The Trinity and the Incarnation

The eastern orthodox religion popped up in the 5th or 6th century. Catholicism had already screwed it all up prior, Only their translating remained=The Latin vulgate-The Codex sinacticus--so obviously Eastern orthodox used the codex sinacticus=altered and error filled.
Wiki

The Eastern Orthodox Church traces its origins back to the 1st century, founded by Jesus Christ and the Apostles, with its formal structure developing through the early medieval period and the establishment of the first ecumenical councils. The church's current form was largely established by the 8th century.

1st century is not (popped up in the 5th or 6th centuries

The Schism of 1054: The Split between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church​

The origins of the Eastern Orthodox Church can be traced back to the early days of Christianity. It all began with the teachings of Jesus Christ and the apostles, who spread the message of the gospel throughout the Roman Empire. In the early centuries, the Christian faith was unified, with the Church in Rome serving as the center of authority.

However, as time went on, political and theological differences began to emerge between the East and the West. One of the key factors that led to the split between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church was the Schism of 1054. This event marked the official division between the two branches of Christianity.

The main cause of the Schism was the growing tensions between the Pope in Rome and the Patriarch in Constantinople, who both claimed authority over the entire Christian Church. Theological disagreements also played a role, with differences in liturgical practices and interpretations of doctrine becoming increasingly significant.

In addition, cultural and political factors contributed to the division. The East and the West had distinct ways of life, and the influence of the Byzantine Empire in the East and the Roman Empire in the West played a part in shaping the identities of the respective churches.

Formation of the Constantinople Patriarchate: A Pillar of Eastern Orthodoxy​


The Constantinople Patriarchate holds a distinguished place in the history of Eastern Orthodoxy. Its formation can be traced back to the early days of Christianity, when the city of Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul) emerged as a center of religious influence and political power. The establishment of the Constantinople Patriarchate marked a significant milestone in the development of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

The roots of the patriarchate can be found in the Byzantine Empire, which was the successor to the Roman Empire in the eastern Mediterranean region. In 330 AD, Emperor Constantine the Great chose Byzantium (later renamed Constantinople) as the new capital of the empire. With the city’s strategic location and flourishing trade, it became a melting pot of cultures and religions.

As the Byzantine Empire embraced Christianity, the influence of the Bishop of Constantinople grew. Recognizing the city’s prominence, the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD granted the Bishop of Constantinople the status of “first among equals” among the bishops of the Eastern Roman Empire, known as the Pentarchy. This decision laid the foundation for the formation of the Constantinople Patriarchate.

Over the centuries, the Constantinople Patriarchate played a pivotal role in shaping Eastern Orthodoxy
. It served as a center of theological scholarship and spiritual guidance, fostering the development of liturgical practices and doctrinal traditions. The patriarchate’s authority extended beyond the Byzantine Empire and influenced other Orthodox churches throughout the world.

Today, the Constantinople Patriarchate remains a beacon of Eastern Orthodoxy, upholding ancient traditions while adapting to the challenges of the modern world. Its legacy as a pillar of faith and spiritual leadership continues to inspire millions of Orthodox Christians worldwide.

Another important dispute revolved around the authority of the bishop of Rome, who would later become known as the Pope. While the Eastern Orthodox Church recognized the primacy of Rome within the early Christian community, it did not accept the Pope’s claims to supreme authority over all bishops. Instead, the Eastern Orthodox Church emphasized the importance of the conciliar model, where decisions were made collectively by bishops in ecumenical councils. This distinction eventually led to the Great Schism of 1054, which resulted in the formal separation of the Eastern Orthodox Church from the Roman Catholic Church.
 
Wiki

The Eastern Orthodox Church traces its origins back to the 1st century, founded by Jesus Christ and the Apostles, with its formal structure developing through the early medieval period and the establishment of the first ecumenical councils. The church's current form was largely established by the 8th century.

