The Trinity according to the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD

[CorrectiveLens]

Post #77 should just read:
According to the RCC, St. Peter was the first Roman Catholic Pope and they list a succession of Popes after him. So according to them, they existed before Nicaea. The RCC adopted the Nicaean and Constantinople creed and concept of the Trinity. Did God prove himself when Christians were smitten in the Colosseum. Were they wicked? Are people who die a horrible death smitten by God? As a Christian who loves both the Father and the Son, can never come to such a conclusion. 300 bishops that attended out of 1800 who were invited comes out to 1/9 of the total bishops in the empire attend the Council of Nicaea including the emperor Constantine whom the RCC considers a saint, even though as a self declared Christian, had his own son Crispus executed and his wife Faustina tossed into a vat of boiling water.Presided by a sun worshiper and confirmed by the RCC and attended by 1/9 of the total bishops doesn't give me much faith in the Trinity. Sebellianism, which was considered a heresy at the time believed in one God in three roles as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Trinitarians believe in one God taking the form of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. How are they different? We have so much more at our disposal than the early Church Fathers. Were they smarter than us? Is the Holy Spirit not working now? Is God one or a group? Does the Trinity even make sense? Wake up and stop judging people!

I agree. You would have to consider in how many different ways that they have been wrong. Let's consider some:
1. the invention of Venial sin
2. the invention of purgatory
3. a history of selling indulgences (forgiveness of sins)
4. until recently not eating meat on Fridays
5. the order of authority ( 1st the clergy, 2nd tradition, and 3rd the bible)
6. history of persecution and execution of Christians
7. forbidding priests to marry
8. accumulation of wealth instead of distributing it
9. until recently, having the mass in Latin everywhere
10. using a host instead of bread and wine
11. forgiving sins by reciting Our Fathers and Hail Marys
12. repetition of prayers
13. worshiping idols
14. every mass is an actual re-enactment of Christ's death on the cross so that sins can be continually forgiven
15. the sexual abuse of alter boys within their organization.
16. the Trinity

17. the infallibility of the pope
18. the pope as God's vicar on earth
and more

 

[BearerOfTheMorningStar]

According to the RCC, St. Peter was the first Roman Catholic Pope and they list a succession of Popes after him. So according to them, they existed before Nicaea. The RCC adopted the Nicaean and Constantinople creed and concept of the Trinity. Did God prove himself when Christians were smitten in the Colosseum. Were they wicked? Are people who die a horrible death smitten by God? As a Christian who loves both the Father and the Son, can never come to such a conclusion. 300 bishops that attended out of 1800 who were invited comes out to 1/9 of the total bishops in the empire attend the Council of Nicaea including the emperor Constantine whom the RCC considers a saint, even though as a self declared Christian, had his own son Crispus executed and his wife Faustina tossed into a vat of boiling water.Presided by a sun worshiper and confirmed by the RCC and attended by 1/9 of the total bishops doesn't give me much faith in the Trinity. Sebellianism, which was considered a heresy at the time believed in one God in three roles as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Trinitarians believe in one God taking the form of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. How are they different? We have so much more at our disposal than the early Church Fathers. Were they smarter than us? Is the Holy Spirit not working now? Is God one or a group? Does the Trinity even make sense? Wake up and stop judging people!Trinitarians believe in one God taking the form of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. How are they different? We have so much more at our disposal than the early Church Fathers. Were they smarter than us? Is the Holy Spirit not working now? Is God one or a group? Does the Trinity even make sense? Wake up and stop judging people! Trinitarians believe in one God taking the form of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. How are they different? We have so much more at our disposal than the early Church Fathers. Were they smarter than us? Is the Holy Spirit not working now? Is God one or a group? Does the Trinity even make sense? Wake up and stop judging people!

