>the word trinity was invented around 200 by a guy who didn't even subscribe to the modern model>something resembling a current model of the trinity was accepted in 325>the holy ghost became divine in 381 fully creating the modern model of the trinityFace it. Peter, Paul, James and John were most likely just walking around believing there is one god ("father") and also that Jesus is vaguely divine and they weren't that deep into that.
>>18658650The "Trinity" - specifically the conception of the "Holy Spirit" - exists to obfuscate the incestuous connotations of Jesus Christ's birth. After all, if God inseminated Mary (Matthew 1:18) and Jesus claims to be God (John 10:30) then that means Jesus impregnated his own mother to give birth to himself in an act of magical incest. Disgusting. Hence the necessity of an intermediary between father-son.
>>18658678Don't derail my thread. The point is that the early church had some vague understanding of the judaic god being real and some divinity of Jesus.They didn't have the concept of the a trinity or anything nearly as weird.
>>18658650Well, sure. Religions develop gradually through the accumulation of ideas. The modern conception of the Christian afterlife has more to do with Dante's "Divine Comedy" than anything in the Bible, and Satan as we know him today was essentially invented in Milton's "Paradise Lost."
>>18658705That's exactly my point. I just find it obnoxious that people think that Paul or Peter believed holy ghost is equal with the father and stuff like that.
>>18658650Idk maybe the apostles thought Jesus was the second of the two powers in heaven. That heresy was proven to exist during the apostolic/tannaitic ages. Later Judaism supressed the idea, but the Talmud rages about it enough for it to have been a threat.High Christology didn't come from nowhere.
>>18658713Yeah that's what I'm saying in the thread. The apostles believed>the jewish god>that Jesus was divine in some senseCouls very well be the jewish two powers heresy. Not three coequal blah blah heresy of the later centuries.
>>18658650Trinity is a shorthand way of referring to the only correct way of describing the Christian God. Your problem is that you think the Christian God is some discarnate devil to be worshiped like the jew devil or some hindu devil.
>>18658726Yeah, to me, trinitarianism is obviously a later compromise position between several 'orthodox enough' communities to the exclusion of an increasing number of outliers, most of which weren't really competing Christianities as much as members of the previous semi-orthodoxy that found themselves outside it as it narrowed.Do not feed the Christian identitard, btw.
4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
>>18658690I'm telling you why the Trinity actually developed
>>18658650Yes, the trinity is a late invention.>Peter, Paul, James and John were most likely just walking around believing there is one god ("father") and also that Jesus is vaguely divineThey didn't just believe that he was vaguely divine. He was specifically thought to be an immortal high priest of god who lived in outer space.
>>18658969Your point?>>18659231Something like this, sure. Isn't the high priest part from Hebrew though? It's not Pauline. How do we know these guys believed it?
>>18659324The high priest title (of the order of Melchizedek) for the celestial being sitting at the right hand of Yahweh is based on Psalm 110, which is quoted throughout the New Testament, even by Paul.
>>18659501Thank you.
>>18658705>The modern conception of the Christian afterlife has more to do with Dante's "Divine Comedy" than anything in the BibleNot a single denomination actually believes or teaches that Hell is a subterranean realm with layers and different levels and types of suffering that Satan rules over. You have gotten this from pop culture and not any actual versions of Christianity themselves. Not even Evangelical Protestant types believe such things.>and Satan as we know him today was essentially invented in Milton's "Paradise Lost."No, Satan being a fallen angel that rebelled against God and was cast down to Earth is in the Bible itself>Revelation 12>7 And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, 8 but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them in heaven any longer. 9 So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
>>18658650Jesus literally tells his disciples to go and baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit right there in the gospels themselves; given that Jesus also says in the very same gospels that there is only one God and to only serve and worship this one God, this therefore means the idea of the Trinity is right there in the gospels and they don't make sense without it.Also>John 1:1>and the Word was Godcouldn't be any more clearer and plainer in the text that Jesus literally is God>inb4 muh grammar/muh 'a god' copedon't care. You are just wrong.>>18658713>>18658726No they thought he literally was God>John 20>26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”>28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”cope>>18659231>>18659324>>18659501>this one(1) niche historian's pet theory againnonsensenot only did they not even know what 'outer space' was back then but I bet you people also have no idea what Melchizidek even refers to (he's an actual human character who meets Abraham in Genesis). There is also a Melchizidek document in the Dead Sea Scrolls and it's not about some cosmic space high priest or whatever. Cope.
