The Trinity Doctrine Nullifies the Power of the Resurrection

There is a problem with the man-made doctrines within the corrupt institutional church system today. In fact, the doctrines that are taught and prevalent nullify what Christ did on the cross. The pew warmers have been suckling off of their hirelings within organized institutional religion and are missing out on learning how to consume solid food with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Most of what is called “Christianity” will say that “Jesus” died for their past, present and future sins, and that this is the sole reason why they are “saved.”

Do you believe this is the real reason?

What you may soon discover is that the real reason why most “Christians” believe they are “saved” is not really a reason at all.

Most institutional church doctrine teaches, “Jesus is God.” “God” became a man whose purpose was to come from heaven down to earth to die. “Jesus” aka “God the Son” shed his own blood bringing forgiveness to the world for their past, present and future sins. The work of salvation was finished upon the cross by his death. All you have to do is “believe” and you are “saved.”

Does this sound familiar?

This is Christianity 101.

Have you ever challenged the status quo and started picking away at it to see whether it stacks up with the whole counsel of Scripture?

Let me ask you a question:

Why did Yahshua our Messiah have to rise from the dead in his fleshly body?

Think about this before you carry on.

I’m certain that if you are part of the institutional church system, we will probably come to two entirely different conclusions based on whether you believe in Trinity doctrine or not.

The Purpose of the Resurrection

“Christian” church teaching states that Christ’s purpose was fulfilled when his blood was spilled bringing “salvation” as a finished work.

If “Jesus is God,” then he would have been finished with his earthly body on the cross. It would be easy enough to return back to being “God” in heaven being the second member of the Trinity.

What would the reason be for “God the Son” to raise himself from the dead in the flesh?

What need would there be for “God” to have a fleshly body in heaven?

According to “Christian” church doctrine, “Jesus’s” aka “God the Son’s” useful purpose was to die in his own flesh and then return to heaven to reclaim his former glory. I know that most will not state this outrightly, but this is the ultimate conclusion of those who say that the ressurection proves that “Jesus is God.”

This leads to the next question:

If the resurrection proves that “Jesus is God,” then what will our resurrection prove we are?

What many have not considered is that some people already have risen from the dead in the Old Testament prior to Christ’s resurrection, and also post-resurrection in the New Testament.

Think about it.

Does a resurrection from the grave prove that someone is “God incarnate?”

The plain fact is that Christ was not the first man to rise from the dead; therefore, this becomes a problem for those who say that this proves that “Jesus is God,” or proof of his “deity.”

Of course we can reference this following verse,

That the Christ must suffer and that, by BEING THE FIRST TO RISE FROM THE DEAD, he would proclaim light both to our people and to the Gentiles.” – Acts 26:23

Do we not have a major discrepancy here?

Was there not already people already raised from the dead prior to Christ?

Yes! Let’s have a look at another Scripture verse.

But in fact Christ HAS BEEN RAISED FROM THE DEAD, THE FIRSTFRUITS of those who have fallen asleep. – 1 Corinthians 15:23

Yahshua was not the first to rise from the dead, but was the first to rise from the dead as a “firstfruit,” or the “firstborn from the dead.”

And he is the head of the body, the ekklesia. He is the beginning, THE FIRSTBORN FROM THE DEAD, that in everything he might be preeminent. – Colossians 1:18

One of the most important things to know is HOW and WHY Yahshua our Messiah rose from the dead. In fact, if we don’t know our faith is dead. Yahshua rose from the grave based on his own merits. He was righteous and that is why death could not hold him.

The HOW and WHY of Christ’s Resurrection

What is the HOW and WHY of Christ’s resurrection?

It’s because he was holy and righteous and rose from the dead based upon his holiness before his Father, Yahweh in heaven as a “firstborn,” or “firstfruit.”

According to institutional church doctrine, ONLY CHRIST can be “holy” and “righteous” because he is “God” because God cannot sin.

Many fail to believe that this deception will nullify the power of the resurrection in their life. This is the consequence of believing in the Trinity doctrine.