Well yes that is the position of the RCC, but mindful that's all wrapped up in an ideal called Papal Primacy, which indeed is the true origin of their denomination/sect as a distinct entity, however this is basically the equivalent of the RCC trying to play a retroactive game and take credit for the Early Church, perhaps a little too smugly as it caused a a Great Schism. Nevertheless the whole idea of Papal Primacy and the schisms that occured that split the Church don't occur until far after the Council of Nicaeae. For certainty all the actual Christian denominations of today hold the Trinity Doctrine because it is indeed the mainstream doctrine and what the Bible actually says. All the heresies against this like Araianism, Sebellianism, Modalism, etc. died out long a go and none of the mainstream churches today originate from those wicked heretics. While yes the RCC does claim descent from the mainstream Christians, it's more their own arrogance to try to assume responsibility for the whole Council of Nicaeae when all the other mainstream churches also originate from this as well and the Early Church was not really controlled by the pope (whose office at the time is just a simple bishoprick in Rome amogn the other bishops) and the RCC as a distinct entity doesn't really exist until like the 1000s AD, they're just trying to claim ownership of the Trinity Doctrine and God because in this time they have forgotten that it is the other way around and God owns them.

As for the Christian martyrs in the colisseums of Rome, yes, actually God did prove himself through that. Some of them were wicked, like you noted in the Donatist controversy and some of them were faithful matryrs, either way God proves himself true.

Well you're being not fully forthright with Constantine the Great. Fausta and Crispus were having an adulterous affair (yea the romans have uhhhhh complicated sexual family problems to say the least) so they were rightly put to death. As for Constantine himself, remember, Constantine is kind of a meathead, he's not really a priest or a scholar, hence why he convened the Council of Nicaea to try to understand what was Christianity and what was happening with Christianity when he experienced the miracle and realized there was something to this Jesus guy being connected to being the True God that was making him invincible in battle. Really Constantine is indeed a very interesting and nuanced figure reforming the Roman Empire literally at the height of one of Europe's sorest persecutions of the Christians as well as an era when there was confusions and mass heresies within Christendom. Just the fact Constantine became the first Christian Emperor at such a time itself is a miracle, PRAISE JESUS!

 

[wattie]

I'm not a Roman Catholic apologist by any means; however, just because the RCC believes something doesn't automatically make it false. They believe and teach a lot of things that are Biblical and that Protestants agree with. A broken clock is right twice a day.

Yeah, the original catholic creed differs very little at all from orthodox christianity. The main difference is having 'they holy catholic church' but aside from that.. the tenets to declare may as well be Methodist, Anglican or Presbyterian. Although, Methodist, Anglican and Presbyterian actually all have the holy catholic church declared at communion in their beliefs.. but they I think would be referring to a different entity.

 

[CorrectiveLens]

Well yes that is the position of the RCC, but mindful that's all wrapped up in an ideal called Papal Primacy, which indeed is the true origin of their denomination/sect as a distinct entity, however this is basically the equivalent of the RCC trying to play a retroactive game and take credit for the Early Church, perhaps a little too smugly as it caused a a Great Schism. Nevertheless the whole idea of Papal Primacy and the schisms that occured that split the Church don't occur until far after the Council of Nicaeae. For certainty all the actual Christian denominations of today hold the Trinity Doctrine because it is indeed the mainstream doctrine and what the Bible actually says. All the heresies against this like Araianism, Sebellianism, Modalism, etc. died out long a go and none of the mainstream churches today originate from those wicked heretics. While yes the RCC does claim descent from the mainstream Christians, it's more their own arrogance to try to assume responsibility for the whole Council of Nicaeae when all the other mainstream churches also originate from this as well and the Early Church was not really controlled by the pope (whose office at the time is just a simple bishoprick in Rome amogn the other bishops) and the RCC as a distinct entity doesn't really exist until like the 1000s AD, they're just trying to claim ownership of the Trinity Doctrine and God because in this time they have forgotten that it is the other way around and God owns them.

As for the Christian martyrs in the colisseums of Rome, yes, actually God did prove himself through that. Some of them were wicked, like you noted in the Donatist controversy and some of them were faithful matryrs, either way God proves himself true.

Well you're being not fully forthright with Constantine the Great. Fausta and Crispus were having an adulterous affair (yea the romans have uhhhhh complicated sexual family problems to say the least) so they were rightly put to death. As for Constantine himself, remember, Constantine is kind of a meathead, he's not really a priest or a scholar, hence why he convened the Council of Nicaea to try to understand what was Christianity and what was happening with Christianity when he experienced the miracle and realized there was something to this Jesus guy being connected to being the True God that was making him invincible in battle. Really Constantine is indeed a very interesting and nuanced figure reforming the Roman Empire literally at the height of one of Europe's sorest persecutions of the Christians as well as an era when there was confusions and mass heresies within Christendom. Just the fact Constantine became the first Christian Emperor at such a time itself is a miracle, PRAISE JESUS!

