who created christianity

[DeistPaladin]

That is silly. The Trinity was concieved of becasue of the fervent belief that Jesus was God. Overtime people began to question who was the better God. From this arose the Trinity, which states that they are coeternal and coequal.

The Trinity is an attempt to answer the conundrum of how Jesus could be the intercessor deity to the same OT god that forbade any gods before him (see 1st commandment).

Christianity is not the fulfillment of Judaism as Christians like to claim. Reading the OT thoroughly reveals as much. The Jews had no concept of Hell (they believed in Sheol or "the grave" which was essentially oblivion) nor a need for an intercessor to Yahweh. Their god was a jealous god who interacted personally with his people and demanded constant undivided attention. He makes is clear in Is. 43:10-12 that he delegates the role of judge and savior to no one. The Messiah was neither a godling nor a lamb of God for all of humanity but a glorious-yet-mortal warlord who would conquer and lead Israel to victory.

The earliest book of the NT offers an idea of how the idea of Jesus-the-intercessor-deity came to be. Revelation was actually written before any of the other books in the NT. It features a Jesus who is born in Heaven and reigns on earth (as opposed to the Gospel Jesus were the reverse is true). He leads an army down to earth to defeat Israel's enemies, presumably the Romans at that time. The Jesus character here is far from the gentle-meek-and-mild lamb of God but closer to the warlord idea that the Jews traditionally had about their Messiah-to-be.

At the time that Revelation was being written (by John of Patmos, an island known for its hallucinogenic mushrooms, which might explain why the book reads like a bad LSD trip) the Jews were chaffing under Roman rule. This was no small theological crisis for the "chosen people" of Yahweh. What happened to the pact that Yahweh had made? What happened to the line of David which was to rule forever? Where was the kingdom they were promised?

The OT contains no concept of Hell or the need for an intercessor. Such ideas are introduced in the NT. So where did the Christians get their ideas. It just so happens that surrounding "pagan" religions, Egyptian, Greek and Persian, did have ideas about an afterlife, Hell, salvation from it and an intercessor to the divine as well as certain practices like the Eucharist and the dying-and-rising savior. Knowing this, a more compelling scenario to the Christian dreamscape is that a faction of Jews, wondering where their kingdom was, began looking for it in a higher realm.

The amalgamation of Judaism with Pagan ideas is evident not just in the sudden introduction of Hell and a dying-and-rising savior deity to replace the Jewish warlord-messiah. It's also apparent in the taking over of sacred pagan festivals like Easter and Christmas. Ever wonder what wreaths, mistletoe, bunny rabbits and colored eggs have to do with Jesus? Nothing. They're holdovers from the previous pagan celebrations of the winter solstice and spring equinox. This also explains why the sabbath was moved from Saturday to Sunday, in violation of the 4th commandment.

The dying-and-rising savior was familiar to and no doubt appealing to the pagan converts to Christianity but presented a problem for the strictly monotheistic Jewish traditions. What was Jesus exactly? Was he a human as the Ebionites believed? An angel as the Aryans believed? A higher god as the Marcionites believed? If he was not God, how could he forgive sins? And wasn't praying to him a violation of the 1st commandment? But if Jesus was God, as the Docetics believed, who was Jesus praying to? How could God die on a cross? And how could God be his own intercessor? "No man commeth unto the father but by me" becomes "no man commeth unto me but by me".

The earliest Gospels were the "Synoptic Gospels" or Matthew, Mark and Luke. Reading these Gospels by themselves, ignoring John for a moment, one gets the sense that Jesus is separate from and subordinate to Yahweh. Jesus prays to Yahweh. Yahweh introduces Jesus in the 3rd person and speaks to him in the 2nd person. Jesus proclaims "not my will but thy will be done" suggesting that he is separate from and subordinate to Yahweh. A Christian would be hard pressed to find anything in these three Gospels that even suggests the Trinity. This was an "advanced" theological concept that didn't come along until John was being penned.

The "solution" was the Trinity. When Jesus prays to Yahweh, that's when he's not Yahweh. When Jesus forgives sins, that's when he is Yahweh. He's God and yet also not God at the same time. Three separate persons but one "substance", whatever that's supposed to mean. Three gods and yet they're one. Jesus is the subordinate intercessor to and yet also equal to Yahweh.