Trinity doctrine makes the apostles liars who said Yahshua was the “first.” If “Jesus is God,” then ONLY he can be holy and righteous because he is “God.”

When the apostles said Yahshua was the “first,” then common sense would dictate that there will be others who would follow in his footsteps, meaning that others can attain the same resurrection that he did by being holy, righteous and obedient towards their Father in heaven too. Those who attain his resurrection will be for the same reason he attained his, which is NOT that “Jesus is God.”

The fact is that the power of the resurrection comes by having the same faith of Christ; the same faith that he had. Righteousness comes by believing and doing because faith without works is dead.

To believe that you have imputed righteousness being “counted” as “righteous” because ONLY Christ could be counted as truly holy and righteous because he is “God,” then that would make him the ONLY fruit, rather than a the firstfruit of many more.

True faith in Christ means not only to believe that he rose from the dead, but to believe that we too can attain the same resurrection becoming “fruits” also.

Paul stated that we obtain the resurrection by pressing forward to the prize of the high calling of Yahshua our Messiah.

…the RIGHTEOUSNESS FROM GOD THAT DEPENDS ON FAITH—that I may know him and the POWER OF HIS RESURRECTION, and may share his sufferings, BECOMING LIKE HIM IN HIS DEATH, that by any means possible I MAY ATTAIN THE RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD – Philippians 3:9-10

Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I PRESS ON TO MAKE IT MY OWN, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I PRESS ON TOWARD THE GOAL FOR THE PRIZE of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. – Philippians 3:12-14

False Institutional Church Doctrine

Institutional church doctrine states that we are sinners and will continue to sin, but if we accept Christ then his righteousness is “imputed” to us. We are “counted” as “holy” and “righteous” by having “faith” alone. Nothing is required of us except to “believe” by “faith” and go to a building called church. At church the clergy teach that you cannot be truly holy as Christ was because ONLY Christ could be truly righteous because he is “God.” Just “believe” and your past, present and future sins will be forgiven of you and you will be “counted” as “holy,” thus escaping the grave and living forever in heaven.

Does this sound familiar?

What does the resurrection prove in this scenario?

It “proves” that Christ being “God” was the ONLY holy person in the flesh to rise from the grave. If this is the case, then it proves that Christ’s resurrection in the flesh has no power, or significance to what is called a “Christian” today.

The Resurrection is the Foundation of True Faith

To the contrary, all those who follow Yahshua Messiah and the apostles hold Christ’s resurrection as a hope that we too can follow in his example of holiness and attain the same resurrection as he did.

And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and YOUR FAITH IS IN VAIN. – 1 Corinthians 15:14

Without Yahshua’s resurrection, the foundation of the faith is all in vain.

Institutional church doctrine has a different teaching that “faith” is in Christ’s blood shed and his death, not the resurrection as stated above.

If all our sins (past, present and future) are already “paid for” on the cross, and all we have to do is recite a canned prayer and believe in the Trinity, then ultimately we cannot attain the same resurrection as Christ did. Our faith would be deemed as null and void.

And if Christ has not been raised, YOUR FAITH IS FUTILE AND YOU ARE STILL IN YOUR SINS. – 1 Corinthians 15:17

I don’t know if you can see it yet, but what is called “Christianity” teaches that the death of Jesus takes your sins away.

Is this really true?

This is false doctrine because Paul stated that without the resurrection, “you are still in your sins,” meaning that the removal of sin is dependent upon the resurrection. We must believe not only in Yahshua’s death, but in his resurrection also.

Institutional church doctrine teaches that ONLY the blood and death of Christ “takes your sins away.” This means that the Father is blinded to seeing their sins because Christ blood is a blindfold from Him seeing their past, present and future sins, even though continuing to live in them.

This only affirms antichrist doctrine because Paul stated, “if Christ is not risen, you are dead in your sins.”

I hope this is a wake up call! We are NOT saved by Yahshua’s death, but we are saved by his life!

For if while we were enemies we were RECONCILED TO GOD BY THE DEATH of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we BE SAVED BY HIS LIFE. – Romans 5:10

Memorize this verse so that it sticks with you. Let it sink in.