1st century is not (popped up in the 5th or 6th centuries

The Schism of 1054: The Split between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church​

The origins of the Eastern Orthodox Church can be traced back to the early days of Christianity. It all began with the teachings of Jesus Christ and the apostles, who spread the message of the gospel throughout the Roman Empire. In the early centuries, the Christian faith was unified, with the Church in Rome serving as the center of authority.

However, as time went on, political and theological differences began to emerge between the East and the West. One of the key factors that led to the split between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church was the Schism of 1054. This event marked the official division between the two branches of Christianity.

The main cause of the Schism was the growing tensions between the Pope in Rome and the Patriarch in Constantinople, who both claimed authority over the entire Christian Church. Theological disagreements also played a role, with differences in liturgical practices and interpretations of doctrine becoming increasingly significant.

In addition, cultural and political factors contributed to the division. The East and the West had distinct ways of life, and the influence of the Byzantine Empire in the East and the Roman Empire in the West played a part in shaping the identities of the respective churches.

Formation of the Constantinople Patriarchate: A Pillar of Eastern Orthodoxy​


The Constantinople Patriarchate holds a distinguished place in the history of Eastern Orthodoxy. Its formation can be traced back to the early days of Christianity, when the city of Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul) emerged as a center of religious influence and political power. The establishment of the Constantinople Patriarchate marked a significant milestone in the development of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

The roots of the patriarchate can be found in the Byzantine Empire, which was the successor to the Roman Empire in the eastern Mediterranean region. In 330 AD, Emperor Constantine the Great chose Byzantium (later renamed Constantinople) as the new capital of the empire. With the city’s strategic location and flourishing trade, it became a melting pot of cultures and religions.

As the Byzantine Empire embraced Christianity, the influence of the Bishop of Constantinople grew. Recognizing the city’s prominence, the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD granted the Bishop of Constantinople the status of “first among equals” among the bishops of the Eastern Roman Empire, known as the Pentarchy. This decision laid the foundation for the formation of the Constantinople Patriarchate.

Over the centuries, the Constantinople Patriarchate played a pivotal role in shaping Eastern Orthodoxy. It served as a center of theological scholarship and spiritual guidance, fostering the development of liturgical practices and doctrinal traditions. The patriarchate’s authority extended beyond the Byzantine Empire and influenced other Orthodox churches throughout the world.

Today, the Constantinople Patriarchate remains a beacon of Eastern Orthodoxy, upholding ancient traditions while adapting to the challenges of the modern world. Its legacy as a pillar of faith and spiritual leadership continues to inspire millions of Orthodox Christians worldwide.

Another important dispute revolved around the authority of the bishop of Rome, who would later become known as the Pope. While the Eastern Orthodox Church recognized the primacy of Rome within the early Christian community, it did not accept the Pope’s claims to supreme authority over all bishops. Instead, the Eastern Orthodox Church emphasized the importance of the conciliar model, where decisions were made collectively by bishops in ecumenical councils. This distinction eventually led to the Great Schism of 1054, which resulted in the formal separation of the Eastern Orthodox Church from the Roman Catholic Church.
Of course they do, so does Catholicism= both are not saying truth. Every bible writer and Jesus while attending the temples and synagogues( if any existed then) were taught a single being God, served and worshipped a single being God= undeniable fact of life.
 
Of course they do, so does Catholicism= both are not saying truth. Every bible writer and Jesus while attending the temples and synagogues( if any existed then) were taught a single being God, served and worshipped a single being God= undeniable fact of life.
Πώς μπορεί κανείς να είναι τόσο πυκνός ?
 
The eastern orthodox religion popped up in the 5th or 6th century. Catholicism had already screwed it all up prior, Only their translating remained=The Latin vulgate-The Codex sinacticus--so obviously Eastern orthodox used the codex sinacticus=altered and error filled.
No it did not

This is a timeline of the presence of Eastern Orthodoxy in Greece from 33 to 717 AD. The history of Greece traditionally encompasses the study of the Greek people, the areas they ruled historically, as well as the territory now composing the modern state of Greece.