So, you're saying that it was OK for Constantine to have his wife tossed into a vat of boiling water? What Constantine did for Christianity was for his mother who was a Christian. Constantine was a sun worshiper as evidenced by the coins of that time which pictured him right next to a picture of the sun god. Constantine's concern was not Christianity. Christianity flourished after Rome declared it a legal religion. Confidence in the Roman gods waned considerably, the Roman borders were being penetrated, and the populace was being fragmented by differing opinions on the interpretation of scripture. Constantine's purpose in calling the Council of Nicaea was to unify his empire by having all the bishops in his empire come together and come to a consensus on these debated topics. They came to a consensus and all of Christianity was to follow it by order of Constantine. With the experience of the extreme persecution by the previous emperor still fresh on their minds, who was going to argue? That is not how Scripture works. Scripture comes from God and is such that only those that are filled with the Holy Spirit can interpret it with truth. Scripture was not meant for a small group of people to decide what everyone should believe.
None of Arius' writings have ever being found. Arius was declared a heretic and Constantine ordered every book and writings by Arius and his followers to be burned so that according to him, there would be no remains of their doctrine left to posterity. All that we have is information that we get from his opponents about him. I'm sure that Arius did not form his beliefs out of the air but with careful reading of Scripture. He was a devout Christian with a firm belief in the Sonship of Christ. The Father preexists the Son and therefore there was a time when the Son was not. This Father and Son relationship occurred twice, once before anything was created and the second time when Christ became a man.

Heb 1 :5-7 For unto which of the angels said He at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again , I will be to him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son? And again, when He bringeth in the first-begotteen into the world, He saith, " And let all the angels of God worship Him. And of the angels He saith , Who maketh His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire.
Christ's existence emanated from the Father's essence from which all things exist. Christ is the first living spiritual being that came from the Father. That is why He is the Father's Son. Just like the Father, Christ has His own mind, will, heart, and soul. Because the Father's essence completely fills Christ's being, Christ, with His free will, chooses to love and obey Him. That is why He sits at the Father's right hand (to do the Father's will). The Father communicates His will to the Son and empowers Him through His essence (Holy Spirit). The Father and Son are One in that whatever the Father wants, the Son wants also. The Son's will might differ from the Father, but the Son gladly subjugates His will to the Father. When Christ became a man, the essence of God the Father, through which Mary's seed was fertilized, again resulted in Christ being born but this time as a human. The Father and Son relationship occurs a second time.
Eusebius' biography of Constantine was really a eulogy written after his death. In it he explains that Constantine ruled for 30 years and his age was twice that. He raises Constantine to the level of Sovereign, deserving of glory, blessed by God for his piousness, Christ's vicar on earth, and infallibility. What would you expect him to write when he knows that his biography, or eulogy, will be read by the new emperor and his court. After the Roman empire was overtaken by different conquerors, the Roman Catholic Church continued and those same qualities were assigned to the pope of Rome. Constantine did not get water baptized until he was on his deathbed because he wanted all his sins forgiven before he died. In other words, he wasn't through sinning while he was active.

 

[CS1]

I know people dont take kindly to Jesus words, and I dread any arguments but I do recall Him saying this

John 14:28, "You have heard that I told you: I go away, but come again to you. If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."

He also said, "I and my Father are ONE." John 10:30-33 Oops!

 

[SpeakTruth101]

He also said, "I and my Father are ONE." John 10:30-33 Oops!

John/Yahanan 17:17-24, “Set them apart in Your truth – Your Word is truth. As You sent Me into the world, I also sent them into the world. And for them I set Myself apart, so that they too might be set apart in truth. That they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us,"

 

[CS1]

John/Yahanan 17:17-24, “Set them apart in Your truth – Your Word is truth. As You sent Me into the world, I also sent them into the world. And for them I set Myself apart, so that they too might be set apart in truth. That they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us,"

John 10:30–33

30 I and the Father are one.”

31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?”

33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”


FYI, the context of John 17:17-24 must build from John 10. Good try but no cigar.

