Can the Trinity be Biblically proven?
- Thread starter bluto
- Start date
-
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.
Then read the Gospels again without blinkers on. He constantly stressed His otherness. But He left it to His Father to bring the final truth home.
what about John and James, and the Samaritans?
we are to recognise where the Spirit is REALLY speaking and leading. He does not lead into error. But your self righteousness would make you a good Pharisee
what about John and James, and the Samaritans?
we are to recognise where the Spirit is REALLY speaking and leading. He does not lead into error. But your self righteousness would make you a good Pharisee
Oh boy garee, your taking Job 9:32 out of context. Job is saying God is "NOT" a man like he is a man that anwers to anybody. The verse is just like Numbers 23:19, "God is not a man, that He should LIE, Nor a son of man that He should repent; has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good."
God does not lie like men do, God keeps His word like men do not and God is NOT answerable to anyone like Job is. Now, Jesus is in bodily form in heaven according to 1 Corinthians 15:4=6, Lukle 24:16 and Philippians 3:21, just to name a few. Plus the fact that when Jesus Christ retures every eye will see him and at Revelation 1:17 the apostle John says, "And when I SAW HIM, I fell at His feet (Jesus has feet) as a dead man. And He/Jesus laid His right HAND upon me saying, etc."
Moreover, the "son of" idiom the "Son of Man" refers to His humanity and the "Son of God" refers to His Deity. And the Holy Spirit does not ware clothes and cannot be seen. In short, you should do your homework before making statements about the Bible that you know nothing about.
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
God does not lie like men do, God keeps His word like men do not and God is NOT answerable to anyone like Job is. Now, Jesus is in bodily form in heaven according to 1 Corinthians 15:4=6, Lukle 24:16 and Philippians 3:21, just to name a few. Plus the fact that when Jesus Christ retures every eye will see him and at Revelation 1:17 the apostle John says, "And when I SAW HIM, I fell at His feet (Jesus has feet) as a dead man. And He/Jesus laid His right HAND upon me saying, etc."
Moreover, the "son of" idiom the "Son of Man" refers to His humanity and the "Son of God" refers to His Deity. And the Holy Spirit does not ware clothes and cannot be seen. In short, you should do your homework before making statements about the Bible that you know nothing about.
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
J
i am reading them without the man made theology filters thats why i dont see it.
same mesg
so the Spirit is not meant to lead us, its there to be used as a tool against others to tell them the Spirit is not leading them, to lead them to follow the councils decisions on what Jesus taught rather than what Jesus Himself taught. not sure i agree.
my message is one should put their faith in Jesus and not man, this is self righteous? i always thought it was making your own theology and elevating that theology as equal to commands of the Father and then using that theology as a tool against brothers of your own faith. thats what the pharisees actually did and thats why Jesus butted heads with them often.
same mesg
so the Spirit is not meant to lead us, its there to be used as a tool against others to tell them the Spirit is not leading them, to lead them to follow the councils decisions on what Jesus taught rather than what Jesus Himself taught. not sure i agree.
my message is one should put their faith in Jesus and not man, this is self righteous? i always thought it was making your own theology and elevating that theology as equal to commands of the Father and then using that theology as a tool against brothers of your own faith. thats what the pharisees actually did and thats why Jesus butted heads with them often.
Look jaybird, you keep making these "sweeping" remarks in most of your post like this one. "I am reading them without the man made theology filters, that's why I don't see it." In other words, the "assumption" is that we are reading them with man made filters. I'm simply asking what kind of man made filters are you talking about?
You also said this: "my message is one should put their faith in Jesus and not man, this is self righteous?" Ok, again this is said with the "assumption" that we are putting are faith in man as opposed to Jesus Christ. How so jaybird? What men are we putting our faith in as opposed to Jesus Christ? I mean this is a discussion board and if you going to make claims you need to back them up with evidence, not just a fly by night opinion.
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
You also said this: "my message is one should put their faith in Jesus and not man, this is self righteous?" Ok, again this is said with the "assumption" that we are putting are faith in man as opposed to Jesus Christ. How so jaybird? What men are we putting our faith in as opposed to Jesus Christ? I mean this is a discussion board and if you going to make claims you need to back them up with evidence, not just a fly by night opinion.
