Catholic vs Protestant Debate.

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
H

HollyLoree

Guest
well in case it escaped you...jesus' life was -full- of scandal...

why would jesus have had one of his disciples look after mary instead of one of her other sons? the answer to that is pretty easy...the other sons would not have been spiritually fit for the task... it is indicated in the bible that pretty much all of jesus' family aside from his parents and his cousin john the baptist doubted him...at least for the duration of his lifetime... jesus would not have wanted to put his mother in the care of an unbeliever...so the best thing was to ask his closest disciple to take care of her...
"Joseph woke up. He did what the angel of the Lord commanded him to do. He took Mary home as his wife. But he did not make love to her until after she gave birth to a son."

Now I'd say that verse proves that Mary and Joseph had sexual relations after Jesus was born; hence, to say no other brothers or sisters were born to them at all is simply not implied in scriptures. Regardless, to say that if there were half brothers and sisters, none of them would have been spiritually up to the task of caring for Mary is totally off the wall. Where in scriptures does it say none of Christ's brothers and sisters believed in Him as Christ? Yes, it's mentioned that they doubted, but that doesn't make them unbelievers. To say that Jesus wouldn't have wanted to put Mary in the care of an unbeliever is jumping to wild conclusions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
R

Rockypath1

Guest
[



Let me give you both a Scripture lesson.

Mary is the fulfillment of the OT Type that was the Ark of the Covenant.
Whereas the Ark carried symbols of God within it, Mary actually carried God witin her womb. This is why she was proclaimed Theotokos (God Bearer) at the 1st Council of Ephesus in 431.

Don't believe the Ark was an OT type of Mary? Let's examine the facts:

a. The Word was written by God on Tablets of Stone (Ex. 25:10) placed inside the Ark (Deut. 10:1)
b. The Word of God became Flesh (John 1) conceived inside Mary (Luke 2:38) Mary carried the Word of God.

a. [The New Covenant] will not be like the covenant that... they broke though I was their husband (Jer. 31:31)
b. The Holy Spirit (God) is Mary's spouse (Luke 1:35)

a. "Who am I that the Ark of my Lord should come to me?" (2 Sam. 6:9)
b. "Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:43)

a. When the Ark carrying the Word of God returned “David was leaping and dancing before the Lord” (2 Sam. 6:14)
b. When Mary came into Elizabeth's presence carrying the word of God, the baby “leaped for joy” in Elizabeth's womb (Luke 2:38)

a. The Ark carrying the Word of God is brought to the house of Obed-Edom for 3 months, where it was a blessing. (2 Sam. 6:11)
b. Mary (the new Ark) carrying the Word of God goes to Elizabeth's house for 3 months, where she is a blessing (Luke 1:56)

a. The Ark is captured (1 Sam 4:11) and brought to a foreign land and later returns (1 Sam 6:13)
b. Mary (the new Ark) is exiled to a foreign land (Egypt) and later returns (Matt. 2:14)


Now - here is a general Scriptural rule about types and fulfillmets:
NT Fulfillments are ALWAYS more perfect and glorious than their OT Types. ALWAYS - without exception - and this case is NO diffrent.

If the Ark, which was a type was pure and un defiled, Mary, the fulfillment would have to be that much MORE pure and undefiled.

There ends the lesson.


Just a few additions to CatholicAuthority's excellent summary on the New Ark of the Covenant - Mary.

1) Luke 1:48
"for he has looked with favor on the lowliness of his servant. Surely, from now on all generations will call me blessed" This prophecy stands as witness to the Catholic and Eastern churches acknowledgment of Mary and the lack of it from bible-only-believing Christians.

2) The Greek word Luke uses to describe Elizabeth’s loud cry of joy (anaphoneo) isn’t used anywhere else in the New Testament. And it’s found in only five places in the Greek Old Testament - every time used to describe “exultation” before the Ark (see 1 Chronicles 15:28; 16:4-5; 2 Chronicles 5:13).

3) Revelation 11:19 states
"Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail."