Paul does not agree with those who are in the corrupt institutional church system who say that salvation is attained and finished by Christ’s death on the cross. Reconciliation is attained, but salvation is attained by LIFE in his resurrection.

Resurrection life comes by our works of faith by repeating the life of Yahshua attaining to a resurrection. We are not justified by Christ’s blood alone, but justified by his resurrection AND by having faith in that resurrection.

Who was delivered up for our trespasses and RAISED FOR OUR JUSTIFICATION. – Romans 4:25

False Gospel

The false modern church “Gospel” that is based upon the foundation of Trinitarian doctrine is incomplete because it destroys the HOW and WHY of the resurrection. It only tries to “prove” that the reason Christ rose form the dead was that he was and is “God.”

If the blood alone justifies, then the resurrection of Christ adds nothing to our justification, especially if you believe that he is “God.” This cannot be an example to follow, or attain because ONLY Christ can be “holy” and “righteous” because he is “God.” This nullifies any hope because we could not possibly walk holy and just as he did, meaning we cannot attain to his resurrection.


Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, HE HAS CAUSED US TO BE BORN AGAIN TO A LIVING HOPE THROUGH THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST FROM THE DEAD – 1 Peter 1:3

Who through him are believers in God, WHO RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD and gave him glory, SO THAT YOUR FAITH AND HOPE are in God. – 1 Peter 1:21

Faith, hope, justification and purification are all dependant upon the resurrection because we too can be declared “sons of God,” just as Christ was.

The Gospel of the Kingdom is about having a hope within us that we have been given the ability to follow in Christ’s footsteps walking in the same faith that he had. By having the same faith, we can purify ourselves walking in holiness attaining to his resurrection.

And was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness BY HIS RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD – Romans 1:4

See what kind of love the Father has given to us, THAT WE SHOULD BE CALLED SONS OF GOD; AND SO WE ARE. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him. Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is. And EVERYONE WHO THUS HOPES IN HIM PURIFIES HIMSELF AS HE IS PURE. – 1 John 3:1-3

Salvation comes by a hope that we can repeat and attain what Christ did.

To the contrary, institutional church doctrine says that you have already “attained,” which means you don’t need hope, nor do you need to press on. The sorry fact is that this is a dead faith.

FOR IN THIS HOPE WE WERE SAVED. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? – Romans 8:24

To the church “Christian,” the “resurrection” is already finished. God rose the second member of the Trinity aka “God the Son” from the dead and now it’s a done deal. Paul came across these same types of people in his time saying that their faith was dead.

And their talk will SPREAD LIKE GANGRENE. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have swerved from the truth, SAYING THAT THE RESURRECTION HAS ALREADY HAPPENED. They are upsetting the faith of some. – 2 Timothy 2:17-18

Well, the Trinity gangrene has spread killing the true Gospel of the Kingdom where there is no real repentance, or true faith in Yahshua Messiah. “Salvation” today is taught as a “finished work” by the “blood alone” and the resurrection is “assured.”

This is a total and utter destruction of having true faith in Yahshua by teaching the resurrection is past. "Christianity" is about having “faith in the blood” and what has been “finished” for them on the cross.

The reason for Yahshua’s resurrection was to bring true faith that we can walk in righteousness and holiness by the spirit, so that we too can be raised just as he was.

If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead WILL ALSO GIVE LIFE TO YOUR MORTAL BODIES THROUGH HIS SPIRIT WHO DWELLS IN YOU. So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if BY THE SPIRIT YOU PUT TO DEATH THE DEEDS OF THE BODY, you will live. – Romans 8:11-13

For all who are led by the Spirit of God ARE SONS OF GOD. – Romans 8:14

Institutional church doctrine eliminates the need to put to death the deeds of the flesh because they teach that you must simply “believe.” If we “believe,” by “faith,” then we have already “attained” the resurrection. It’s past. It’s a done deal that was performed on the cross.

Why do you think they have so many crosses in and on every church on every other street corner?

They rejoice in death, rather than life.