Overview​

[edit]
Christianity was first brought to the geographical area corresponding to modern Greece by the Apostle Paul, although the church's apostolicity also rests upon St. Andrew who preached the gospel in Greece and suffered martyrdom in Patras, Titus, Paul's companion who preached the gospel in Crete where he became bishop, Philip who, according to the tradition, visited and preached in Athens, Luke the Evangelist who was martyred in Thebes, Lazarus of Bethany, Bishop of Kition in Cyprus, and John the Theologian who was exiled on the island of Patmos where he received the Revelation recorded in the last book of the New Testament. In addition, the Theotokos is regarded as having visited the Holy Mountain in 49 AD according to tradition...............................Thus Greece became the first European area to accept the gospel of Christ. Towards the end of the 2nd century the early apostolic bishoprics had developed into metropolitan sees in the most important cities. Such were the sees of Thessaloniki, Corinth, Nicopolis, Philippi and Athens.
 
I don't see the word "deity" in Colossians or for that matter any place else in the Bible.

And then there's Ephesians 3:19 that talks about me being filled with all the fullness of God. Am I God too?


And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.
Colossians 2:9 (NASB95) — 9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,
Colossians 2:9 (LEB) — 9 because in him all the fullness of deity dwells bodily,
Colossians 2:9 (UASV) — 9 For in him is dwelling all the fullness of the deity bodily,
Colossians 2:9 (NIV) — 9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,

Maybe you prefer this

Colossians 2:9 (KJV 1900) — 9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
 
No it did not

This is a timeline of the presence of Eastern Orthodoxy in Greece from 33 to 717 AD. The history of Greece traditionally encompasses the study of the Greek people, the areas they ruled historically, as well as the territory now composing the modern state of Greece.

Overview​

[edit]
Christianity was first brought to the geographical area corresponding to modern Greece by the Apostle Paul, although the church's apostolicity also rests upon St. Andrew who preached the gospel in Greece and suffered martyrdom in Patras, Titus, Paul's companion who preached the gospel in Crete where he became bishop, Philip who, according to the tradition, visited and preached in Athens, Luke the Evangelist who was martyred in Thebes, Lazarus of Bethany, Bishop of Kition in Cyprus, and John the Theologian who was exiled on the island of Patmos where he received the Revelation recorded in the last book of the New Testament. In addition, the Theotokos is regarded as having visited the Holy Mountain in 49 AD according to tradition...............................Thus Greece became the first European area to accept the gospel of Christ. Towards the end of the 2nd century the early apostolic bishoprics had developed into metropolitan sees in the most important cities. Such were the sees of Thessaloniki, Corinth, Nicopolis, Philippi and Athens.
I just looked it up-5th or 6th century they popped up.
 
Colossians 2:9 (NASB95) — 9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,
Colossians 2:9 (LEB) — 9 because in him all the fullness of deity dwells bodily,
Colossians 2:9 (UASV) — 9 For in him is dwelling all the fullness of the deity bodily,
Colossians 2:9 (NIV) — 9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,

Maybe you prefer this

Colossians 2:9 (KJV 1900) — 9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
This verse is very good proof that Jesus Christ was not God. It would make no sense to say that “what God is” dwells in God. It is only because Christ is not God that it makes sense to say that what God is dwells in Christ. Also, the verse uses the word “God” not “the Father.” If Trinitarians were correct that the Father and Christ were two separate “Persons” but both the Father and Christ were “God” then this verse should state that in Christ dwells all the fullness of “the Father.” The verse says “God” is dwelling bodily in Christ, that is, being embodied in him. What God was, all his character and glory, dwelt in Christ in a bodily form. Some Trinitarians recognize that logically what God is could not dwell in God, and so they assert that this verse is referring to the “man” part of Christ (the doctrine of the Trinity states that Jesus is both fully God and fully human. The fact that this is logically impossible by definition is ignored and taken as one of the mysteries of the Faith).
 
1. Where did Jesus or the apostles ever name the doctrine of the Trinity?
Don’t tell us what later church councils said. Where did Jesus teach it? Where did the apostles explain it?