As Hahn says (Lesson - Lesson Three: The Ark of the New Covenant | St. Paul Center For Biblical Theology.),
"This is a strange string of images, almost overwhelming - like much of the book of Revelation. But certainly the statement that the Ark of the Covenant was visible must have caught the attention of the first people who heard the vision. If the Ark had been seen, then the time Jeremiah spoke of must have come: the time when “God gathers his people together again and shows them mercy,” the time when “the glory of the Lord will be seen in the cloud, just as it appeared in the time of Moses” (see 2 Maccabees 7-8)"

So people hearing of John's vision of the Ark would have been excited to know more but then oddly that is all there seems to be, as the following verse (Revelation Chapter 12:1) goes straight into a description of "a women clothed in the sun".

Now it is a well known fact that chapter divisions were added to the modern bibles as was done between Revelation Chapter 11 and 12. And this means that John had no such division between the Ark of the Covenant section of Chapter 11 and the woman clothed in sun section of Chapter 12:1-6.

"A great portent appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. [SUP]2 [/SUP]She was pregnant and was crying out in birth pangs, in the agony of giving birth. [SUP]3 [/SUP]Then another portent appeared in heaven: a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads. [SUP]4 [/SUP]His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. Then the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, so that he might devour her child as soon as it was born. [SUP]5 [/SUP]And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule[SUP][a][/SUP] all the nations with a rod of iron. But her child was snatched away and taken to God and to his throne; [SUP]6 [/SUP]and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, so that there she can be nourished for one thousand two hundred sixty days."

Hahn summarizes:
"And who is this woman?
“She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth ” (see Revelation 12:2).
“She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod. Her child was caught up to God and his throne” (see Revelation 12:5).
The one destined to rule the nations with an iron rod (a shepherd’s rod) is the Lord’s Anointed, the Messiah or Christ (see Psalm 2). The “woman clothed with the sun,” whom John sees when he looks at the Ark of the Covenant, is the Mother of the Christ."
 
R

Rockypath1

Guest
Oh no...... they banned the Protestant bashers....... whatever will we do now? How can I post a couple of paragraphs without anybody to counteract it? What to do, what to do........:rolleyes:
How sad that that Protestants must ban Catholics who stand up against bible-only Christians in an attempt to nullify the virulent, ignorant and hate-filled torrent that has too much been the hallmark of their so-called "scholarship". If you can't beat them ban them. RachelBibleStudent at least shows some effort to look at the fundamentals even if the bias-filter is still much in place.

Deal ADEQUATELY with the heresies started by Luther and ALWAYS keep in mind that the True Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist was practiced by all Christians from apostolic time to the age of Calvin, some 1500 years later. Luther actually believed in the True Presence still.

Hate attacks on RCC occur in part to make more credible the heresies of bible-Only-Christians

HERESIES:

Bible Only (2 Thess 2:15 and 1 Cor 11:2)

Once-saved-always-saved (Philippians 2:12)

Rejection of the Jesus in Eucharist (John 6:41-69 and Mark 14:22-25 and Rev 5:4-8)

The rejection of Catholic authority established by Jesus' through Peter the Rock (Matthew 16:16-19 and John 21:15-18 and Luke 22:31-32).

And try to remember what Jesus promised the Church he established:
John 14:26
"But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."

But you believe that God hath not the power to keep his Body (the very Body of Christ) inviolate - His teachings correct and pure from the start. What a powerless God then. Is this a God who does not keep his promises - from apostolic time until the present? The answer is a resounding YES - in the holy Roman Catholic Church!

It all starts to unravel for non-Catholics when they really and critically look at scripture, the early apostolic church beliefs and who in fact is still keeping that body of faith intact. A simple review of the writings of the first few hundred years should easily settle the issue. But a darkness has overshadowed many. And this is why there is a constant evil spewing from many bible-only Christians against God's Body - the Body of Christ.
 
D

danschance

Guest
How sad that that Protestants must ban Catholics who stand up against bible-only Christians in an attempt to nullify the virulent, ignorant and hate-filled torrent that has too much been the hallmark of their so-called "scholarship". If you can't beat them ban them. RachelBibleStudent at least shows some effort to look at the fundamentals even if the bias-filter is still much in place.

