I am not trying to deceive you because I just only quoted what I presented to you, I do also a research about the word "who affirm the Son of God is another person " if it is really part of the additional text of the original Nicene creed. But consider about this commentary..."since the Nicene Creed was written in Greek and the word to describe the Godhead is “homousias” meaning “the same essence.” While this term is hard to define but the word "personna" makes it.
There is really a sabotage of changing the wordings of original Nicene Creed such this words "that is from the substance of the Father" they come to change the wordings "being of one substance with the Father ". Just to make it appear that the Father is not the origin of Divinity, and make it the three persons of Trinity equally owns the Divinity.
.
Though I do not believe the word "with" is indicate a face to face relationship, even if it is a face to face relationship still we cannot negate the Biblical statement that the origin of Divinity is the Father that comes/given to Jesus.
There is really a sabotage of changing the wordings of original Nicene Creed such this words "that is from the substance of the Father" they come to change the wordings "being of one substance with the Father ". Just to make it appear that the Father is not the origin of Divinity, and make it the three persons of Trinity equally owns the Divinity.
.
Though I do not believe the word "with" is indicate a face to face relationship, even if it is a face to face relationship still we cannot negate the Biblical statement that the origin of Divinity is the Father that comes/given to Jesus.
Why should we accept your source, since it is likely a Oneness authority?
Why didn't you refer to the author of the commentary? If Sabin or some other Oneness person provided a reference, why wouldn't you mention his name? It is meaningless to quote a commentary without giving us some way to see his reasoning.
Again, this is a deceitful practice.
The cult leader I followed used Alexander Hislop's book "Two Babylons" to make many of his claims. Later it was discovered that Hislop falsified references in his book. Simply quoting a commentary is disingenuous.
Now, please provide the reference in this case so I can research what person you quoted.
- 1
- Show all