2. Where did Jesus or the apostles ever describe God as “three persons in one essence”?
Give chapter and verse—no creeds, no analogies, no philosophy. Just show us where they said it.

3. If God is truly three coequal persons, why did Jesus say “the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28), and “I can do nothing of Myself” (John 5:30)?
Was Jesus lying? Or are you forcing theology into the text?

4. If the Holy Spirit is a third coequal divine person, why does Jesus say the Father will send the Spirit in His name after He prays (John 14:16, 26)?
If the Spirit is fully God, why does He need to be sent? And why does Jesus have to ask?

5. If Jesus is coequal with the Father, why is He called “a man approved by God” (Acts 2:22), and why does Paul say “God has made this Jesus both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36)?
Are you claiming Jesus was “made Lord” in appearance only? Was His humanity just a shell?
 
1. Where did Jesus or the apostles ever name the doctrine of the Trinity?
Don’t tell us what later church councils said. Where did Jesus teach it? Where did the apostles explain it?

2. Where did Jesus or the apostles ever describe God as “three persons in one essence”?
Give chapter and verse—no creeds, no analogies, no philosophy. Just show us where they said it.


3. If God is truly three coequal persons, why did Jesus say “the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28), and “I can do nothing of Myself” (John 5:30)?
Was Jesus lying? Or are you forcing theology into the text?


4. If the Holy Spirit is a third coequal divine person, why does Jesus say the Father will send the Spirit in His name after He prays (John 14:16, 26)?
If the Spirit is fully God, why does He need to be sent? And why does Jesus have to ask?


5. If Jesus is coequal with the Father, why is He called “a man approved by God” (Acts 2:22), and why does Paul say “God has made this Jesus both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36)?
Are you claiming Jesus was “made Lord” in appearance only? Was His humanity just a shell?
Indeed this is a fine example of a hyper-literalist post where the essence of Christ is rejected because the interpreter thinks that scripture cannot be integrated and summarized beyond the surface content of scripture. Worse yet, much of the scripture content and mysteries have to be rejected because they are outside of the hyper-literalist reading.
 
This verse is very good proof that Jesus Christ was not God. It would make no sense to say that “what God is” dwells in God. It is only because Christ is not God that it makes sense to say that what God is dwells in Christ. Also, the verse uses the word “God” not “the Father.” If Trinitarians were correct that the Father and Christ were two separate “Persons” but both the Father and Christ were “God” then this verse should state that in Christ dwells all the fullness of “the Father.” The verse says “God” is dwelling bodily in Christ, that is, being embodied in him. What God was, all his character and glory, dwelt in Christ in a bodily form. Some Trinitarians recognize that logically what God is could not dwell in God, and so they assert that this verse is referring to the “man” part of Christ (the doctrine of the Trinity states that Jesus is both fully God and fully human. The fact that this is logically impossible by definition is ignored and taken as one of the mysteries of the Faith).
You skipped the point

Deity you stated you did not see it

Colossians 2:9 (NASB95) — 9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,
Colossians 2:9 (LEB) — 9 because in him all the fullness of deity dwells bodily,
Colossians 2:9 (UASV) — 9 For in him is dwelling all the fullness of the deity bodily,
Colossians 2:9 (NIV) — 9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,

Do you now see it?
 
1. Where did Jesus or the apostles ever name the doctrine of the Trinity?
Don’t tell us what later church councils said. Where did Jesus teach it? Where did the apostles explain it?

2. Where did Jesus or the apostles ever describe God as “three persons in one essence”?
Give chapter and verse—no creeds, no analogies, no philosophy. Just show us where they said it.


3. If God is truly three coequal persons, why did Jesus say “the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28), and “I can do nothing of Myself” (John 5:30)?
Was Jesus lying? Or are you forcing theology into the text?


4. If the Holy Spirit is a third coequal divine person, why does Jesus say the Father will send the Spirit in His name after He prays (John 14:16, 26)?
If the Spirit is fully God, why does He need to be sent? And why does Jesus have to ask?