 

[BearerOfTheMorningStar]

So, you're saying that it was OK for Constantine to have his wife tossed into a vat of boiling water? What Constantine did for Christianity was for his mother who was a Christian. Constantine was a sun worshiper as evidenced by the coins of that time which pictured him right next to a picture of the sun god. Constantine's concern was not Christianity. Christianity flourished after Rome declared it a legal religion. Confidence in the Roman gods waned considerably, the Roman borders were being penetrated, and the populace was being fragmented by differing opinions on the interpretation of scripture. Constantine's purpose in calling the Council of Nicaea was to unify his empire by having all the bishops in his empire come together and come to a consensus on these debated topics. They came to a consensus and all of Christianity was to follow it by order of Constantine. With the experience of the extreme persecution by the previous emperor still fresh on their minds, who was going to argue? That is not how Scripture works. Scripture comes from God and is such that only those that are filled with the Holy Spirit can interpret it with truth. Scripture was not meant for a small group of people to decide what everyone should believe.
None of Arius' writings have ever being found. Arius was declared a heretic and Constantine ordered every book and writings by Arius and his followers to be burned so that according to him, there would be no remains of their doctrine left to posterity. All that we have is information that we get from his opponents about him. I'm sure that Arius did not form his beliefs out of the air but with careful reading of Scripture. He was a devout Christian with a firm belief in the Sonship of Christ. The Father preexists the Son and therefore there was a time when the Son was not. This Father and Son relationship occurred twice, once before anything was created and the second time when Christ became a man.

Heb 1 :5-7 For unto which of the angels said He at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again , I will be to him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son? And again, when He bringeth in the first-begotteen into the world, He saith, " And let all the angels of God worship Him. And of the angels He saith , Who maketh His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire.
Christ's existence emanated from the Father's essence from which all things exist. Christ is the first living spiritual being that came from the Father. That is why He is the Father's Son. Just like the Father, Christ has His own mind, will, heart, and soul. Because the Father's essence completely fills Christ's being, Christ, with His free will, chooses to love and obey Him. That is why He sits at the Father's right hand (to do the Father's will). The Father communicates His will to the Son and empowers Him through His essence (Holy Spirit). The Father and Son are One in that whatever the Father wants, the Son wants also. The Son's will might differ from the Father, but the Son gladly subjugates His will to the Father. When Christ became a man, the essence of God the Father, through which Mary's seed was fertilized, again resulted in Christ being born but this time as a human. The Father and Son relationship occurs a second time.
Eusebius' biography of Constantine was really a eulogy written after his death. In it he explains that Constantine ruled for 30 years and his age was twice that. He raises Constantine to the level of Sovereign, deserving of glory, blessed by God for his piousness, Christ's vicar on earth, and infallibility. What would you expect him to write when he knows that his biography, or eulogy, will be read by the new emperor and his court. After the Roman empire was overtaken by different conquerors, the Roman Catholic Church continued and those same qualities were assigned to the pope of Rome. Constantine did not get water baptized until he was on his deathbed because he wanted all his sins forgiven before he died. In other words, he wasn't through sinning while he was active.

Yea she was an adulteress she got what she deserved. As for Constantine, he wasn't a scholar or any of that, he had converted to Christianity because God kept helping him and he wanted to know who was the true God. That's why he convened the Council and then again because at that time there was a large amount of heresies and fake Christians, largely started by evil Arius and the Donatist controversy, all the bishops convened to set forth a sensible understanding of the True God and what Christians actually beleive, as well as to overwhelmingly vote to excommunicate Arius the Heretic (rightfully so too for Arius was no good man nor a believer in God). Arius rather much like the heretical megapastors of today, just creating a cult following for his own worldly gain, and on top of this Arius was an extreme blasphemer. The way that God answereed righteous Saint Alexander's rpayers and also killed Arius the Heretic by making him void his own substance is a divine rebuke directly against Arius' heresy, PRAISE JESUS!

Again if you're just not a fan of the RCC, and that's fine, you don't have to become a heretic like Arius, all this happened really quite well before the RCC became a distinct entity. Indeed all the major bishops from around the world were at the Council of Nicaea, this constitutes basically the founders of every canonical and orthodox Christian denomination today.

Let us be sure you cannot really deny the Trinity Doctrine if you've ever read the whole Bible because the Trintiy Doctrine is what the Bible says about the nature of God; the Father, the Word (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit. Anyone that outright rejects the Trinity Doctrine does not have the Spirit because they reject the Son and through him also the Father.

