Did Jesus preach or proclaim the doctrine of the Trinity?

[Christian3]

A possible whipping and instructions to his family to take care of him, as he would have been judged to be mad.

The Scriptures were preached orally for sometime before being written down.

Yes, they would have thought Jesus was insane and never would have listened to Him after that.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The Scriptures were preached orally for sometime before being written down.

On what evidence?

Yes, they would have thought Jesus was insane and never would have listened to Him after that.

We get a distinct hint of that in Mark 3:21.

[mikewhitney]

Primarily because academia does not lend itself to dealing with superstitions.

The work can only be undertaken using later copies because no original MSS exist.

Why should the Temple’s destruction have been anticipated? [Will I get a reply to that question, I wonder?]

Why would they? [Or a reply to this one?]

It’s generally known as academic research.

You would do far better to respond to what I write rather than trying to tell me what you “think” I “meant to say”.

Of course people like yourself have no bias whatsoever with regard to this topic, do you? [another sarcasm alert]

What alternative grounds have you actually suggested? You provided a quote from a work by France [presumably that you found online]

Why, and in what regard? [I do not expect to receive a reply to that question either]

The views of Christians do not really have much impact on academic research. Or perhaps you would prefer evolutionary science to reject anything that does not fit in to the Genesis flood myth or medical science to go back to prayer and exorcism?

What on earth has Galatians to do with the academic discipline of textual criticism and the dating of New Testament papyri?

Once again I do not imagine the opinion of Christians has much effect on academic research into biblical archaeology and biblical studies.

You remind me of the guy years ago who, in an argument against the Christian knowledge of God, said that all the ancient religions had some concept of God. Therefore God doesn't exist. He was contradicted himself. He should have noted that this suggests God exists.

You sort of lost me with the conspiracy theory relating to the Council of Nicea 325. Also, it seems you are not only using this against Christianity, you seem to use this as a pretext for saying God doesn't exist. This is the modern day superstition.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You remind me of the guy years ago who, in an argument against the Christian knowledge of God, said that all the ancient religions had some concept of God. Therefore God doesn't exist. He was contradicted himself. He should have noted that this suggests God exists.

You sort of lost me with the conspiracy theory relating to the Council of Nicea 325. Also, it seems you are not only using this against Christianity, you seem to use this as a pretext for saying God doesn't exist. This is the modern day superstition.

You seem remarkably averse to answering questions put to you.

I can assure you that the First Council of Nicaea actually took place. It is not part of a later conspiracy theory.

[Christian3]

You seem remarkably averse to answering questions put to you.

I can assure you that the First Council of Nicaea actually took place. It is not part of a later conspiracy theory.

How do you explain the early trinitarian quotes prior to the council of Nicaea.

I'm still waiting for your reply to my post:

Give the full quote in context. Include the page number.

You do know that Ashton wrote for Answers in Genesis, don't you?

This is from their Statement of Faith:

"The Godhead is triune: one God, three Persons—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit."

[mikewhitney]

You seem remarkably averse to answering questions put to you.

I can assure you that the First Council of Nicaea actually took place. It is not part of a later conspiracy theory.

Right. you were talking about a conspiracy at the Council of Nicea to rewrite scripture, not a later conspiracy. I followed you that far.

You kind of got away from the discussion of the concepts underlying the Trinitarian doctrine.

[mikewhitney]

Once the dating of the gospels is adjusted due to a rejection of miracles, the historian has gone beyond just noting the flow of history. He has become gone beyond the task of noting what has transpired into the task of making it his own rendition of history. Like I noted earlier, there would be room for few other options (apart from rejecting the gospel timeline). You could say that guards rolled the rock away. You could say that Jesus had insight to anticipate the destruction of the temple. You could say that Jesus did many of his acts just to match with Old Testament prophecies.

I've given you a few tips you can use later on.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Give the full quote in context. Include the page number.

You are very keen to make demands of others when you are singularly loath to provide evidence for your own comments.