Also, the Trinity serves a special function in Theology. It allows for a completely just and loving God. It also allows for a God which is both outside of time and inside of time.

WTF?

Further, the theology of the Trinity was very well articulated before Nicea, and is pretty well articulated in the Gospel of John, and it is sprinkled throughout the NT, and even in a way in the OT.

It's actually not well articulated in John. Even the Gospel of John contradicts the idea at points.

John 14:28 My father is greater than I.
John 20:17 I ascend unto my father and your father, to my God and your God.

The Epistles are also not entirely clear on this point either

1Cor 11:3 The head of Christ is God
1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

I'm keen to know where in the OT you find the Trinity.

Most scholars agree that John thought Jesus was God.

Apparently John didn't always agree with these "scholars". See the citations above.

Well the fact is that these various groups were ultimately not that influential and died out.

By being persecuted out of existence. And their influence can still be felt in Christian theology. Christian sentiments that the material world is evil and the spiritual world is good likely come from Docetic ideas. Matthew is the most Ebionite of the Gospels (and a variant of it was used by them according to Bart Ehrman). That Christians tie Jewish laws like the Ten Commandments into their theology might be their influence. That Christians then feel free to ignore the OT when the like is very Marcionite. I think it's a bit much to rule out any influence by these alternate Christianities that lost at Nicaea.

Well, most scholars agree that He did exist.

The Bible does not. See 1John 4:1-3 and 2John 1:7. In two separate epistles, John rails against a faction of early Christians that didn't believe Jesus had existed as a flesh-and-blood being. Wasn't this recent history for those who would have known better? Why appeal to faith as he did and not dismiss them as crazy for ignoring an obvious reality?

If a real Jesus did exist and Christian mythology was built upon his story, good luck ever knowing what that story was. The only detailed accounts we have, indeed only accounts at all we have of his teachings, are contained only in Christian mythology. Separating fact from fiction will be impossible without some new archeological discovery. If such a man did exist, his story likely bares so little resemblance to the Gospel character that we might as well say that the Gospel character never existed.

Also, if Jesus really existed, it is evident from the dearth of any non-Christian testimony that he was so insignificant that no one ever noticed him (quite to the contrary of Gospel claims that his fame spread far and wide).

Once again there were not that many different interpretations of Jesus in the early days. Most of these were small and lost power quickly.

Centuries is not "quickly". And again, it was only persecution that ultimately drove them out of existence.

[dqualk]

Christianity is not the fulfillment of Judaism as Christians like to claim. Reading the OT thoroughly reveals as much. The Jews had no concept of Hell (they believed in Sheol or "the grave" which was essentially oblivion) nor a need for an intercessor to Yahweh. Their god was a jealous god who interacted personally with his people and demanded constant undivided attention. He makes is clear in Is. 43:10-12 that he delegates the role of judge and savior to no one. The Messiah was neither a godling nor a lamb of God for all of humanity but a glorious-yet-mortal warlord who would conquer and lead Israel to victory.

Christianity is valid within itself. I'm sure you have read the OT more thoroughly then say St. Paul, or St. Augustine.

The Jews did have a concept of hell. They had not concrete concept of hell. In fact Jesus follows in the tradition of the pharisees of his day by asserting that there is a heaven and a hell.

The earliest book of the NT offers an idea of how the idea of Jesus-the-intercessor-deity came to be. Revelation was actually written before any of the other books in the NT. It features a Jesus who is born in Heaven and reigns on earth (as opposed to the Gospel Jesus were the reverse is true). He leads an army down to earth to defeat Israel's enemies, presumably the Romans at that time. The Jesus character here is far from the gentle-meek-and-mild lamb of God but closer to the warlord idea that the Jews traditionally had about their Messiah-to-be.

I hope you realize that you are in the EXTREME minority when you say this. Scholars are nearely unanimous in their assertion that Revelation was the oldest work to be written. Also, it makes references to the life of Jesus on Earth, as it shares similar symbols and wording with the Gospel of John. For this reason most scholars agree that it did come out of a Johannine School of thought. References to the lamb of God, and to Marry queen of heaven, paralell with John's Gospel and Luke's.