 

[BearerOfTheMorningStar]

1 John 5:1-13


1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.

3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.

5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

Post #77 should just read:
According to the RCC, St. Peter was the first Roman Catholic Pope and they list a succession of Popes after him. So according to them, they existed before Nicaea. The RCC adopted the Nicaean and Constantinople creed and concept of the Trinity. Did God prove himself when Christians were smitten in the Colosseum. Were they wicked? Are people who die a horrible death smitten by God? As a Christian who loves both the Father and the Son, can never come to such a conclusion. 300 bishops that attended out of 1800 who were invited comes out to 1/9 of the total bishops in the empire attend the Council of Nicaea including the emperor Constantine whom the RCC considers a saint, even though as a self declared Christian, had his own son Crispus executed and his wife Faustina tossed into a vat of boiling water.Presided by a sun worshiper and confirmed by the RCC and attended by 1/9 of the total bishops doesn't give me much faith in the Trinity. Sebellianism, which was considered a heresy at the time believed in one God in three roles as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Trinitarians believe in one God taking the form of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. How are they different? We have so much more at our disposal than the early Church Fathers. Were they smarter than us? Is the Holy Spirit not working now? Is God one or a group? Does the Trinity even make sense? Wake up and stop judging people!

17. the infallibility of the pope
18. the pope as God's vicar on earth
and more

There is so little grasp on history here that there is too much to say in order to correct it all.
There was no RCC until after the fall of Rome. It was only western Rome that fell. Byzantium remained.
Sure only 1 out of 9 showed up. In that time travel was not expedient as it is today. So it was extremely time consuming extremely expensive, and very dangerous. When travelling 100 miles could take 3 days if all went well.
Constentine did execute Crispus because he was accused of rapeing Faustina, later when he found the allegations were false He executed the accuser Faustina. There is no scandal there.
Primacy of the Pope came much much later.

 

[posthuman]

Sure only 1 out of 9 showed up. In that time travel was not expedient as it is today. So it was extremely time consuming extremely expensive, and very dangerous. When travelling 100 miles could take 3 days if all went well.

As I have heard it explained, Constantine offered to foot the bill for travel. but the reason the council was called was to address the issue of Arianism, which was mainly centered around Alexandria and some other places in the East. the West having little to no involvement in this controversy, also had little to no interest in it - hence few of them showed up. the East was very well represented.

another point to be made about the scope of attendance is that minor bishoprics were under the hierarchy of more major ones - so for example if representatives from Rome came (they did, but not the bishop of Rome himself) basically all of Italy and anywhere nearby would be represented by them, since they would not do anything less than concede to whatever the bishop of Rome accepted as orthodox.
it would not be necessary for every single bishop to be present, particularly when the major point of debate was an intricate and subtle scholarly theological point.

a main point to be made is that Arius did not deny the deity of Christ - He considered Him to have been created, therefore subordinate to the Father, but acknowledged that Christ is equally called God and should be worshipped as such.

 

[posthuman]

None of Arius' writings have ever being found. Arius was declared a heretic and Constantine ordered every book and writings by Arius and his followers to be burned so that according to him, there would be no remains of their doctrine left to posterity. All that we have is information that we get from his opponents about him. I'm sure that Arius did not form his beliefs out of the air but with careful reading of Scripture.

Athanasius, who presented the opposing arguments, was the pupil of Arius. i doubt that Arius was misrepresented.

Constantine had those who kept preaching Arianism expelled from the empire, where they essentially became Arian missionaries - so it seems likely the core beliefs and justifications of Arianism have not been completely lost, having been spread outside of the Roman empire firsthand by its strongest proponents.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

As I have heard it explained, Constantine offered to foot the bill for travel. but the reason the council was called was to address the issue of Arianism, which was mainly centered around Alexandria and some other places in the East. the West having little to no involvement in this controversy, also had little to no interest in it - hence few of them showed up. the East was very well represented.

another point to be made about the scope of attendance is that minor bishoprics were under the hierarchy of more major ones - so for example if representatives from Rome came (they did, but not the bishop of Rome himself) basically all of Italy and anywhere nearby would be represented by them, since they would not do anything less than concede to whatever the bishop of Rome accepted as orthodox.
it would not be necessary for every single bishop to be present, particularly when the major point of debate was an intricate and subtle scholarly theological point.

a main point to be made is that Arius did not deny the deity of Christ - He considered Him to have been created, therefore subordinate to the Father, but acknowledged that Christ is equally called God and should be worshipped as such.