Deal ADEQUATELY with the heresies started by Luther and ALWAYS keep in mind that the True Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist was practiced by all Christians from apostolic time to the age of Calvin, some 1500 years later. Luther actually believed in the True Presence still.

Hate attacks on RCC occur in part to make more credible the heresies of bible-Only-Christians

HERESIES:

Bible Only (2 Thess 2:15 and 1 Cor 11:2)

Once-saved-always-saved (Philippians 2:12)

Rejection of the Jesus in Eucharist (John 6:41-69 and Mark 14:22-25 and Rev 5:4-8)

The rejection of Catholic authority established by Jesus' through Peter the Rock (Matthew 16:16-19 and John 21:15-18 and Luke 22:31-32).

And try to remember what Jesus promised the Church he established:
John 14:26
"But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."

But you believe that God hath not the power to keep his Body (the very Body of Christ) inviolate - His teachings correct and pure from the start. What a powerless God then. Is this a God who does not keep his promises - from apostolic time until the present? The answer is a resounding YES - in the holy Roman Catholic Church!

It all starts to unravel for non-Catholics when they really and critically look at scripture, the early apostolic church beliefs and who in fact is still keeping that body of faith intact. A simple review of the writings of the first few hundred years should easily settle the issue. But a darkness has overshadowed many. And this is why there is a constant evil spewing from many bible-only Christians against God's Body - the Body of Christ.

Rockypath1

We are you being rude? You are deliberately breaking the rules of this site and for what reason? I am sure you believe everything the RCC does, but you can also be a gentleman and discuss it civilly right? Do you really expect protestants to agree with a person who is foaming at the mouth and being abusive ? Ever hear the phrase "it is easier to catch flies with sugar than vinegar"?

Unfortunately your tirade will probably get you banned and you certainly deserve it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
R

Rockypath1

Guest
If I have been rude my apologies. I have been much more rudely assaulted by bible-Christians (their name) on a few other sites than what I have done here, I assure you. My tone may be too aggressive because of those other sites. There were no rules just a free for all. And I found out - little to no good will at all. (Many, many, many slurs carry such words as "pagan" or "church of satan" or "whore of Babylon". And I have seen far too many sneers about from "respectable" fundamentalist with respect to the "Romish" church or the "papists".) However, that is not a good enough reason to return the same, especially to this site.

But I was not overly impressed by the mocking opening salvo in the post I responded to who remarked about the "Protestant bashers" who were banned. Having read through several of the Catholics who were banned, and not seeing too much rudeness, especially from CatholicAuthority, I just assumed being banned was a matter of course for Catholics who had too much to say.

Just a last point from me before I go. Take a look at the deluge of disgusting anti-Catholic material that is out there and you will see why we Catholics are becoming more aggressive. Go on line to You-Tube and have a real good look. There are so many lies and so much malarkey repeated over and over again that it makes your head spin. There is little indication of any real theological understanding but rather an intent to beat down by with the same oft repeated false historical muck. Some of us have obviously taken it upon ourselves to confront this bigotry.

If this site is in fact a much more noble site than those I mentioned then you have my apologies. Just remember to confront your kindred brothers out there who do not share the noble qualities of this site. Perhaps until we see a lot more from our Evangelical Protestant brothers and sisters in terms of getting out there and confronting the likes of Chick and Hislop and Boettner and so many other similar "scholars" and leaders, things will not be getting better anytime soon.
 
W

Widdekind

Guest
Martin Luther said, "I do not accept the authority of popes and councils". Ergo, Luther rejected the Council of Jerusalem c.50 AD, described in Acts 15, which authorized the Apostle Paul, to preach to gentiles. Ergo, Luther rejected the extension of Christianity to gentiles, especially in Europe, where-to-which Paul travelled, soon after that Council. Luther rejected the authority of the "pillar" Apostle James (Gal 2), who "judged" the Council of Jerusalem, and who wrote that "faith without works is dead" (which presumably means works of faith, e.g. charity). Ergo, Luther espoused "dead faith". Protestants were supported by the Sultans of Istanbul, according to the History Channel documentary Ottoman Empire.
 