Also, the Gospels all agree that Jesus is coming again to judge the right and wrong and directly rule over His people.

The OT contains no concept of Hell or the need for an intercessor. Such ideas are introduced in the NT. So where did the Christians get their ideas. It just so happens that surrounding "pagan" religions, Egyptian, Greek and Persian, did have ideas about an afterlife, Hell, salvation from it and an intercessor to the divine as well as certain practices like the Eucharist and the dying-and-rising savior. Knowing this, a more compelling scenario to the Christian dreamscape is that a faction of Jews, wondering where their kingdom was, began looking for it in a higher realm. [quote]

Wrong again. The book of Macabees makes very clear assertions of the after life. It is a VERY Jewish book. Also, the protestant OT, or Tanakh, makes vague inconclusive references to an afterlife of sorts. Although their understanding of afterlife for the most part seemed to be a shadowy realm where you sleep, similar to the Hades of the Greeks.

[quote]The amalgamation of Judaism with Pagan ideas is evident not just in the sudden introduction of Hell and a dying-and-rising savior deity to replace the Jewish warlord-messiah. It's also apparent in the taking over of sacred pagan festivals like Easter and Christmas. Ever wonder what wreaths, mistletoe, bunny rabbits and colored eggs have to do with Jesus? Nothing. They're holdovers from the previous pagan celebrations of the winter solstice and spring equinox. This also explains why the sabbath was moved from Saturday to Sunday, in violation of the 4th commandment.

You have clearly demonstrated that you only read minority "scholars" if they can even be called that. Because a lot of what you are saying is second hand propaganda that is dumbed down to feed to the masses.

Easter is actually celebrated on the passover, a Jewish holiday. Christmas was adopted because it served the purpose of Church which wanted to find a suitable day to celebrate the incarnation. They chose Christmas for many reasons, they wanted a solar date rather than a lunar date like easter, they wanted it to be far enough away from easter as to not have the two biggest celebrations back to back, and it was popular at the time to celebrate the birth of the Sun during the winter equinox. This was very helpful as it served as a teaching tool, you could say, the same way the sun is being born and we are celebrating it, so too are we celebrating the birth of the Son. The winter equinox is known as the birth of the sun becasue it is at that point that the days began getting longer rather than shorter. Also, it took attention away from Sol Inviticus, a pagan reaction to Christianity that was popular around the 4th century, when Chrsitianity had argueably transformed the entire idea of religion. The worshipers of Sol Inviticus chose the winter solicistice for the same reason, that is the "brith of the sun" concept.

The dying-and-rising savior was familiar to and no doubt appealing to the pagan converts to Christianity but presented a problem for the strictly monotheistic Jewish traditions. What was Jesus exactly? Was he a human as the Ebionites believed? An angel as the Aryans believed? A higher god as the Marcionites believed? If he was not God, how could he forgive sins? And wasn't praying to him a violation of the 1st commandment? But if Jesus was God, as the Docetics believed, who was Jesus praying to? How could God die on a cross? And how could God be his own intercessor? "No man commeth unto the father but by me" becomes "no man commeth unto me but by me".

The earliest Gospels were the "Synoptic Gospels" or Matthew, Mark and Luke. Reading these Gospels by themselves, ignoring John for a moment, one gets the sense that Jesus is separate from and subordinate to Yahweh. Jesus prays to Yahweh. Yahweh introduces Jesus in the 3rd person and speaks to him in the 2nd person. Jesus proclaims "not my will but thy will be done" suggesting that he is separate from and subordinate to Yahweh. A Christian would be hard pressed to find anything in these three Gospels that even suggests the Trinity. This was an "advanced" theological concept that didn't come along until John was being penned.

The "solution" was the Trinity. When Jesus prays to Yahweh, that's when he's not Yahweh. When Jesus forgives sins, that's when he is Yahweh. He's God and yet also not God at the same time. Three separate persons but one "substance", whatever that's supposed to mean. Three gods and yet they're one. Jesus is the subordinate intercessor to and yet also equal to Yahweh.