Believing upon the cross by “worshipping” God in a dead faith is to believe that ONLY Christ could live such a life of righteousness, obedience and holiness because he is “God.” Their “baptism” rests on a “belief in death” and “imputation” as being "righteous," NOT any reference to resurrection life by living and walking in the same faith of Yahshua afterwards.

To be blunt, “imputation” of “righteousness” is really an amputation of righteousness. The sad fact is that in Trinitarian doctrine, the “hope” of resurrection and salvation is amputated because the resurrection of Christ in the flesh has no real meaning in their “faith.”

The Trinitarians use their cherry-picked “proof” verses to push their Trinity “God” upon the masses and ignore all the Scripture verses that state that God raised Yahshua from the dead.

It was not about Christ “proving” that he was “God” by raising himself, as many Scriptures refute this notion. Trinitarians must presuppose their indoctrination into biblical text to make it say what it does not say ignoring the mountain of evidence to the contrary. For this reason, they have destroyed the power of the resurrection of Christ and its significance.

There is a much better way and it is for all those who desire to move in the same faith as Yahshua did. It is a hope of being an overcomer obtaining the same resurrection as Christ did. To say that “Jesus is God,” and that is how he was resurrected, ignores the words of Paul who said the resurrection comes “by a man.”

For as BY A MAN came death, BY A MAN HAS COME ALSO THE RESURRECTION of the dead. – 1 Corinthians 15:21

Do you belive the Trinity doctrine nullifies the power of the resurrection?

See results without voting

More by this Author


Comments Appreciated 14 comments

Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 3 months ago from back in the lab again

A very interesting and thought provoking hub outlining an intriguing way of thinking about the Resurrection! While I am personally an atheist I find discussions about these sorts of things eminently fascinating particularly when trying to cut through the doctrine that grew up around the New Testament to look at what was actually said and believed by early Christians.

“Why did Yahshua our Messiah have to rise from the dead in his fleshly body?”

Here's another interesting question, what did the followers of Jesus believe about him during his lifetime that made them come to the conclusion that he did, in fact, rise again? Keep in mind that John's Gospel, the latest written of the four canonical Gospels, is the one in which Jesus' “fleshy” body is most directly attested to with the doubting Thomas story. The original ending of our earliest Gospel, Mark, is a cliffhanger that just implies Jesus ascension in his earthly body but ends abruptly with an empty tomb.

If we were to strip Chrisitanity down to the bare bones of what we have in the original documents we are left with a mystery of in what way did Jesus' followers think of Jesus? Obviously they saw him as a prophet with divine power but HOW divine did the earliest Christians feel Jesus was, how close to being a God (or rather THE God) did they think he was? It's something we may never definitively answer.

You seem to suggest that Jesus was a sort of righteous example meant to be followed so that his followers could attain salvation from death in exactly the way that he did. This is a very interesting interpretation to say the least.

“Does a resurrection from the grave prove that someone is “God incarnate?” “

This is a very good question. In some Jewish circles it was apparent that if God either assumed you into Heaven or raised you up that you became, in some sense, divine. This is why we have people asking if Jesus is Elijah and why during the transfiguration Jesus sees Moses and Elijah. Some humans were assumed into Heaven and were, in some part, divine, they were legendary figures. Certainly some who heard the story of Jesus in the immediate aftermath would have assumed that he too ascended into Heaven in much the same way and that his Resurrection didn't mean that he himself WAS God. As Christopher Hitchens pointed out Resurrection was somewhat commonplace at the time, “Lazarus was raised and never said a word about it”.

There was a growing belief at the time among Jewish apocalypticists that at the end of days the dead would be mass resurrected and, as you point out, many saw Jesus as the first fruits of this coming mass resurrection. People who would follow Christ and become Christlike could overcome death so that they too would go up to Heaven when Jesus returned and the mass resurrection began.