>>18659912This is absolutely in line with what the Two powers heresy was all about though. Jesus as the Second power in heaven.
>>18659324My point is fuck off forever and stop shitting up this board with your damage control campaign you acerbic shill, it's literally right there.>the glory I had with thee before the world was
>>18658650Face it. You're going to burn in a trash pit for eternity, and you could've avoided it just by trusting in Jesus. I'm so glad I'm not you.
>>18660164Okay. So Jesus is eternal/very old. This thread is about the whole model of the trinity meaning coeternal and consubstantial three persons including the holy ghost.Your point?>>18660165>trusting in JesusSo why would I as a European trust a supossed king (a carpenter in reality) from the middle east? He is not my king.
>>18659202I'm going to dissmiss this.
>>18658650The Holy Spirit was already a thing in Judaism, but it is understood as the way God interferes with the physical world. Not as a separate persona.
>>18660165What a great argument. Modern Christianity comes from centuries after the death of Jesus and yet you christcucks still believe in this crap.
>>18660213>Jesus is eternalI accept your concession.
>>18660247Yeah they believed he was vaguely divine. Just as I said in the thread.Your point, retard?
>>18659912>not only did they not even know what 'outer space' was back thenWrong, to them, the heavens were just outer space, the place where the sun, moon, planets and stars, etc. moved. This was the common use of the word both by Greeks and Jews of the time. >he's an actual human characterThere are actually two Melchizedeks. One is the contemporary of Abraham, a priest who blesses Abraham and gives him bread and wine (just like Jesus does in Paul's vision, which was made into the eucharist myth). The other is the celestial being at the right hand of Yahweh who is of the order of Melchizedek spoken of in Psalm 110. By the 1st century, there were Jewish sects making fanfictions about these Melchizedeks. One such fanfiction is the 11Q13 you alluded to, which talks exactly about the celestial Melchizedek who will defeat Belial and his angels (who live in outer space) and fulfil OT prophecies. There's also 2 Enoch which gives a virgin birth story to the earthly Melchizedek and says there will also be another more superior Melchizedek who will be the highest priest and word and power of God (note the similarities to Jesus). https://www.marquette.edu/maqom/slavonicenoch.html(Also note how the heavens are described in 2 Enoch)In Hebrews, Jesus explicitly has the role of the celestial Melchizedek and is called the high priest in outer space. Just as earthly Melchizedek was a non-Levite priest (beyond the law of Moses), so too is the celestial Melchizedek (Jesus). Similarly, just as it was the duty of the earthly high priest to perform the annual Yom Kippur goat sacrifice to atone for the sins of Israel, the celestial priest Jesus too would perform a blood sacrifice, but with himself in a flesh suit (made from David's sperm) as the goat, and that casts a more powerful and lasting magic which will replace the annual goat blood magic prescribed by the Jewish law.Overall, it's clear that the Jesus cult was copying a lot of material from the Melchizedek cult.
>>18660249Vaguely nothing.The word translated here as world is really "kosmon", cosmos, which includes both heaven and earth.The Son pre-exists the angels, he shared in the *glory* of God the Father before creation itself ever happened.You might not know exactly why sharing in this glory in particular is significant, because your grasp on this subject is tenuous and really based on nothing more than hostility.Huge blind spot for you honestly, it's because you're only exposed to a single polemical dimension.