W

Widdekind

Guest
James was a "pillar" of the Church (Gal 2), and "brother of the Lord" Jesus (Gal 1).

By opposing a supporting pillar of the Church, a "Spiritual wrecking-ball" was smashed into the "Spiritual New Jerusalem Temple-City" which symbolizes the community of Christians, as if to topple its towers and wreck its walls.

Who pays money, to insult a man's brother, to honor the man ?

Anyone who gives James the "benefit of doubt" will observe, that James advocating "Faith without works is dead" does not disagree with Paul advocating against "Salvation by Grace through Faith...not of works". Because, James was describing "works of Faith" (as it were), e.g. charity, and caring for widows & orphans. Whereas, Paul was describing Faith-less legalistic "works of the Law" (as it were), e.g. circumcision & sabbath-keeping (which, in all honesty, amount to merely masks, "game faces", designed to dupe & deceive people upon this planet, by public professions of piety, when people are looking, to camouflage a dramatically different set of beliefs / attitudes / values / behaviors-when-others-arent-looking).

James & Paul are perfectly compatible, which is why their epistles were all canonized in the 4th century AD, when the Church was still united in one body... logically implying it then still had one Head, presumably Christ... as dramatically distinct from current conditions.

Opposing a man's (much less purported-Prophet's) brother is not...

not...

not...

honoring the man himself.

(i want to be acknowledged, as not having been fooled, by the "insult the man's brother, to honor the man, ok?" play-call. i, as it were, did not "leave the back-field wide open" for a lazy toss into the N-Zone for free, because i was somehow mystified or fooled, by the "amazingly magical mysterious" "insult the man's brother, to honor the man" play-call. i never fell for it. Separately, i was somehow born, 500 years after-the-fact & too-late, apparently. On top of that, i was not also fooled. i'm not super-humanly-smart; you don't honor a man, by insulting (or paying people to insult) a man's brother. Jesus is the Church, so unsurprisingly His brother was a "pillar" thereof; only those who oppose the former, would seek to smash the latter -- Who Wills that ? -- remedial reasoning & logic.)
 
H

highrigger

Guest
"Brother" is a broad term that does not necessarily mean the man is from the same mother. Especially in deeply religious communities. This should go without saying.
xanthus,

This is false. In the NT it means brother period. Here is a Catholic bible expert with the Imprimatur
to explain. Jesus had brothers and sisters and it can be proven by many methods. There is no
good argument against it. The PV dogma was made up.


John P. Meire
A Marginal Jew -Vol 1
Rethinking the Historical Jesus
Imprimitur
p 328
"What is the constant usage of the NT in this matter? The answer is clear; in the NT, adelphos,
when used not merely figuratively or metaphorically but rather to designate some sort of physical
or legal relationship, means only full or half brother, and nothing else. Outside our disputed case
it never means stepbrother (the solution of Epiphanius), cousin (the solution of Jerome), or nephew.
When one considers that adeophos (in either the literal or the metaphorical sense) is used a total
of 343 times in the NT,the consistency of this "literal" usage is amazing. To ignore the strikingly
constant usage of the NT in this regard, as well as the natural redactional sense of the Gospel
passage we have already examined, and to appeal instead to the usage of koine Greek in various
Jewish and Pagan texts cannot help but look like special pleading."
p329
"Those who wish to use sustain the cousin approach must face the further difficulty that it is
a relatively late, post Nicene solution. By contrast both the Epiphanian solution and the view
that the "brothers of Jesus" were real brothers can find supporters in the 2d and 3d centuries.
The antiquity and spread of the opinion that the brothers of Jesus were real brothers are often
overlooked by the cousin approach."
p331
"In the NT there is not a single clear case where "brother" means cousin or even stepbrother,
while there are abundant cases of its meaning physical brother(full or half). Hence from a
purely philological and historical point of view, the most probable opinion is that the
brothers and sisters of Jesus were his siblings. This interpretation of the NT texts was kept alive
by at least some Church writers up until the late 4th century."