Some fascinating stuff here Planks and Nails!


celafoe profile image

celafoe 3 months ago from Planet earth. between the oceans

A perfect example of a walk through the scriptures while being led by the Holy Spirit. Now if only those that need this would read it from God's eyes, being also led by the Holy Spirit, instead of quickly rejecting it because it interferes with their man made doctrines. The apostate church system has done a good job of teaching (INTIMIDATING) the pew sitters to follow their "pastor" instead of the Holy Spirit, and call them to look to their "church" instead of to the Holy Spirit, who the scriptures say will teach us all truth. While those precious few truly called by God teach people to rely on no man (including themselves) but to look to scripture and the Holy Spirit for truth and direction of their life instead of capturing them and keeping them in their dead churches.

Those truly ordained by God, serve as examples, upset people regularly, refuse to tickle their ears, talk against sin, talk about holiness, teach how to hear from God and rejoice when those people have learned what is necessary and are called to move on and repeat the procedure themselves. The difference is the latter are making disciples for Christ while the "churches " are making church clones for men

The scriptures clearly say .NO MAN IS OVER ANY OTHER MAN THERE IS ONLY ONE INTERCESSOR BETWEEN MAN AND GOD.

1 Cor 11:3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

1 Tim 2:5-6 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself a ransom for all,

Thanks for such an easy read , I don't see how anyone can reject it if they read the scriptures.


Setank Setunk 3 months ago

This is rather moot as an historical point. I suggest you look into the Filioque Controversy. If you read this you will understand why the rest is moot.


Rich kelley profile image

Rich kelley 3 months ago from The Ekklesia

Setank

The only controversy concerning the Latin word "filique" (meaning and the son) is if you believe in the false doctrine of the trinity to start with. The Eastern vs the Western church argument over an aspect of their false trinity doctrine has no bearing on this hub.

Although the phrase Trinity Doctrine is used in the title of the hub that is not an endorsement of that false doctrine. The majority of the Christian believing world adheres to the doctrine of the trinity, and thus a false understanding of God, Christ and the Holy Spirit. Sighting an argument between people that believe in the false doctrine of the trinity doesn't make comments made here moot. With a false doctrine as a major foundational piece of a persons belief everything that follow on that foundation, results in incorrect assumptions on many things.


Neil Braithwaite 3 months ago

“Trinity Doctrine apologists use cult-type techniques when explaining the trinity. They tell their followers that the trinity is a “mystery” that for some reason God has chosen to keep from our human comprehension, and that only a select few of learned people can make any sense of it. They also insist that belief in the trinity is a matter of salvation and that those who reject it are not true Christians - but are condemned to Hell.” Sound like a cult to you?

What I'm about to say is something I have struggled with for quite a while since the Holy Spirit opened my eyes to the truth about the trinity. But I need to say it now.

Christianity that embraces the trinity doctrine is a pagan cult. This incomprehensible idea has been pushed by Christian PAGAN CULT leaders since the it was accepted by Roman Emperor Constantine and ratified and made mandatory for "Christians" to believe by Emperor Theodosius I in 381AD. The trinity doctrine was passed on to the Protestant churches fully intact and is now the foundation of 99.9% of all church doctrine.

What a horrible thing to think of when all those people stand before the Messiah and he tells them he NEVER knew them!


Rich kelley profile image

Rich kelley 3 months ago from The Ekklesia

Amen Neil

What comes out of the mouth comes from what has been put in the heart.

The Messiah is the corner stone, not the false doctrine of a hocus-pocus god/man.


PlanksandNails profile image

PlanksandNails 3 months ago from among the called out of the ekklesia of Christ Author

Titen-Sxull,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and your questions.

((“what did the followers of Jesus believe about him during his lifetime that made them come to the conclusion that he did, in fact, rise again?))

No one can prove that Yahshua rose from the dead. It must be believed by faith. Obviously, this would not be the conclusion of those who were actually there to witness the event.

To create a hoax about the resurrection would have been farfetched as bearing false witness was prohibited among believers of that day.

To have faith in Yahshua is about believing that he rose from the grave by following the Way of Christ in obedience to Yahweh. We know that this faith spread throughout the world as it is still attested to this day.

Those who would deny the resurrection account would say that those who wrote about it were liars.