>>18660280nothing about any of this really contradicts Jesus also being considered God at the same time or his Earthly ministry happening or that they believed he took on this heavenly high priest role after he ascended from Earth and was enthroned>a priest who blesses Abraham and gives him bread and wine (just like Jesus does in Paul's visionI don't know what you mean by this, Paul doesn't describe it like thisthis point about how they thought the demons were in the air or atmosphere is also not what you imagine it to mean; the idea that they thought the demons were actually in outer space is just an extropolation based on a misunderstanding of the fact that the Jews at the time believed the heavens had several layers to it (hence why Paul says he was carried up in the spirit to 'the third heaven') and they simply included the sky/upper atmosphere as part of the heavens too - but this is not the same layer as the firmanent where the sun, moon, stars etc are (i.e. space); the throne of God and Jesus was thought to be beyond these layers of sky and space. They didn't think that the fallen angels and Jesus were in the same layer; the demons are very much still just consigned to Earth (including its skies). That's why Paul talks about 'the spirits of the air;' he doesn't mean space by this, that is a misread.
>>18660342>nothing about any of this really contradicts Jesus also being considered God at the same timeHe was not Yahweh, he was the high priest and firstborn son of Yahweh. > Paul doesn't describe it like this1 Corinthians 11:23>23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to youPaul is talking about a vision.>They didn't think that the fallen angels and Jesus were in the same layerI didn't say they lived in the same layer. Both of them lived in outer space, which has several layers. The exact number of layers varies depending on which text you read, but they are all outer space. In 2 Enoch for example, there are 10 layers and Yahweh is in the 10th layer, which is said to be visible from the 7th layer, and the 9th layer has the 12 zodiacs, which is clearly part of outer space. So Yahweh's house is visible even from parts of outer space below the zodiac. It's just a matter of how far into outer space you go.Satan and his angels are usually given a place in the lowest heavens. For Philo, the lowest heaven was everything below the Moon (following Aristotle). This was also the perfect place for Satan to be because according to the Platonic cosmology which Philo followed, the heavens (planets and stars) are eternal and unchanging perfect works of god, whereas everything below the moon is constantly changing and corrupt. So in this reading, Satan lives above the sky and below the moon.
>>18660280>There's also 2 Enoch which gives a virgin birth story to the earthly Melchizedek and says there will also be another more superior Melchizedek who will be the highest priest and word and power of God (note the similarities to Jesus).>literally have pre-Jesus biblical works prophesying Jesus, even outside of mainstream biblical canon>"nah, it can't be that the prophecies about a future historical figure were actually real and happened, it must be [convoluted headcanon pet theory to cope and explain it away]"atheists are so funny
>>18660393> Paul doesn't describe it like this>1 Corinthians 11:23>23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you>Paul is talking about a vision.Paul isn't saying he had a vision of Jesus in Heaven re-enacting the last supper with Paul and handing just him a new loaf and cup of bread and wine, he is very obviously saying that Jesus showed him a vision of the past events of the last supper, on the night that it happened, as if Paul had been taken back there, not that a new Eucharist was being routinely performed by Jesus in Heaven.Btw, the Eastern Orthodox actually believe that when they celebrate the Eucharist in the Divine Liturgy that they are also mystically present at the Last Supper itself in some sense, hence why they call it the Mystical Supper. Paul is saying something like this here and that this why he counts as an apostle, because he was mystically present at the Last Supper by Jesus showing him/transporting him there in a vision, out of body and 'in the spirit.'>rest of your postirrelevant speculation that doesn't somehow prove Paul or the apostles never thought Jesus was actually on Earth. You are also simply just wrong about the heavenly throne layer being 'in outer space;' they didn't think that. It's beyond space.
>>18660393>>18660416
>>18660400They would only be successful prophecies if they happened. It's very obvious that the christians were just taking these prophecies from the OT and making up the biography of Jesus based on those. Also, the biggest prophecy of the NT which is Jesus' second coming failed miserably anyway.>>18660416>he is very obviously saying that Jesus showed him a vision of the past events of the last supperPaul doesn't mention any "last supper" in that verse, he uses the word παρεδίδετο, which is sometimes translated as betrayal, but it also means surrendered to or given up or delivered to. He uses a conjugate of the same word (παρέδωκεν) in Romans 8.32 to say that God gave Jesus up for "all of us" and also in other places. See for various uses of the word: https://biblehub.com/greek/strongs_3860.htmAlso, it would be silly for Paul to claim that he saw an event which happened to the apostles just a few years ago in a vision, when they could get the real story from the apostles anyway. On the other hand, Paul never even talks about Jesus having any disciples, being betrayed by any Judas, being a preacher, etc. and only mentions knowing about him through visions. All of this indicates that to Paul, Jesus is just a celestial being.>irrelevant speculationNot really, those were just the views of heaven back then (outer space). This isn't even controversial. You failed to even address the arguments.
