end of the fourth century. Arianism, which had been taught by the Arian missionary Ulfilas to the Germanic tribes, was dominant for some centuries among several Germanic tribes in western Europe, especially Goths and Longobards, but ceased to be the mainstream belief by the 8th Century AD. Trinitarianism remained the dominant doctrine in all major branches of the Eastern and Western Church and within Protestantism, although there have been several anti-trinitarian movements, some of which acknowledge various similarities to classical Arianism.
ANOMOEAN
In 4th century Christianity, the Anomans, also known as Anomeans, Heterousians, Aetians, or Eunomians, were a sect of Arians who asserted that Jesus Christ (the Son) was of a different nature and in no way like to that of God (the Father).
The word is from Greek α(ν)- 'not' and όμοίος 'similar' i.e. "different; dissimilar".
In the 4th century, this was the name by which the followers of Aλtius and Eunomius were distinguished; they not only denied the consubstantiality of Jesus but even asserted that he was of a nature different from that of God. This was in contradistinction to the semi-Arians, who indeed denied the consubstantiality of Jesus, but believed at the same time that he was like the Father.
ARİANİSM İN THE EARLY MEDİEVAL GERMANİC KİNGDOMS
During the time of Arianism's flowering in Constantinople, the Gothic convert Ulfilas (later the subject of the letter of Auxentius cited above) was sent as a missionary to the Gothic barbarians across the Danube, a mission favored for political reasons by emperor Constantius II. Ulfilas' initial success in converting this Germanic people to an Arian form of Christianity was strengthened by later events. When the Germanic peoples entered the Roman Empire and founded successor-kingdoms in the western part, most had been Arian Christians for more than a century.
The conflict in the 4th century had seen Arian and Nicene factions struggling for control of the Church. In contrast, in the Arian German kingdoms established on the wreckage of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century, there were entirely separate Arian and Nicene Churches with parallel hierarchies, each serving different sets of believers. The Germanic elites were Arians, and the majority population Nicene.
The Franks were unique among the Germanic peoples in that they entered the empire as pagans and converted to Nicene Christianity directly.
"ARİAN" AS A POLEMİCAL EPITHET
Like the Arians, many groups have embraced the belief that Jesus is not the one God, but a separate being subordinate to the Father, and that Jesus at one time did not exist. Some of these profess, as the Arians did, that God made all things through the pre-existent Christ. Some profess that Jesus became divine, through exaltation, just as the Arians believed. Drawing a parallel between these groups and Arians can be useful for distinguishing a type of unbelief in the Trinity.
Those whose religious beliefs have been compared to or labeled as Arianism include:
*Unitarians, who believe that God is one as opposed to a Trinity, and many of whom believe in the moral authority, but not the deity, of Jesus. Arianism is considered to be an antecedent of Unitarian Universalism.
*Jehovah's Witnesses, who do have some similar beliefs to Arius, namely, that Jesus had a pre-human existence as the Logos. However, Arius viewed the Holy Spirit as a person, whereas Jehovah's Witnesses do not attribute personality to the spirit. Jehovah's Witnesses also, unlike Arians, deny belief in a disembodied soul after death, eternal punishment in hell for the unrepentantly wicked, and episcopacy.
*Christadelphians, along with the Church of the Blessed Hope, believe that Jesus' pre-natal existence was a conceptual Logos, rather than a literal Logos.
*Mormons, followers of the various churches of the Latter Day Saint movement, who believe in the unity in purpose of the Godhead but that Jesus is a divine being distinct from, and created by, God the Father, but similar in every other respect (thus roughly Homoiousian rather than Anomoean). Thus, Jesus is literally (spiritually) the Firstborn of the Father. Also in line with Arianism, Mormons believe that the pre-incarnate Jesus (the Logos of John 1) created the Earth under the direction of the Father. In fact, they go further than most on this point, equating the pre-existent Jesus with Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament (perhaps as a spokesman for the Father, for whom they reserve the Old Testament title Elohim). Although the LDS Church views the doctrinal schisms of the late Roman Empire as a sure sign of the Great Apostasy, they do not officially claim any allegiance to Arius.
*Muslims, who believe that Jesus (generally called Isa), was a Messenger and Prophet of the one God, but not himself divine.
*Michael Servetus, a Spanish scholar and Protestant reformer, is viewed by many Unitarians as a founding figure. In 1553, he was sentenced to death and burned at the stake by his fellow reformers, including John Calvin, for the heresy of Antitrinitarianism, a Christology that may seem similar in some ways to Arianism. However, Servetus rejected Arius's teaching on the Son being a creature created by the Father, and his theology was actually closer to Sabellianism.