We must take into consideration that we cannot directly observe the past as it purely happened. The past no longer objectively exists apart from the evidence of things that have endured to the present, as direct analysis is not available.

How do we really know that the resurrection is not a fabricated reality of the past?

There is no way to check because the past event has gone. The event was left in the memories of those who witnessed it. What are left are the historical accounts of an event that had an impact on a particular group of people. If there were no events that had been impactful, it would not be remembered, or written about and would not exist in the minds of those today.

The past does not have any meaning until someone applies relevance to it. The past is subjectively interpreted in the present. The narratives of past are a reconstruction of other people’s awareness of the past.

For example, a detective will reconstruct a crime scene by the account of what eyewitnesses believed to have happened with any evidence that was left behind. The investigator may decide to believe the subjective testimonies of the witnesses to the crime, or not, even though he objectively did not witness it himself. A critical reconstruction and examination of the objective and subjective evidences left from the past event are pieced together. To purely know with confidence what really happened is unknowable. Only the best probable explanation can be attempted unless we were standing right there to witness it ourselves.

Today, many are dependent on the reports of others based on evidence from the past. Since they were not there, they must take someone else’s word for it, as we cannot go back in time. They must take the account on faith. In similar manner, a belief of Yahshua's resurrection account is based on faith.


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 3 months ago from back in the lab again

Thank you for your reply!

“Those who would deny the resurrection account would say that those who wrote about it were liars.”

I don't feel like that is the only option. Those who came to believe that Jesus was raised may have genuinely held that belief BUT been mistaken. There are numerous ways in which the disciples could have been mistaken about the risen Jesus without ever having to lie. Hallucinations of the risen Jesus, for example, would have seemed quite real to them and though somewhat rare shared hallucinations are not unheard of.

“Today, many are dependent on the reports of others based on evidence from the past. Since they were not there, they must take someone else’s word for it, as we cannot go back in time. They must take the account on faith. In similar manner, a belief of Yahshua's resurrection account is based on faith.”

True, without direct archeological evidence all historians can really do is establish what most likely happened in the past based on what clues we do have. This is why folks like Dr. Bart Ehrman say that the Resurrection will always be a faith based matter as a miracle is, by definition, the least likely outcome in any given situation.

As I said one of the most interesting aspects is wondering what the disciples and followers of Jesus believed about him once they were convinced he had indeed been raised. Mark's Gospel, for example, sees Jesus imbued with purpose as an adult at his baptism and hiding his identity most of his life – no virgin birth and no self-aggrandizing 'I am the way, the truth and the life” type statements. And Mark's original Gospel ends on a cliffhanger with no post-Resurrection appearances. Meanwhile by the time we get to John some 20-30 years after Mark was written we have Jesus declaring that he is God and Thomas actually sticking his hands in the wounds post Resurrection.

In John we also have a preexisting Jesus who was the “word” who became “flesh”, not just a righteous prophet chosen to be God's son and Messiah at the Baptism but now a being that existed since the beginning of time with God the Father before being incarnated.

It seems clear that the way in which Jesus was considered divine or the type of Messiah he was was changed over time and was not Universal. Even in the early days people weren't sure how to interpret the life of Jesus.


PlanksandNails profile image

PlanksandNails 3 months ago from among the called out of the ekklesia of Christ Author

Charlie,

I believe that people can only be led and open to the leading of the Holy Spirit unless they come out of the corrupt church system where people are organized into pews and brainwashed into supporting clergy in a dead faith. Christ came to set us free from the control of men to walk as he did before our Father in heaven. He has given us an opportunity to heed the message of the Kingdom so we may have life beyond this temporal one. Hopefully, more will heed the call.

Thanks for the encouragement.


PlanksandNails profile image

PlanksandNails 3 months ago from among the called out of the ekklesia of Christ Author

Titen-Sxull,

(("Those who came to believe that Jesus was raised may have genuinely held that belief BUT been mistaken.")

I think this would have been improbable. I think a lot of skeptics who reject the account of the resurrection fail to understand that when Yahshua rose from the dead, he ONLY appeared to the followers who believed and had faith in him.