That is pretty good lay out, a bit flawed I beleive. First there are references to Jesus diety in all of the Gospels. It is true that John has much stronger emphasis. The Orthodox opinion was ultimately the one that won out, and it is very supported in the Gospels. That is that God is fully man and fully God. When he prays to God as a subordinate it is because he is demonstrating that he is fully man. When he forgives sins he is demonstrating that he is fully God. If you would like to read a good creed that lays this out clearly the Athanasius Creed was created for this purpose. That is not to say that the Orthodox Christians did not struggle to articulate what they believed, as it was difficult, and still is difficult to grasp. But, if natural selection played its part in this area, the Orthodox opinion won out as the legitimate interpretation for the Gospels, and it certainly fits well. I'm not saying you cant make the aryan view fit, but I think it is just a weaker view.

Another point which lends strength to the orthodox opinion is that the Bishops supporting it were in a direct line from the apostles. Peter down to the present Pope, and at the time there was a direct line back to other apostles like John. The people supporting hte other views were novel and independent thinkers. Marcion was clearly a revisionist and independent. Arius had more legitimacy, but he was just a priest, when he convinced the mobs to support his take over, which was resisted by the Church.

Also, the Trinity serves a special function in Theology. It allows for a completely just and loving God. It also allows for a God which is both outside of time and inside of time.

WTF?

Uhh you did not articulate what it is you mean here. I mean do you disagree with that statement, do you want to know what I mean by that statement or what? I'll just assume I know what your vulgarity means. The Theological purpose that made the idea of Trinity popular was that with the Jews, and their monotheism God was anthropomorphically seen as a jealous and self-loving God. This is because they only understood God as being one in person. But with the Christian understanding that God is Trinity the Godhead is now able to be absolutely self less and full of charity. As the Father gives everything He has to the Son and the Son in return empties Himself into the Father. Christ incarnation allowed for man to begin the process of Theosis which allows us through Christ to enter into this Triune love dance justly. As without Christ as our head we would not be worthy to participate in the love of God because we are not worthy of such love, and that would be unjust. But Christ is worthy, and he enterned into man and made us worthy. This is one reason why Trinity, incarnation, and crucifixion are so important in Theology.

It's actually not well articulated in John. Even the Gospel of John contradicts the idea at points.

John 14:28 My father is greater than I.
John 20:17 I ascend unto my father and your father, to my God and your God.

The Epistles are also not entirely clear on this point either

1Cor 11:3 The head of Christ is God
1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

I'm keen to know where in the OT you find the Trinity.

Well as I and the Orthodox Christians have pointed out, Jesus at times emphasizes His humanity and at other times emphasizes his Divinity.

There are various verses but I trust you could look them up as easy as I could. For now I'll just post the ones that come my head, and if you absolutely want me to look them up for you I shall.

In Isaiah, I believe its Isaiah, it says that a child will be born and he shall be called Almighty God, there is also the creation account that makes use of the Spirit of God and the Word of God, there is also the interesting grammatical use of the singlue plural within Hebrew, which could be a way of referring to the plurality, yet oneness of God. There is also the reference of Melchezedek to the sacrifice of bread and wine, which seems to not make sense apart from an understanding of the Christian Eucharist, as God does not accept not bloody sacrifices, yet he founds the entire Jewish people on a sacrifice of bread and wine, there is also the sacrifice of Isaac which is really interesting becuase the Bible actually never says taht Isaac was not slayed, so its as if he rose from the dead, but even if he was not slain its still a dang interesting shadow of Jesus. Also, there is also the prophecy of the suffering messiah that of whose stripes we would be healed, but how does one man heal the stripes of all? I suppose God "walking" in the garden could be the second person of the Trinity who is able to interact within the material realm, because the eternal God is outside of the eternal realm.

Apparently John didn't always agree with these "scholars". See the citations above.

I could play Bible ping pong with you all day, but you could just as easily look up High Christology in the Gospels or something, and I'm sure you already know, that John also makes use of a high Christology within his Gospel. And once again I would argue that John held the orthodox opinion that Jesus was fully God and fully man.

By being persecuted out of existence. And their influence can still be felt in Christian theology. Christian sentiments that the material world is evil and the spiritual world is good likely come from Docetic ideas. Matthew is the most Ebionite of the Gospels (and a variant of it was used by them according to Bart Ehrman). That Christians tie Jewish laws like the Ten Commandments into their theology might be their influence. That Christians then feel free to ignore the OT when the like is very Marcionite. I think it's a bit much to rule out any influence by these alternate Christianities that lost at Nicaea.