*Unpublished writings by Isaac Newton indicate that he held anti-Trinitarian beliefs and regarded the worship of Jesus Christ as God to be idolatrous.[2] He did not publicize these views, which could have cost him his fellowship at Trinity College, Cambridge, and has been described by modern scholars as a secret Arian.[3]
*Spanish liberation theologian Juan Josι Tamayo was accused in 2003 of defending "a renewed version of the old Arian error" which is "incompatible with the Catholic faith", by the Spanish Bishops' Commission for the Doctrine of the Faith, because of his theological positions published in several of his books about the relationship between Jesus and God the Father. Tamayo has up to now rejected the Bishops' demand to stop writing on this issue.[4]
THE THEOLOGİAN JUAN JOSE TAMAYO, ADMONİSHED BY İTS İNCOMPATİBLE İDEAS "WİTH THE CATHOLİC FAİTH"
ABC MADRID.
His book "God and Jesus", written by the secretary of the Association of Theologians and Theologians Juan XXIII, Juan Jose Tamayo Acosta, when considering that their conclusions "are incompatible with the catholic doctrine".
Frontal rejection of the tradition of the Church in its cristolσgicas definitions, arbitrary selection - not justified of passages of the New Testament with the express abandonment of others and interpretation of such according to confused criteria that do not specify ". In the same way,negation of the divinity of Jesus Christ, presentation of Jesus like a mere man, negation of the historical and real character of the resurrection, and this one like fundamental data of the Christian faith ".
THE THEOLOGICAL DEBATES REOPEN AFTER COUNCIL OF NICEA.
The Council of Nicea had not ended the controversy, as many bishops of the Eastern provinces disputed the homoousios, the central term of the Nicene creed, as it had been used by Paul of Samosata, who had advocated a monarchianist Christology. Both the man and his teaching, including the term homoousios, had been condemned by the Synods of Antioch in 269.
Hence, after Constantine's death in 337, open dispute resumed again. Constantine's son Constantius II, who had become Emperor of the eastern part of the Empire, actually encouraged the Arians and set out to reverse the Nicene creed.
Constantius used his power to exile bishops adhering to the Nicene creed, especially Athanasius of Alexandria, who fled to Rome. In 355 Constantius became the sole Emperor and extended his pro-Arian policy toward the western provinces, frequently using force to push through his creed.
As debates raged in an attempt to come up with a new formula, three camps evolved among the opponents of the Nicene creed.
The first group mainly opposed the Nicene terminology and preferred the term homoiousios (alike in substance) to the Nicene homoousios, while they rejected Arius and his teaching and accepted the equality and coeternality of the persons of the Trinity.
The second group also avoided invoking the name of Arius, but in large part followed Arius' teachings and, in another attempted compromise wording, described the Son as being like (homoios) the Father.
A third group explicitly called upon Arius and described the Son as unlike (anhomoios) the Father. Constantius wavered in his support between the first and the second party, while harshly persecuting the third.
The debates between these groups resulted in numerous synods, among them the Council of Sardica in 343, the Council of Sirmium in 358 and the double Council of Rimini and Selecia in 359, and no less than fourteen further creed formulas between 340 and 360, leading the pagan observer Ammianus Marcellinus to comment sarcastically: "The highways were covered with galloping bishops." None of these attempts were acceptable to the defenders of Nicene orthodoxy: writing about the latter councils, Saint Jerome remarked that the world "awoke with a groan to find itself Arian."
After Constantius' death in 361, his successor Julian, a devotee of Rome's pagan gods, declared that he would no longer attempt to favor one church faction over another, and allowed all exiled bishops to return; this had the objective of further increasing dissension among Christians. The Emperor Valens, however, revived Constantius' policy and supported the "Homoian" party, exiling bishops and often using force.
Valens died in the Battle of Adrianople in 378 and was succeeded by Theodosius I, who adhered to the Nicene creed. This allowed for settling the dispute.
Two days after Theodosius arrived in Constantinople, November 24, 380, he expelled the Homoian bishop. Theodosius had just been baptized, by bishop Acholius of Thessalonica, during a severe illness, as was common in the early Christian world. In February he and Gratian published an edict that all their subjects should profess the faith of the bishops of Rome and Alexandria (i.e., the Nicene faith), or be handed over for punishment for not doing so.
In 381, at the Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople, a group of mainly Eastern bishops assembled and accepted the Nicene Creed of 381, which was supplemented in regard to the Holy Spirit, as well as some other changes, see Comparison between Creed of 325 and Creed of 381. This is generally considered the end of the dispute about the Trinity and the end of Arianism among the Roman, non-Germanic peoples.