Some little known information. You probably do know, but im sure others here do not.
Its believed or rumored that Arius latter recanted but died before he was reinstated to the church.

 

[SpeakTruth101]

John 10:30–33
30 I and the Father are one.”
31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?”
33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”

FYI, the context of John 17:17-24 must build from John 10. Good try but no cigar.

All I did was post a verse with no commentary? No cigar tho?...

I was simply pointing out the verse you quoted does not prove YHWH and Yahshua are part of a trinity

He also said, "I and my Father are ONE." John 10:30-33 Oops!

John/Yahanan 17:17-24, “Set them apart in Your truth – Your Word is truth. As You sent Me into the world, I also sent them into the world. And for them I set Myself apart, so that they too might be set apart in truth. That they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us,"

Because if humans can be one in them, that does not make humans YHWH. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Nehemiah6]

You still did not answer my question! I just want to find out if trinitarians are consistent in what they believe.

Let's keep it really simple. Trinitarians believe that there is only ONE true God who exists as three distinct, divine persons -- the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

GOD THE FATHER IS NEITHER THE SON NOR THE HOLY SPIRIT
GOD THE SON IS NEITHER THE FATHER NOR THE HOLY SPIRIT
GOD THE HOLY SPIRIT IS NEITHER THE FATHER NOR THE SON

This is beyond human explanations. You either accept it by faith or reject it in unbelief.

 

[CS1]

All I did was post a verse with no commentary? No cigar tho?...

I was simply pointing out the verse you quoted does not prove YHWH and Yahshua are part of a trinity





Because if humans can be one in them, that does not make humans YHWH. Nothing more, nothing less.

Actually, it does. You did not prove anything thing of the sort.

I find the hostility to the Lord very telling, and those here who choose to speak profanely of the Lord and Say Yahshua or write YHWH don't make you more Biblical. Denying Jesus is God is a very serious error.

 

[SpeakTruth101]

Actually, it does. You did not prove anything thing of the sort

ok sure.

I find the hostility to the Lord very telling, and those here who choose to speak profanely of the Lord

Can you quote this hostility? Or are you unstable and making things up?

Say Yahshua or write YHWH don't make you more Biblical.

Just because you have a problem with His real name has no bearing on me.

Psalms 111:9, “He sent redemption to His people, He has commanded His covenant forever. Set-apart and awesome is His Name.”

g Jesus is God is a very serious error.

He desires followers, the Great Shepherd wants those that love Him to follow Him.

John/Yahanan 12:48, "He who rejects Me, and does not follow My words has One Who judges him. The word that I have spoken, the same will be used to judge him in the last day."

 

[CS1]

ok sure.



Can you quote this hostility? Or are you unstable and making things up?



Just because you have a problem with His real name has no bearing on me.

Psalms 111:9, “He sent redemption to His people, He has commanded His covenant forever. Set-apart and awesome is His Name.”



He desires followers, the Great Shepherd wants those that love Him to follow Him.

John/Yahanan 12:48, "He who rejects Me, and does not follow My words has One Who judges him. The word that I have spoken, the same will be used to judge him in the last day."

I guess you have not seen the comments of some LOL. And to suggest I'm "unstable?" LOL. Okay, that is a very profound Biblical scripture to support your claims.

 

[SpeakTruth101]

I guess you have not seen the comments of some LOL.

Other peoples comments have nothign to do with me, you just accused me of being hostile to Yahshua, if I have not been I think I deserve an apology, that is a very serious charge.

Denying Jesus is God is a very serious error.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

ok sure.



Can you quote this hostility? Or are you unstable and making things up?



Just because you have a problem with His real name has no bearing on me.

Psalms 111:9, “He sent redemption to His people, He has commanded His covenant forever. Set-apart and awesome is His Name.”



He desires followers, the Great Shepherd wants those that love Him to follow Him.

John/Yahanan 12:48, "He who rejects Me, and does not follow My words has One Who judges him. The word that I have spoken, the same will be used to judge him in the last day."

Do you affirm that Jesus is God.