This is just shoddy history work, as the Church persecuted noone before the 4th century. It was to busy being persecuted. By the time of Nicea the only real threat was the novel threat put forth by Arius that Jesus is God, he is just not as God as the Father. Gnosticism, Marcionism etc. had already lost all influence and became footnotes in history. The Church does not erase heresies from history, she finds them to useful to use as guides on what not to believe and why. This is why we still know about gnosticism, marcionism etc. is because the Church kept them alive in their arguments against them.

The Bible does not. See 1John 4:1-3 and 2John 1:7. In two separate epistles, John rails against a faction of early Christians that didn't believe Jesus had existed as a flesh-and-blood being. Wasn't this recent history for those who would have known better? Why appeal to faith as he did and not dismiss them as crazy for ignoring an obvious reality?

If a real Jesus did exist and Christian mythology was built upon his story, good luck ever knowing what that story was. The only detailed accounts we have, indeed only accounts at all we have of his teachings, are contained only in Christian mythology. Separating fact from fiction will be impossible without some new archeological discovery. If such a man did exist, his story likely bares so little resemblance to the Gospel character that we might as well say that the Gospel character never existed.

Also, if Jesus really existed, it is evident from the dearth of any non-Christian testimony that he was so insignificant that no one ever noticed him (quite to the contrary of Gospel claims that his fame spread far and wide).

That is bad exegesis. John is argueing against the gnositcs and docetists who claimed that Jesus was a historical reality, but that his body was just an illusion as God cannot have a body, because He is so great.

All history is mythology to some sense. And the more ancient you go the more mythology you get. You cannot separeate the Roman wars of Julius Caesar from mythology, yet scholars can, thought analysis discover what is of history, and what is not necessarily of history. Scholars do this with the Bible and conclude that there are certain things that may not be historical. Most scholars agree that a person named Jesus actually lived in Palestine and died there.

Centuries is not "quickly". And again, it was only persecution that ultimately drove them out of existence.

I've already demonstrated why this is not true above.

[DeistPaladin]

The Jews did have a concept of hell. They had not concrete concept of hell. In fact Jesus follows in the tradition of the pharisees of his day by asserting that there is a heaven and a hell.

Please cite chapter and verse from the OT where the Jews had a concept of Hell.

I, in turn, can direct you to Josh 23:14, Job chapter 14, Psalms 6:5, 88:5, 115:17, Eccl 3:19, 9:5, 9:10, Is 38:18

I hope you realize that you are in the EXTREME minority when you say this. Scholars are nearely unanimous in their assertion that Revelation was the oldest work to be written.

Wow. That surprises me. I've yet to hear one scholar that says this. Even Christian apologists have admitted this.

Also, it makes references to the life of Jesus on Earth, as it shares similar symbols and wording with the Gospel of John. For this reason most scholars agree that it did come out of a Johannine School of thought. References to the lamb of God, and to Marry queen of heaven, paralell with John's Gospel and Luke's.

Please cite me chapter and verse in the Gospels where Mary is called "queen of Heaven".

Also, the Gospels all agree that Jesus is coming again to judge the right and wrong and directly rule over His people.

Yes, within the lifetime of the Disciples. Oops! See Matthew 23:36.

Wrong again. The book of Macabees makes very clear assertions of the after life. It is a VERY Jewish book.

Macabees? Isn't this an apocryphal book?

You have clearly demonstrated that you only read minority "scholars" if they can even be called that. Because a lot of what you are saying is second hand propaganda that is dumbed down to feed to the masses.

Damn you! You just overloaded my irony meter!

Christmas was adopted because it served the purpose of Church which wanted to find a suitable day to celebrate the incarnation. They chose Christmas for many reasons, they wanted a solar date rather than a lunar date like easter, they wanted it to be far enough away from easter as to not have the two biggest celebrations back to back, and it was popular at the time to celebrate the birth of the Sun during the winter equinox. This was very helpful as it served as a teaching tool, you could say, the same way the sun is being born and we are celebrating it, so too are we celebrating the birth of the Son. The winter equinox is known as the birth of the sun becasue it is at that point that the days began getting longer rather than shorter. Also, it took attention away from Sol Inviticus, a pagan reaction to Christianity that was popular around the 4th century, when Chrsitianity had argueably transformed the entire idea of religion. The worshipers of Sol Inviticus chose the winter solicistice for the same reason, that is the "brith of the sun" concept.