Now what?

JohnR
 
R

Richie

Guest
I am a Catholic and I would like to have a one on one debate with any Protestant from any denomination, bring up anything on what you do not agree with on the Catholic church as in doctrine, tradition, the papacy, praying to saints etc. I will answer the best I can with love and charity.

God Bless
let me start with something new to you.
Without the sacred tradition and Dogmas, the Roman Catholic church would not stand as it is. It would become like any other Christian church that upholds the teaching of the Bible.

When we look at history, we find that ever aspect was introduced at some point. Like the sign of the cross was introduces in AD310. Mary was declared the 'Mother of God' in AD410. Assumption of Mary was dogmatized in 1950 by Pope Pius XII.
From 1950 to-date, we have not had many dogmas and they might not emerge due to enlightenment of the faithfuls and the criticism on the Catholic Church by other Christians.

For sure the new teaching are not Biblical and they even contradict the word of God.
An example is the Our Lady's 15 promises for praying the Rosary. Our Lady's 15 Promises for Praying the Rosary [FONT=&quot]Whosoever shall faithfully serve me by the recitation of the Rosary shall receive signal graces.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I promise my special protection and the greatest graces to all those who shall recite the Rosary.
The soul which recommends itself to me by the recitation of the Rosary shall not perish.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

I have underlined for emphasis; it is an example of how the 'Mary' exalts herself in the apparitions. She takes the place of God or Jesus. The words of Jesus in the Bible contradicts all these statements 100%

Jesus says:
John 14:6 I am the Way, the Truth and the Life; No-one comes to the father except THROUGH ME!
John 14:13 Whatever you ask in my name, I'll do it.
Matt 28:20: Teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. A

When you compare the teaching of Jesus and the teaching of RCC, you find that they are not in tandem.
 
R

Richie

Guest
I have been saddened by how our catholic brothers use insults eg 'you are confused', 'absolute ignorance', etc. I wish that we respect one another, after all we are trying to understand the will of God. If by the end of the day we are not helped by the debate, it would have been better if we never debated.
 
R

Richie

Guest
Uhh, no they wouldn't. Joseph had to go there because that was where he was from. His children were probably from Nazareth, where Joseph chose to make his home.
Just a correction:
Joseph and Mary went to register before Mary had any children. Jesus was to be the first born

Jesus accompanied his parents to Jerusalem because he had attained 12 years of age. Any child below that age would not have been allowed.
 
K

Kevin4Jesus

Guest
If you are still here I might be able to shed some light on what separates us? I was a Catholic for almost 20 years.
 
Jan 6, 2014
991
27
0
I hear Martin Luther's name brought up by fundamentalists to defend their position of separation from the roman pontiff and it proves their ignorance of history or knowledge of where the foundations for their traditions and doctrines come from. They certainly do not come from the reformer Martin Luther who believed in the immaculate conception, perpetual virginity, and position of Theotokos (Mother of God), Martin Luther had a deep devotion to Mary. Something neo-Protestants choose to ignore or more often are simply ignorant of the history of Christendom, fed lies by their elders for the last 150 years.
 
S

SilkandDungarees6

Guest
I have a question for all the non-catholic christians in this Forum. How does one get saved?
 

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
15,050
2,538
113
I have a question for all the non-catholic christians in this Forum. How does one get saved?
By asking Jesus Christ to save you from your sins. By trusting in His blood shed on Calvary as sufficient to atone for all your sins. By receiving eternal life as a gift and not a reward. Scripturally Ephesians 2:8-9. Romans 10:9-10,17.

Our Catholic friends are good at admitting that they are sinners and that atonement for sin is required. Many believe that Jesus died for their sins and rose again from the tomb on the third day and that He is ascended on high with the Father. Is that sufficient? Is it knowledge in the heart or in the head?