5. If Jesus is coequal with the Father, why is He called “a man approved by God” (Acts 2:22), and why does Paul say “God has made this Jesus both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36)?
Are you claiming Jesus was “made Lord” in appearance only? Was His humanity just a shell?
doh - Copy.gif
 
@Keiw1

Are you familiar with the Leningrad Codex?

Not done in Latin. Not done in Greek... and written about 1008 CE.

1746877068251.png
A MASTERPIECE OF THE MASORETES. The Masoretes established an astoundingly accurate tradition of Bible transmission. This carpet page from the Leningrad Codex (1008 C.E.)—of the tradition of the Masoretes—is the base text for Biblia Hebraica Quinta. The scribe of the manuscript Samuel son of Jacob, one of the Masoretes, even records his name. Photo by Bruce and Kenneth Zuckerman, West Semitic Research/With the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center/Courtesy Russian National Library.
Are you familiar with the Dead Sea Scrolls?


Are you familiar with.... any of the following or are you only interested in a smack down of the Roman Catholics and Protestants
who only were able to translate things given to them?

Errors in the Masoretes’ “Original” Hebrew Manuscripts of the Bible?​

Why critical editions of the Bible—like Biblia Hebraica Quinta—are essential

BAS Staff May 06, 2025 53 Comments 63191 views Share
Page from Leningrad Codex Bible, from the Majorettes
A MASTERPIECE OF THE MASORETES. The Masoretes established an astoundingly accurate tradition of Bible transmission. This carpet page from the Leningrad Codex (1008 C.E.)—of the tradition of the Masoretes—is the base text for Biblia Hebraica Quinta. The scribe of the manuscript Samuel son of Jacob, one of the Masoretes, even records his name. Photo by Bruce and Kenneth Zuckerman, West Semitic Research/With the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center/Courtesy Russian National Library.
The Hebrew Bible—or Old Testament—that we have today differs from the Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible penned in the first millennium B.C.E. When transmitting any sort of a document from generation to generation, small alterations—some intentional, others not—are made. Even the most careful scribe makes errors, which are perpetuated and often compounded by future scribes. Thus, it should not surprise us that the Hebrew Bible, which has a transmission history of several millennia, contains textual difficulties, corruptions and even mistakes. Critical editions of the Bible examine these differences by looking at varying Hebrew witnesses and try to accurately reconstruct the original Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible. In the November/December 2013 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, David Marcus and James A. Sanders discuss why critical editions of the Bible are necessary and describe the work that goes into creating such an edition in the article What’s Critical About a Critical Edition of the Bible?

Marcus and Sanders are both involved with the publication of Biblia Hebraica Quinta, the latest revision of Biblia Hebraica, which refers to the series of critical Bible editions published in Germany since 1905. The base for Biblia Hebraica Quinta is the Leningrad Codex, which dates to 1008 C.E. and was written by Samuel son of Jacob, who was part of a group of rabbinic scribes called the Masoretes.


Masoretes' Aleppo Codex
THE MASORETES DOING WHAT THE MASORETES DO BEST. This page comes from the Aleppo Codex. Until a third of it was burned in a 1947 anti-Jewish uprising in Syria, the Aleppo Codex was considered to be the oldest, most complete, and most accurate of the Masoretes’ manuscripts. The Masoretes filled its margins with notes to safeguard against corruption. Credit: David Harris/Ben-Zvi Institute in the Shrine of the Book.
Working in Tiberias during the Middle Ages, the Masoretes recognized the possibility of human error when copying the Hebrew Bible. They tried to combat it by adding supplements to the text. In the margins of the Masoretes’ manuscripts, there are innumerable notes—masorah—to safeguard the text. The precision with which the Masoretes were able to preserve the Hebrew text beginning in the seventh century C.E. is astounding. Nevertheless, the Masoretes were not working with the original Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible. Corruptions had already crept into the versions they copied.

The Masoretes’ efforts preserved the Biblical text in the first millennium C.E. Modern scholarship, with critical editions of the Bible like Biblia Hebraica Quinta, is bringing us even closer to reconstructing the original Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible.