You just agreed with everything I said about Christmas.

That is pretty good lay out, a bit flawed I beleive. First there are references to Jesus diety in all of the Gospels.

Chapter and verse please!

Well as I and the Orthodox Christians have pointed out, Jesus at times emphasizes His humanity and at other times emphasizes his Divinity.

He contradicts himself. Yes. And not just on the point of his divinity but also with his teachings. Sometimes he say "put away the sword" and sometimes "buy a sword". Sometimes he says we must be charitable and other worldly, giving all to the poor. Sometimes he says "screw the poor, live it up while I'm here." Sometimes he preaches peace. Sometimes he preaches war. It depends on which Jesus you're reading about.

See my video "The Flip Flopping Jesus".

In Isaiah, I believe its Isaiah, it says that a child will be born and he shall be called Almighty God,

FAIL! Isaiah 7:14 states that a woman who lived within his lifetime would bear a son and his name shall be called "Emmanuel". This would be the sign to the King Ahaz that he would be triumphant against the Syrians because God is with us. Reading this book in context reveals that Isaiah was speaking of events of his lifetime and NOT the future birth of a Lamb of God for all of humanity.

there is also the creation account that makes use of the Spirit of God and the Word of God,

FAIL! Reference to Yahweh, not supportive of the Trinity.

there is also the interesting grammatical use of the singlue plural within Hebrew, which could be a way of referring to the plurality, yet oneness of God.

FAIL! Or it means that the early Hebrews were polytheistic, a hypothesis supported by the absence of the "royal we" in Yahweh's speeches in later books. Or another possibility is that he's referring to himself and the Heavenly host of angels.

There is also the reference of Melchezedek to the sacrifice of bread and wine,

? Chapter and verse?

there is also the sacrifice of Isaac which is really interesting becuase the Bible actually never says taht Isaac was not slayed, so its as if he rose from the dead,

FAIL!
Genesis 22:12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

Also, there is also the prophecy of the suffering messiah that of whose stripes we would be healed, but how does one man heal the stripes of all?

Need to look up chapter and verse.

I suppose God "walking" in the garden could be the second person of the Trinity who is able to interact within the material realm, because the eternal God is outside of the eternal realm.

FAIL! The god of the OT was anthropomorphic, who walked, talked, ate lunch with Abraham, wrestled with Jacob, gave a speech to Judea and showed off his loins to Ezekiel.

I could play Bible ping pong with you all day,

I challenge you.

This is just shoddy history work, as the Church persecuted noone before the 4th century.

And these alternate Christianities were powerful until then.

By the time of Nicea the only real threat was the novel threat put forth by Arius that Jesus is God, he is just not as God as the Father. Gnosticism, Marcionism etc. had already lost all influence and became footnotes in history.

Not according to what I've read. I'd ask you to read "Lost Christianities" by Bart Ehrman.

That is bad exegesis. John is argueing against the gnositcs and docetists who claimed that Jesus was a historical reality, but that his body was just an illusion as God cannot have a body, because He is so great.

Well, that's the typical apologist interpretation but they have nothing to base that on. Regardless, even if it were a reference to the Docetics, the same problem applies. Why did those who lived within the lifetime of Jesus think he was just an illusion? Did Jesus not have a family? Some nephews, nieces or neighbors that could have testified he was born, grew up and was physical? Why does John appeal to faith and denounce them as "antichrists" as opposed to just saying they're crazy?

All history is mythology to some sense.

No. We're able to tell the difference between Hercules and Caesar. Only Christian mythology is offered the special treatment of being taken seriously.

Scholars do this with the Bible and conclude that there are certain things that may not be historical. Most scholars agree that a person named Jesus actually lived in Palestine and died there.

Most scholars are willing to assume Jesus lived and side-step the controversy.

I'm willing to assume Jesus lived and still we can't know anything about this hypothetical rabbi.

[thesummerqueen]

Macabees? Isn't this an apocryphal book?