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
Jaybird, in Hebrew there is the word Elohim used in the Old Testament. When -im is added to a word it makes them plural but Elohim is a singular and plural. El=God, singular im= plural. If this was not present in the Hebrew Scriptures, then there would just be another reason not to believe in the triune being who is God and only believe in a oneness God like taught by false religions such as Jehovah's Witnesses (who are no witnesses of God) and Islam. This matter, was not just settled by a council, this concept is present in the Bible even in 1 Corinthians 12 as well as the Old Testament but all you want to see is a unitarian God and try to explain away every reference that I am giving to you as well as others. The truth will set you free. God bless.
Last edited:
J
Look jaybird, you keep making these "sweeping" remarks in most of your post like this one. "I am reading them without the man made theology filters, that's why I don't see it." In other words, the "assumption" is that we are reading them with man made filters. I'm simply asking what kind of man made filters are you talking about?
You also said this: "my message is one should put their faith in Jesus and not man, this is self righteous?" Ok, again this is said with the "assumption" that we are putting are faith in man as opposed to Jesus Christ. How so jaybird? What men are we putting our faith in as opposed to Jesus Christ? I mean this is a discussion board and if you going to make claims you need to back them up with evidence, not just a fly by night opinion.
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
You also said this: "my message is one should put their faith in Jesus and not man, this is self righteous?" Ok, again this is said with the "assumption" that we are putting are faith in man as opposed to Jesus Christ. How so jaybird? What men are we putting our faith in as opposed to Jesus Christ? I mean this is a discussion board and if you going to make claims you need to back them up with evidence, not just a fly by night opinion.
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
J
Jaybird, in Hebrew there is the word Elohim used in the Old Testament. When -im is added to a word it makes them plural but Elohim is a singular and plural. El=God, singular im= plural. If this was not present in the Hebrew Scriptures, then there would just be another reason not to believe in the triune being who is God and only believe in a oneness God like taught by false religions such as Jehovah's Witnesses (who are no witnesses of God) and Islam. This matter, was not just settled by a council, this concept is present in the Bible even in 1 Corinthians 12 as well as the Old Testament but all you want to see is a unitarian God and try to explain away every reference that I am giving to you as well as others. The truth will set you free. God bless.
you right the matter was settled, how was it settled, anyone that said different was killed. Jesus never taught this way and neither did any Jews before Him.
Sorry jaybird, but you are uninformed. The doctrine of the Trinity as we know it today dates back well BEFORE the 1st century. It is deeply rooted in the normative theology of the Second Temple era Judaism dating back to 500 BC and is ultimately revealed in the New Testament and gradually ARTICULATED in respons to the attacks of heretics.
In the Aramaic Targums which was the common language translation of the Old Testament, used by Jesus Christ and his disciples, the personal appearances of YHWH were IDENTIFIED with, "the Angel of the Lord" and identified as, "the Word" of the Lord, (Aramaic; the Memra).
When the Apostle John wrote in the first verse of his gospel, "and the Word was God", he was NOT invenbting a new theoilogical concept. He was simply stating what was already ovvious to informed Jews of the time, though he used the Koine Greek cognate for "memra" and that is "logos", the "Word." His ultimate point, however, is that the One identified as "the Wor4d" is the One who ultimately became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14) Jesus of Nazareth. Obviously you are unaware of this fact and it is hardly new.
While this is not a fully articulated trinitarian doctrine, it IS the ancient, pre-Christ5ian root of the trinitarian revelation which antedates Christianity itself and ultimately became the definitive theology, which distinguishes authentic, apostolic, biblical and ultimately ORTHODOX, 1st century Christianity. The ancient Jewish theology of "the intermediary" greatly antedates and obviates the 19th century unitarian theology of today's CULTS. But the doctrine of the trinity was indeed represented by 1st centure Christian writers who, along with the Bible itself, simply RECOGNIZED that there is ONE God, while explicitly identifying that ONE God as three persons. It was Tertullian that formulated the word "trinity" at around 200 A.D. well before these so-called councils of Rome met.
This is one of the reasons I started the two threads on "Who is Jesus Christ," "Can the Trinity be Biblically Proven" and my thread on "Who is the Angel of the Lord." As I keep saying, please check out what I'm saying with what the Bible teaches. I am not (like you and some others around here) just giving my opinions on issues. Do your homework!
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
In the Aramaic Targums which was the common language translation of the Old Testament, used by Jesus Christ and his disciples, the personal appearances of YHWH were IDENTIFIED with, "the Angel of the Lord" and identified as, "the Word" of the Lord, (Aramaic; the Memra).
When the Apostle John wrote in the first verse of his gospel, "and the Word was God", he was NOT invenbting a new theoilogical concept. He was simply stating what was already ovvious to informed Jews of the time, though he used the Koine Greek cognate for "memra" and that is "logos", the "Word." His ultimate point, however, is that the One identified as "the Wor4d" is the One who ultimately became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14) Jesus of Nazareth. Obviously you are unaware of this fact and it is hardly new.