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 
K

Kevin4Jesus

Guest
I hear Martin Luther's name brought up by fundamentalists to defend their position of separation from the roman pontiff and it proves their ignorance of history or knowledge of where the foundations for their traditions and doctrines come from. They certainly do not come from the reformer Martin Luther who believed in the immaculate conception, perpetual virginity, and position of Theotokos (Mother of God), Martin Luther had a deep devotion to Mary. Something neo-Protestants choose to ignore or more often are simply ignorant of the history of Christendom, fed lies by their elders for the last 150 years.
Hello: I was wondering if you could provide anything from scripture that would endorse prayers to Mary? Perpetual virginity is something foreign to the pages of scripture so am I to believe men or God's Word?
 
M

MichaelAnthony

Guest
Originally Posted by ChristReconcilesAll

I'm not going to defend either. I tried both. I don't follow church tradition anymore. I'm simply a member of the body of Christ. Scripture suffices. "For there is one God, and one Mediator of God and mankind, a Man, Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2:5)

Sorry, but if you're not part of His Church, you're not part of His Body (Acts 9:4-5).
Hi, I'm new to the board but not to discussing scripture. I'm no scholar but I'm wondering how the bible quote above(Acts9:4-5) has anything to do with what the previous poster has declared of his faith and trust in whom his savior is? Acts 9:4-5 has nothing to do with the body nor His church. Besides, the poster only said that he or she doesn't follow church tradition anymore. That does not discount nor disclude one from the spiritual body and church. The posters' faith has saved him/her and the atonement on the cross has paid for his/her sins. He/she has been made righteous by the blood of Christ. He/she is a member of the body and of the church of Jesus. Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.


One does not have to be of the catholic or protestant belief to be of His spirital body and church. Both catholic/protestant churches can harbor just as many haughty religious members as saved members anyway and yet God's grace is upon all, undeservedly. Jesus has been quoted in Mark 5:34 as ' Your faith has healed you.' It is of the understanding that one would only need faith to trust that one will be healed and so it goes that one only needs faith to be saved. No body or church can do for one what comes spiritually from within......'faith.'
 
Feb 15, 2014
86
7
8
I have a question for all the non-catholic christians in this Forum. How does one get saved?
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
 
Jan 5, 2014
41
0
6
.why do catholics want a debate? after all they are only interested in their own beliefs. i say this because after being a
member on catholic Q&A, when protestants got into a debate they ended up getting banned, while catholics were allowed to
be offensive to protestants, saying things like our bible should be burnt. the thread i was banned in was about catholic
traditions regarding the rosery beads. how could you claim that this is not a form of mary worship? all the alligations about
these are false as mary never said in the bible about saving anybody if they said a rosery a day.
 
L

lastseed2014

Guest
I am a Catholic and I would like to have a one on one debate with any Protestant from any denomination, bring up anything on what you do not agree with on the Catholic church as in doctrine, tradition, the papacy, praying to saints etc. I will answer the best I can with love and charity.

God Bless
Hello brother, How about the Catholic doctrine of Trinity? As the bible says God will not change. He is God and not man(Hosea 11:9). We know that there are 3 prophetic times, should we say, from creation to date, such as the time of our FOREFATHERS, the time of the PROPHETS, and the CHRISTIAN ERA. 1.TIME OF THE FOREFATHERS AND PROPHETS - Prophet MALACHI mentioned that there is only ONE GOD who created us and HE IS THE FATHER(Malachi 2:10). 2. In the Christian ERA - Jesus himself says that the FATHER alone is the TRUE GOD(John 17:1,3). and, the apostles also teaches that the FATHER is the ONE GOD who created us(1 Cor. 8:6). So, with this consistency about the Father alone being the one God, why after so many years this TRINITY doctrine has emerged. In fact this trinity doctrine was gradually formulated through a series of Catholic councils, such as in 325AD Jesus Christ was declared God at the council of Nicea, and in 389 AD the Holy Spirit also became God at the council of Constantinople thus, TRINITY doctrine was officially became a Catholic Dogma. Can you prove in the bible that these THREE GODS are ONE GOD?