Jewish thought was also being influenced by Greek ideas at that point, yes? Pretty sure I read something about that, and the macabees being a bunch of "thugs".

there is also the interesting grammatical use of the singlue plural within Hebrew, which could be a way of referring to the plurality, yet oneness of God.

FAIL! Or it means that the early Hebrews were polytheistic, a hypothesis supported by the absence of the "royal we" in Yahweh's speeches in later books. Or another possibility is that he's referring to himself and the Heavenly host of angels.

Last I read, there was an acceptance that the very early Hebrews had a god AND goddess. The name Asherah pops up occasionally.

[dqualk]

Please cite chapter and verse from the OT where the Jews had a concept of Hell.

I, in turn, can direct you to Josh 23:14, Job chapter 14, Psalms 6:5, 88:5, 115:17, Eccl 3:19, 9:5, 9:10, Is 38:18

Daniel 12:2 proclaims "And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, Some to everlasting life, Some to shame and everlasting contempt

Isaiah 33:14 - "Who of us can dwell in the everlasting fire?" This is a reference to hell which is forever.

Isaiah 66:24 - their worm shall not die and their fire shall not be quenched. We cannot fathom the pain of this eternal separation from God.

Jer. 15:14 - in my anger a fire is kindled which shall burn forever. Hell is the proper compliment to the eternal bliss of heaven.

Judith 16:17 - in the day of judgment the Lord will take vengeance on the wicked and they shall weep in pain forever. Hell is a place that sinners have prepared for themselves by rejecting God, who desires all people to be saved in His Son Jesus Christ. God sends no one to hell.

There are more references to the hades or sheol.

Please cite me chapter and verse in the Gospels where Mary is called "queen of Heaven".

Revelation 12:1 Shows Mary's coronation. Luke says Hail Mary full of Grace, all generations shall call you blessed, and a few other noble statements about Mary.

Yes, within the lifetime of the Disciples. Oops! See Matthew 23:36.

I did not bother to look this verse up because I'm sure it is the one that says the Kingdom of God will come before the apoastles die or something like this, the Kingdom of God is the Church. The Church has always referred to herself as the Kingdom of God.

Macabees? Isn't this an apocryphal book?

Christians until Martin Luther had always accepted it as authortative, as it was part of the first official canon formed in the 4th century by the Council of Hippo and affirmed in teh 8th at the Council of Nicea II. Also, some Jews used Maccabees as official scripture until the Christians came about and they desired to root out anything of Greek influence, and becuase there was no Maccabees around in Hebrew they kicked it into their apochrapha. But the Septuagint, writeen by Jews 100 years before Christ, included, and Jews still consider it to be a very important book, and it certainly demonstrates what Jews around the year 200 bc- 100 AD.

You just agreed with everything I said about Christmas.

Well you said like I was supposed to be like OH NO!!!! Pagans celebrated the winter equinox too!!!! NOOOOOO! I'm an atheist now lol. I'm jk. I just wanted to demonstrate that Christmas being formed later on December 25 is not a problem for Christians, its actually a solution

Chapter and verse please! [/quite]

http://scripturecatholic.com/jesus_christ_divinity.html This has a decent list of verese which suggest Christ's Divinity.

[quote] He contradicts himself. Yes. And not just on the point of his divinity but also with his teachings. Sometimes he say "put away the sword" and sometimes "buy a sword". Sometimes he says we must be charitable and other worldly, giving all to the poor. Sometimes he says "screw the poor, live it up while I'm here." Sometimes he preaches peace. Sometimes he preaches war. It depends on which Jesus you're reading about.

See my video "The Flip Flopping Jesus".

lol chapter and verse on the "screw the poor live it up while I'm here" please . Christ to an Orthodox Christian does not contradict Himself as we have come up with explanations that are at least satisfactory to many, and I imagine you can see that they are satisfactory on some level, even if you think that the more logical conclusion is to just assume that he was inconsistent.

There are explanations for each of what you have listed, you may not find them satisfactory but I do. My favorite explanation for Christ telling the apostles to bring swords is becasue He wanted to show to the world, and give Peter the oppurtunity, to show their love and willingness to fight for Christ, but Christ knew that it was His destiny to die for you and me.