>>18660439>It's very obvious that the christians were just taking these prophecies from the OT and making up the biography of Jesus based on thosemost historians agree Jesus was a real guy who lived in Galilee and was crucified. The idea Jesus never existed is fringe niche bullshit, no one takes this space-Jesus theory seriously, it's just the hypothesis of one(1) quack 'historian' with no backing (but liked by psueds on 4chan for some reason). In the historical view, Jesus did exist and his life was roughly as described by the gospels. >Also, the biggest prophecy of the NT which is Jesus' second coming failed miserably anywaywhen Jesus talks about the days of calamity, the Son of Man being glorified, the kingdom of God being at hand he's not talking about the same thing as the day of judgement; he's talking about the ascension then the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD and the advent of the church. This is so obvious. It's only protestants and atheists with a protestant understanding of scripture that don't get this point due to being ignorant of history immediately following the gospels and not being aware of/not counting early church writings outside the Bible itself as important.>Paul doesn't mention any "last supper" in that verse, he uses the word παρεδίδετο, which is sometimes translated as betrayal, but it also means surrendered to or given up or delivered totomato, tomato. Cope. It's obvious what Paul is talking about there or he wouldn't say 'the night that Jesus ____' obviously referring to Gethsemane.>On the other hand, Paul never even talks about Jesus having any disciples, being betrayed by any Judas, being a preacher, etc.because all his letters are written to church congregations that already exist at this point so the context of all of this goes without saying>Not really, those were just the views of heaven back then (outer space)you are just incorrect about where they thought the throne, glory and Seraphim etc were. Cope.
>>18658678nigger how fucking retarded are you to not grasp the concept of immaculate birth at all?
>>18660497>most historians agreeI wasn't even talking about mythicism there lol. Most serious historians agree that the life of Jesus is highly mythologized using OT prophecies and that he was probably a failed apocalyptic prophet. They also agree that he was seen as a pre-existent celestial being (as Paul, Hebrews explicitly state). Whether he was also an earthly being in addition to being celestial is the question of mythicism, but I wasn't talking about mythicism. Also, Carrier is a legitimate historian with a PhD from Columbia University, unlike christian fundamentalists who think Jesus really was god and walked around Galilee doing miracles and rising as a zombie lol. You won't find support for your position from "most historians".>because all his letters are written to church congregations that already exist at this point so the context of all of this goes without sayingSo why would he claim that he had a vision of an event which happened to the apostles just a few years ago when they could have just asked the apostles instead? Is he retarded?>you are just incorrect about where they thought the throne, glory and Seraphim etc wereNot an argument.
>>18660545>failed apocalyptic prophetfounding the worlds most successful religion is hardly failing
>>18660497>tomato, tomato. Cope.Also, here's Ehrman saying the same thing I didhttps://ehrmanblog.org/does-paul-know-that-judas-betrayed-jesus/"What we can say, I think, is that Paul makes no definitive reference to Judas or the betrayal. " I know people who appeal to "most historians even secular ones agree jebus was real" love quoting Ehrman, so you should like this post.>>18660558Unfortunately, his prophecy wasn't that it would become the world's "most successful religion" (whatever that means), but that he would come back in a few years and destroy all of Yahweh's enemies both on Earth and in outer space. So yea, that makes Jesus a failure.
>>18660558Doing it by accident when the rapture doesnt come and youre killed is. Youre smart enough to see your own cop out.
>>18660580>>18660571You say he fulfilled none of the prophesies but you were defeated yesterday by a donkey.