Give me the attested historical evidence to support this statement "The Scriptures were preached orally for sometime before being written down." I will then give you Prof. Ashton's reference.

You do know that Ashton wrote for Answers in Genesis, don't you?

No he did not.

You are thinking of the Australian academic John F Ashton, who appears to have fallen off his perch. Or perhaps the financial remuneration offered by AiG is substantially larger than the average university salary.

I am referring to Dr John Ashton [1931–2016] who was a former lecturer in New Testament Studies at the University of Oxford from 1984-1996 and Senior Tutor at Wolfson College from 1998-2000.

Furthermore, I would have thought that anyone would recognise that John F Ashton's writings are somewhat far removed from those examining a particular text in the New Testament.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

How do you explain the early trinitarian quotes prior to the council of Nicaea.

I asked you what you considered the writer of the Didache meant by "the Son" and the "Holy Spirit". You never answered.

I assume you do know about subordinationism? You do know that ECFs such as Origen, Irenaeus, and Tertuallian were subordinationists? I suppose you also know that the ideas of Arius were in the ascendancy within Christianity in the eastern empire in the early fourth century?

I'm still waiting for your reply to my post:

I am still waiting for you to provide attested historical evidence in support of your allegation that "The Scriptures were preached orally for sometime before being written down."

You do know that Ashton wrote for Answers in Genesis, don't you?

Already answered. You likewise made a mistake.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Right. you were talking about a conspiracy at the Council of Nicea to rewrite scripture,

Before I reply to this in detail, just answer this question, do you know anything about the first 250 years of your religion? Do you know about all the different beliefs that were circulating and the various gospels, epistles, acts, and apocalyptic literature being produced by different Christian communities?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Once the dating of the gospels is adjusted due to a rejection of miracles, the historian has gone beyond just noting the flow of history. He has become gone beyond the task of noting what has transpired into the task of making it his own rendition of history. Like I noted earlier, there would be room for few other options (apart from rejecting the gospel timeline). You could say that guards rolled the rock away. You could say that Jesus had insight to anticipate the destruction of the temple. You could say that Jesus did many of his acts just to match with Old Testament prophecies.

Perhaps you would like to see archaeological digs being undertaken somewhere in the Black Forest to ascertain the whereabouts of a Gingerbread House or the remains of a castle wherein everyone slept for one hundred years?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Given that Christians tell us that Jesus is God then that was the perfect moment to announce his divinity.

He did not say he was god either.

The phrase occurs in the pericope of John 10:1-21 and there are various interpretations for this passage and its imagery. It has been suggested that it is a later interpolation, along with chapter 6:15-17 and most of chapter 11. Other interpretations see it as the Johannine author’s adaptation of Matthew chapters 9&10. It can also be seen as continuing the shepherd tradition found in various books of the Septuagint [Zechariah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel]

Duly corrected

[mikewhitney]

Perhaps you would like to see archaeological digs being undertaken somewhere in the Black Forest to ascertain the whereabouts of a Gingerbread House or the remains of a castle wherein everyone slept for one hundred years?

You fall for the fallacy that since so many peoples and religions held to the existence of gods that there must not be God or any gods.

You certainly are on a weird mission to convince people not to acknowledge our God and Creator. This is not something I would recommend as a livelihood or a hobby. What got you so hyped on this missionary work into the Christian world?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You fall for the fallacy that since so many peoples and religions held to the existence of gods that there must not be God or any gods.

I note you are yet again making dogmatic statements that are not supported by anything that I have written.

However, we have seen over the course of our exchanges that making pronouncements without any supporting corroborative evidence and ignoring any questions put to you, appears to be your MO.

[mikewhitney]

I note you are yet again making dogmatic statements that are not supported by anything that I have written.

However, we have seen over the course of our exchanges that making pronouncements without any supporting corroborative evidence and ignoring any questions put to you, appears to be your MO.

If you have any interesting to respond to, I could be interested in responding. Otherwise, you should start searching for gingerbread houses.