The reason Yahsua was granted by his Father after he was resurrected was to make himself visible to his brethren to show them that they too could one day enter into the visible presence of his Father like he did. At the moment Yahshua was transfigured, the veil into the spiritual was lifted from their eyes to show them the hope of what they could look forward to one day. Before he left, he told his disciples that they would see him coming back in the same way that he left. This would be the time of their resurrection.

(("This is why folks like Dr. Bart Ehrman say that the Resurrection will always be a faith based matter as a miracle is.."))

The reason for the resurrection is absolutely about faith. Proof came to those who acted out their faith, not to those who didn't.

The skeptic of the resurrection assumes that there has to be a lot of evidence from the past because by today's standards there are many documents, such as educational records, passports, financial records, Facebook, etc.. Modern people's lives are essentially on display for all the world to see. If somebody like Yahshua did not have these types of evidence to prove what was written, then it seems suspicious, or to the extreme a "hallucination."

Proof of the resurrection only applies to those of faith.

The fact is that empirical sources for the evidence for anyone living in the ancient world are scarce, and rarely are they contemporary. Most evidence was written decades and beyond the fact. The more humble the origins of an individual, the less likely that there would be any contemporary records at all.

Hannibal of Carthage was a general who was considered one of the greatest generals of all time. He was famed throughout the ancient world for coming close to crushing the Roman Republic. His name and fame rung for centuries after. Is there any contemporary evidence of him?

There isn't any.

If there was someone as famous and revered as Hannibal, and there are no contemporary sources for him, it would be even more unlikely of a peasant who preached in Galilee?

Contemporary history may be "silent" concerning the resurrection of Yahshua, but it is still fanciful of some to say that as a man he never existed. There is as much, if not slightly more, evidence for the existence of Yahshua as there is for other comparable Jewish preachers, prophets and Messianic claimants without even looking at the Gospel material.

Whether we want to believe the Gospel accounts, or Dr. Bart Ehrman, we must take it on faith.

(("Meanwhile by the time we get to John some 20-30 years after Mark was written we have Jesus declaring that he is God "))

It is the Trinitarians that presume to claim that "Jesus is God," or being 100% man and 100% God, which is illogical. On the surface by referencing their "proof" verses this may seem true, but it is indoctrination that does this. Here is a link to a website that refutes the claim that "Jesus is God" that you may find interesting. It goes through all the Scripture references that Trinitarians use to make their fallacious claims.

http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/trin...

Thanks for the comment.


Setank Setunk 3 months ago

Rich Kelley; This article has everything to do with the Trinity, and Google does not have all the answers.

The Trinitarians and Arians were minor Christian factions at the time of the first Nicean Council. The former was adopted as a matter of State. Most disagreed with it and continued to teach Christianity as they did before. Christianity evolved independent of the doctrine designed to regulate it until the Synod of Toledo in 589 when the Trinity of today was written into the Creed and enforced.

This is why the Filioque is significant. Most Christians and their leaders in the West paid no attention to this confusing Greek inspired paradigm. Inserting it into the creed gave the State authority to enforce the Trinity Doctrine upon Christianity as a whole. This was not entirely effective until Europe emerged from the Dark Ages nearly a millennia later.


Rich kelley profile image

Rich kelley 3 months ago from The Ekklesia

Setank Setunk

Ok I'm missing why filioque is significant today. Today we have the trinity, I don't see different trinity factions they all look the same to me. If you could explain please.

Rich


Setank Setunk 3 months ago

You are correct in your challenges to the Trinity but there is reasonable historical records to indicate that it was never part of the genuine Christian movement. Rather than argue the flaws within the trinitarian doctrine I would add to your point that it is all together false. Hence my claim that your argument was moot. I should not have said it was moot because it is valid today. It is just that I dismissed it along time ago for the reasons I mentioned.

I will also acknowledge that the Filioque seems irrelevant when taken out of it's complex historical context. I may write a Hub about it. Happy Hubing RK.


Rich kelley profile image

Rich kelley 3 months ago from The Ekklesia

I will look forward to your hub should you write it, thank you for your feedback.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working