How and when did the Trinity become Christian dogma?

[polonius]

[RightReason]

[Replying to tigger2]

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

Were these writings endorsed by the Church? I could find lots of writings dating back to the 2nd century that I’m sure you would find absurd and nonsensical. How did you decide the ones you chose to post to be authentic and valid? Again, were they recommended by Christ’s Church?

Also, my comments about Charles Taze Russel and his proposition of Jesus being Michael was to show you that is something that is NOT directly stated in Scripture. You claim there is no direct quote regarding the Trinity. I’m saying some people believe things like Jesus being Michael, which has far less Scriptural support than the Trinity.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 100 by tam]

Not sure how one could think that He was shocked. He knew Peter would deny Him; He knew Judas would betray Him.

Ok, now you’re grasping. Jesus knew lots of things, but that didn’t prevent Him from having feelings like sadness, anger, joy, outrage, etc. He cried when His friend died (even though He knew He could bring him back to life!). He got very angry at those using the temple incorrectly, even though He knew things like that were going on.

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

Right back at ya! I was making one point regarding the Trinity regarding God and Jesus and you suggest since I didn’t bring up the Holy Spirit, I couldn’t be talking about the Trinity. That’s like interrupting someone mid sentence and saying – you’re wrong because you didn’t say __________. It’s just silly.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to post 100 by tam]

Not sure how one could think that He was shocked. He knew Peter would deny Him; He knew Judas would betray Him.

Ok, now you’re grasping. Jesus knew lots of things, but that didn’t prevent Him from having feelings like sadness, anger, joy, outrage, etc. He cried when His friend died (even though He knew He could bring him back to life!). He got very angry at those using the temple incorrectly, even though He knew things like that were going on.

I never said He did not have or show emotions. I am just surprised at some of the emotions you are assigning Him toward His apostles on this occasion.

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

Right back at ya! I was making one point regarding the Trinity regarding God and Jesus and you suggest since I didn’t bring up the Holy Spirit, I couldn’t be talking about the Trinity.

I simply stated that the verses you referred to in that particular post did not speak to the trinity.

(but this is still not addressing my point - you claimed, and I am paraphrasing, that only those who believed Michael is Jesus would fail to accept the 'trinity' in those verses. I am one who does not accept that Michael is Jesus, but I also do not accept the 'trinity' in any of those verses)


To tigger you said:

Also, my comments about Charles Taze Russel and his proposition of Jesus being Michael was to show you that is something that is NOT directly stated in Scripture. You claim there is no direct quote regarding the Trinity. I’m saying some people believe things like Jesus being Michael, which has far less Scriptural support than the Trinity.

Yes, this is correct. There is no direct quote regarding the trinity or Michael being Jesus. When I did a jw bible study I had to wonder why people kept trying to make Christ into something even He never said He was? Why not just listen to Him when He said He is the Son of God, the Messiah?


He had plenty of opportunities to teach either of these if either of these were true; and yet He never did.




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

[tam]

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 98 by RightReason]

RR wrote:

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

T2 replied:

My reply showed your statement to be false. I expected an honest admission of this. Instead I get ridicule. ....Why the animosity and denial of recorded facts?

I haven't advocated for this 'Jesus is Michael' belief nor have I suggested it is to be found in scripture. I have simply pointed out your obvious error in your post.

[RightReason]

[tam]

[polonius]

Tam posted:

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

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

[polonius]

He left us His Church, who He promised to remain with and guide in all truth.

RESPONSE: There are several contradictions with this claim.

First of all, Jesus never said he was building a "church." The claim appears in Matthew 16, the first part of which (having noting to do with a church), was written by by Mark , a non-witness writing 40 years after the fact. Matthew, also a non-witness, writing the second part about 80 AD, copied about 90% of Mark's gospel, sometimes word-for-word as in the case of Matthew 16.

First of all, there are two different Gospel passages saying that Jesus claimed he would return during the lives of "some of those sanding here..." No need for a new church.

Secondly, the word "church" is of Middle English origin and did not exist anywhere around Jesus' time. It was developed later and added to Matthew's gospel.

Many of these "Jesus said..." passages are spurious.

[tam]

Peace again to you,

Tam posted:

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

What evidence do you have about what Jesus actually?.

If you are asking about physical evidence of what Christ said, then that would be what is written down.

Gospels are stories written 40- 65 years after his death by non-witnesses in order to make converts.

At least one is written by an eyewitness and apostle (the gospel attributed to "John").

This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who has written them down. John 21:24


At least one is written by a non-witness (the gospel of Luke)

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Have you been taken in too?

Taken in by what? I do not understand your question.




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