FAIL! Isaiah 7:14 states that a woman who lived within his lifetime would bear a son and his name shall be called "Emmanuel". This would be the sign to the King Ahaz that he would be triumphant against the Syrians because God is with us. Reading this book in context reveals that Isaiah was speaking of events of his lifetime and NOT the future birth of a Lamb of God for all of humanity.

I am not talking about Isaiah 7.

Isaiah 9
6For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given;
and the government shall be upon his shoulder,
and his name shall be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Also, prophesy will often point out something in the present time while simultaneously talking about something in the future.

There is also the reference of Melchezedek to the sacrifice of bread and wine,

? Chapter and verse?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melchizedek

FAIL!
Genesis 22:12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

Personally I agree with you that Isaiah was not slain the brought back. But my jewish friend pointed out that it says that you did not fail to withold your son, suggesting that he actually did the deed, and then God told him from that point on not to lay a hand on him. Once more I agree with you I don't think he did slay him, I think he was about to and God stopped him.

Also, there is also the prophecy of the suffering messiah that of whose stripes we would be healed, but how does one man heal the stripes of all?

Need to look up chapter and verse. [quote]

Isaiah 53

[quote]
FAIL! The god of the OT was anthropomorphic, who walked, talked, ate lunch with Abraham, wrestled with Jacob, gave a speech to Judea and showed off his loins to Ezekiel. [quote]

I know this but some claim that perhaps it is not simply an anthropomorphic poetic, but that it is Christ wrestleing and so on. That is an incarnated person of God, i.e. Christ.

[quote] And these alternate Christianities were powerful until then.

No they were not. Not according to current historical evidence. Each of the early heresies were short lived, the only one to really take on a life of its own and last for a long time was Aryanism, which didnt come around till the 4th century.

Not according to what I've read. I'd ask you to read "Lost Christianities" by Bart Ehrman.

Hmm I'll check it out. I've read part of misquoting Jesus and all of Jesus interrupted. I think it is interesting that Bart would claim flourishing heresies before the 4th century as at Nicea they did not give the early heresies the time of day because tehy were soundly rooted out. Marcionism was short lived, montanism was regional and short lived, docetism I suppose was a stronger Christian heresy, but it didnt acquire any influence until after teh 4th century with monophysite etc arguements. None of these groups who were before the 4th century were very influential or far spread, this is why we hardly have any writings by them or mentions of them in history. Or that would be my arguement anyway.

Well, that's the typical apologist interpretation but they have nothing to base that on. Regardless, even if it were a reference to the Docetics, the same problem applies. Why did those who lived within the lifetime of Jesus think he was just an illusion? Did Jesus not have a family? Some nephews, nieces or neighbors that could have testified he was born, grew up and was physical? Why does John appeal to faith and denounce them as "antichrists" as opposed to just saying they're crazy?

Many who lived during the time of Jesus testified to His historicity, like Matthew, Peter, John, Paul et al. Maybe that is why Docetics ultimately died out, and left little trace of their presence.

No. We're able to tell the difference between Hercules and Caesar. Only Christian mythology is offered the special treatment of being taken seriously.

Of course we are able to tell the difference between the two. We can also tell the difference between Jesus and Hercules. This is why Jesus is one of the most studied people of all history, and the works concering Jesus are the most analyzed pieces of writing on earth. It is funny how hard people have studied Christ with hopes of finding some proof that he was not real, and they have failed. In fact they have strengthened many of the claims of Christianity. Did you know people used to claim that the Gospels had to be products of the 2nd century because they were so full of Jesus being God and his resurrection and so on, and they studied the ef out of them in hopes of proving this, and they end up proving it did belong to the first century haha.

Most scholars are willing to assume Jesus lived and side-step the controversy.

I'm willing to assume Jesus lived and still we can't know anything about this hypothetical rabbi.

I could say the same about Caesar, that he was just a made up person. At some point it just becomes rediculous. And why would we truth Roman historians more than a bunch of poor people who had nothing to gain from rewriting history, except a terrible death being eaten by lions or something? It was the Roman historians job to skew history to make the Empire better. What did the apostles gain from supposedly rewriting history? A violent death and a life of poverty.

---

Last I read, there was an acceptance that the very early Hebrews had a god AND goddess. The name Asherah pops up occasionally.

It is an acceptable theory from what I understand too.