>>18660545>>18660571>Most serious historians agree that the life of Jesus is highly mythologized using OT prophecies*they cope and say that the prophesied parts are made up after the fact because otherwise it means the prophecy is real FTFY>They also agree that he was seen as a pre-existent celestial beingthey don't>(as Paul, Hebrews explicitly state)he doesn't>Also, Carrier is a legitimate historian with a PhD from Columbia Universitylol Carrier is a quack who is not taken seriously by anyone and his whole entire motivation for his niche pet theory is probably picrel i.e. sex pest weirdo steeped in sin, post-hoc rationalizing his lifestyle like all these fuckers, every time>inb4 umm ackshually argumentum ad hominemunfortunately when it comes to Christianity like this the character of the detractor actually almost always does factor into their motivation and raison d'tere, you see this so many timesSo why would he claim that he had a vision of an event which happened to the apostles just a few years ago when they could have just asked the apostles instead? Is he retarded?he is making a case to justify why he counts as a legitimate apostle you illiterate philistine>you are just incorrect about where they thought the throne, glory and Seraphim etc were>Not an argument.copethe layers of Heaven are described in works such as the apocryphal Baruch 3. It's not just 'outer space.' Space is the firmament, the throne is beyond this. You are mistaken.>Bart Ehrman, the secular Jew predisposed to disprove the legitimacy and divinity of the Messiahhe doesn't understand basic things like Jesus was buried in a rich man's tomb or why Pontius Pilate didn't have him executed immediately in the gospel accounts and thinks such things disprove the narrative, he is a pleb>but that he would come back in a few years and destroy all of Yahweh's enemies both on Earth and in outer spaceheadcanonwhat part of 'my kingdom is not of this world' do you not understand?
>>18660545>>18660571
>>18660213>>18660243Keep stoking those flames. I find it rich that you are so bold now yet will start throwing a tantrum when you're told you have to go in the burn pit.
nobody in this thread has ever set foot in a church
>>18660831Let me guess: You're brown?
>>18660776>they cope>Carrier is a quack>steeped in sinAd hominem, appeal to conspiracy, appeal to fairy tales, appeal to authority. If you want to appeal to authority, call me when you have a PhD in history like Carrier and publish a peer reviewed book refuting his.>he doesn't1 Corinthians 8:6, 1 Corinthians 10:4 (Jesus is the rock Moses beats in Exodus 17 to make water), Hebrews 1, etc.>the apocryphal Baruch 3. It's not just 'outer space.' Space is the firmamentLet's look at what Baruch 3 says and see if it agrees with you:Chapter 2>And he took me and led me where the firmament has been set fast, [...] And he took me and led me to the first heaven, and showed me a door of great size. So, Baruch has already been flown past firmament in chapter 2. Now let's look at chapter 6, when he has already flown to the 3rd heaven>And he took me and led me where the sun goes forth;Ah, so the sun is in the 3rd heaven above the firmament which means outer space (which includes the sun) is not just the firmament like you claimed.>the throne is beyond this [the firmament].Well duh, the throne is at a greater distance than the firmament. They are all still in outer space.>he is making a case to justify why he counts as a legitimate apostle you illiterate philistineLol, that's not at all what he's doing there. He is making up a vision of Jesus to admonish people who are coming to the church just to collect food and drink. And he's saying the reason the church attendees are falling ill and dying (before Jesus could come and give them immortal body suits as promised) is because they keep doing this. You can just read the thing instead of making shit up.>he doesn't understand basic thingsNot an argument. Ad hominem.