Read the full article What’s Critical About a Critical Edition of the Bible? by David Marcus and James A. Sanders as it appears in the November/December 2013 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

But you havbe to join and YOU should for it offers much insight into things that you get many errors fereom
 
You skipped the point

Deity you stated you did not see it

Colossians 2:9 (NASB95) — 9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,
Colossians 2:9 (LEB) — 9 because in him all the fullness of deity dwells bodily,
Colossians 2:9 (UASV) — 9 For in him is dwelling all the fullness of the deity bodily,
Colossians 2:9 (NIV) — 9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,

Do you now see it?
No I don't see deity in my Bibles...

Holman Christian Standard Bible
For the entire fullness of God’s nature dwells bodily in Christ,

Contemporary English Version

God lives fully in Christ.

Catholic Public Domain Version

For in him, all the fullness of the Divine Nature dwells bodily.

New Living Translation

For in Christ lives all the fullness of God in a human body.

GOD'S WORD® Translation

All of God lives in Christ's body,

Good News Translation

For the full content of divine nature lives in Christ, in his humanity,

Christian Standard Bible

For the entire fullness of God’s nature dwells bodily in Christ,
 
No I don't see deity in my Bibles...

Holman Christian Standard Bible
For the entire fullness of God’s nature dwells bodily in Christ,

Contemporary English Version
God lives fully in Christ.

Catholic Public Domain Version
For in him, all the fullness of the Divine Nature dwells bodily.

New Living Translation
For in Christ lives all the fullness of God in a human body.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
All of God lives in Christ's body,

Good News Translation
For the full content of divine nature lives in Christ, in his humanity,

Christian Standard Bible
For the entire fullness of God’s nature dwells bodily in Christ,
Another error of implied interpretation is apparent here.
Jesus is easily recognized in the incarnation to be the temple of God (Joh 2:19-20). So Col 2:9 is readily recognized as an expression of the divinity of Christ because God inhabits his temple. We have here the distinction of the divinity and the physicality of Jesus. It shows how Jesus is 100%man and a 100% God. There hardly is fodder for the Arianist heresy in this verse.
 
There is not one verse that says Jesus is God the Son...

Nor has there ever been a teaching on it anywhere in the Bible. A teaching... a whole paragraph or chapter. The Jews never saw it anywhere in the entire Old Testament nor anyone in the New Testament ever taught it. The Catholics who invented this nonsense have used only about 8 verses that they have to piece together from statements that are scattered all over the New Testament. One should think if such nonsense was true and important that it would have been taught by someone. And it is not.

All you folks ever put in front of me are bits and pieces of words and half verses that are scattered all over the Bible. If there is a trinity then why not just come out and say it? Why do we have to jump all over the Bible cutting and pasting pieces of words that are scattered all over the Bible? Why not just teach it? I know enough about how the Bible is written in the New Testament and in the Gospels to know if there was a trinity it would have been taught. The Gospels would have clearly said...

Verily, verily I say unto you that I am Jesus and I'm also God.

The Epistles would have writings like...

Yay, I Paul do testify that Jesus who is God came down from heaven to be a man for us. And we do know and testify that this same Jesus who you crucified is God. And so let us bow our knee to the one and only true God-Man Jesus Christ.

And yet there's nothing like that anywhere. Not in the Old or New Testament. Not even one complete verse like that.
 
No I don't see deity in my Bibles...

Holman Christian Standard Bible
For the entire fullness of God’s nature dwells bodily in Christ,

Contemporary English Version
God lives fully in Christ.

Catholic Public Domain Version
For in him, all the fullness of the Divine Nature dwells bodily.

New Living Translation
For in Christ lives all the fullness of God in a human body.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
All of God lives in Christ's body,

Good News Translation
For the full content of divine nature lives in Christ, in his humanity,

Christian Standard Bible
For the entire fullness of God’s nature dwells bodily in Christ,
So fullness of God or fullness of the divine nature does not speak of deity to you?
 
Back
Top Bottom