>>18661142>Ad hominem, appeal to conspiracy, appeal to fairy tales, appeal to authorityappeal to authority is only a logical fallacy if the authority is not legitimate or relevant. Ad hominem is only a logical fallacy if the aspect of the person's character is not related to the topic at all.>If you want to appeal to authority, call me when you have a PhD in history like Carrier and publish a peer reviewed book refuting his"you can only comment on X thing if you have done X thing" now this actually is a logical fallacyalthough, as already stated, all the other historians, who also have PhDs in history and have written peer reviewed books and papers, disagree with his niche pet hypothesis.>1 Corinthians 8:6>yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.Amenthough I dunno what you think this proves in regards to you and Carrier's weird theory. You do realize a basic tenant of Christianity is that Jesus, the Son, the Word, the Logos, created everything, right? It plainly says that in the opening lines to John. This doesn't indicate that Jesus was originally thought to only exist in space. It's always been the case that Christians thought the Son had a pre-incarnate existence too.>1 Corinthians 10:4 (Jesus is the rock Moses beats in Exodus 17 to make water)Paul is saying that things that happened in the OT were symbolic foreshadowings of Jesus, yes, what about it? These are what are called theophanies of Christ in traditional theology.>Baruch 3my point was that they thought the heavens had layers; you already said yourself Enoch says there are 10. The point wasn't the exact number or what's on each layer, just it's clearly that at some point the layers stop being space.>He is making up a vision of Jesus to admonish people no he's recounting the vision to prove he has the authority to admonish people and teach about the Eucharist
>>18661327>all the other historians [...] disagree with his niche pet hypothesis.Not all of them, there are quite a few historians (~50) who think mythicism is a serious possibility. Carrier maintains a list which you can look up on his website if you care to not lie about this. Anyway, we weren't arguing mythicism, but about Jesus as a failed apocalyptic prophet. That is something most historians actually do agree with, so your appeals to authority won't help much.>you think this proves in regards to you and Carrier's weird theory.Here we were discussing Jesus as a pre-existent celestial being, not mythicism. If you didn't disagree with this, you shouldn't have said you disagreed. Quoting John isn't helpful if we want to know what the earliest Christians thought, since John is written too late to be useful for this.>were symbolic foreshadowings of Jesus, yes, what about it?There's nothing about a magic water-making rock which foreshadows a 1st century Galilean preacher. > just it's clearly that at some point the layers stop being space.The point is, they don't stop being space at any point. The higher layers are just at a greater spatial distance from Earth than the lower layers. It's all outer space. >no he's recounting the visionRecounting the vision he just made up, sure.
>>18658650The original Nicene creed was also not exclusively trinitarian, but was easily accepted by monarchians. What is called the Nicene creed today is a later edit.The More You Know.
>Arian theology holds that Jesus is the Son of God, who was begotten by God the Father, with the difference that the Son of God did not always exist but was begotten/made before time by God the Father. Therefore, Jesus was not coeternal with God the Father, but nonetheless Jesus began to exist outside time.Why did this cause Christianity to almost fall apart? This doesn't even have any practical impact on the religion.
>>18662320To be honest, Constantine cared very little over it and only just wanted the priests to stop fighting over it. I doubt much laymen had even known about the controversy.
>>18662320>This doesn't even have any practical impact on the religionIt does. Just look at the Jehovah's Witnesses; they are the modern-day Arians. If you don't view Jesus as literally God then this starts to have a knock-on effect where Jesus's word (the actual most important part) is devalued and you start to focus on and equally value other things such as overly focusing on the old testament or starting to just wholesale invent new doctrines and theology because there is no 'absolute word of Jesus safeguard' acting as a guardrail, so to speak. It also means you fundamentally misunderstand what the point of the gospel is, God's relationship to humanity as described in the gospels and the nature of salvation. It also means that certain traditional sacramental things like the Eucharist are less valued and perfunctory with no reverence for them (since if you think Jesus isn't God then it would follow that you'd think there isn't anything divine about such traditions, just symbolic and temporal).Basically, if you don't think Jesus is God himself then the religion can quickly morph into something else that isn't Christianity over time.
>>18662354No, they are not. The closest major analog to arianism is seventh day adventist theology. No one cares.
>>18662354Arianism doesn't even say Jesus is or isnt (a) God. It just says Jesus did not always exist in parallel with the Father. The Father came first, but for all practical purposes they both have always existed since the Father created him before time even was a thing.
>>18662426>created him before time>created>before timeNonsense. Before presupposes time.
>>18658650Figuring out what the original true form of "Christianity" was like is the same as trying to find the ground on Jupiter.
>>18662427Take that beef up with Arius lol>Arius believed that Jesus came into existence before time existed>Davis, Leo Donald (1990). The first seven ecumenical councils (325–787) p. 52: their history and theology
>>18662428We do have some insight thanks to the gospels. The first gospel Mark is still pretty down to Earth, then the claims get wilder and wilder as the gospels are written over time until we end up with John and the Book of Revelation which straight up turn Jesus into God himself.
>>18662432>tfw the bible got a shitty remaster