While this is not a fully articulated trinitarian doctrine, it IS the ancient, pre-Christ5ian root of the trinitarian revelation which antedates Christianity itself and ultimately became the definitive theology, which distinguishes authentic, apostolic, biblical and ultimately ORTHODOX, 1st century Christianity. The ancient Jewish theology of "the intermediary" greatly antedates and obviates the 19th century unitarian theology of today's CULTS. But the doctrine of the trinity was indeed represented by 1st centure Christian writers who, along with the Bible itself, simply RECOGNIZED that there is ONE God, while explicitly identifying that ONE God as three persons. It was Tertullian that formulated the word "trinity" at around 200 A.D. well before these so-called councils of Rome met.
This is one of the reasons I started the two threads on "Who is Jesus Christ," "Can the Trinity be Biblically Proven" and my thread on "Who is the Angel of the Lord." As I keep saying, please check out what I'm saying with what the Bible teaches. I am not (like you and some others around here) just giving my opinions on issues. Do your homework!
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
J
Sorry jaybird, but you are uninformed. The doctrine of the Trinity as we know it today dates back well BEFORE the 1st century. It is deeply rooted in the normative theology of the Second Temple era Judaism dating back to 500 BC and is ultimately revealed in the New Testament and gradually ARTICULATED in respons to the attacks of heretics.
In the Aramaic Targums which was the common language translation of the Old Testament, used by Jesus Christ and his disciples, the personal appearances of YHWH were IDENTIFIED with, "the Angel of the Lord" and identified as, "the Word" of the Lord, (Aramaic; the Memra).
When the Apostle John wrote in the first verse of his gospel, "and the Word was God", he was NOT invenbting a new theoilogical concept. He was simply stating what was already ovvious to informed Jews of the time, though he used the Koine Greek cognate for "memra" and that is "logos", the "Word." His ultimate point, however, is that the One identified as "the Wor4d" is the One who ultimately became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14) Jesus of Nazareth. Obviously you are unaware of this fact and it is hardly new.
While this is not a fully articulated trinitarian doctrine, it IS the ancient, pre-Christ5ian root of the trinitarian revelation which antedates Christianity itself and ultimately became the definitive theology, which distinguishes authentic, apostolic, biblical and ultimately ORTHODOX, 1st century Christianity. The ancient Jewish theology of "the intermediary" greatly antedates and obviates the 19th century unitarian theology of today's CULTS. But the doctrine of the trinity was indeed represented by 1st centure Christian writers who, along with the Bible itself, simply RECOGNIZED that there is ONE God, while explicitly identifying that ONE God as three persons. It was Tertullian that formulated the word "trinity" at around 200 A.D. well before these so-called councils of Rome met.
This is one of the reasons I started the two threads on "Who is Jesus Christ," "Can the Trinity be Biblically Proven" and my thread on "Who is the Angel of the Lord." As I keep saying, please check out what I'm saying with what the Bible teaches. I am not (like you and some others around here) just giving my opinions on issues. Do your homework!
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
In the Aramaic Targums which was the common language translation of the Old Testament, used by Jesus Christ and his disciples, the personal appearances of YHWH were IDENTIFIED with, "the Angel of the Lord" and identified as, "the Word" of the Lord, (Aramaic; the Memra).
When the Apostle John wrote in the first verse of his gospel, "and the Word was God", he was NOT invenbting a new theoilogical concept. He was simply stating what was already ovvious to informed Jews of the time, though he used the Koine Greek cognate for "memra" and that is "logos", the "Word." His ultimate point, however, is that the One identified as "the Wor4d" is the One who ultimately became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14) Jesus of Nazareth. Obviously you are unaware of this fact and it is hardly new.
While this is not a fully articulated trinitarian doctrine, it IS the ancient, pre-Christ5ian root of the trinitarian revelation which antedates Christianity itself and ultimately became the definitive theology, which distinguishes authentic, apostolic, biblical and ultimately ORTHODOX, 1st century Christianity. The ancient Jewish theology of "the intermediary" greatly antedates and obviates the 19th century unitarian theology of today's CULTS. But the doctrine of the trinity was indeed represented by 1st centure Christian writers who, along with the Bible itself, simply RECOGNIZED that there is ONE God, while explicitly identifying that ONE God as three persons. It was Tertullian that formulated the word "trinity" at around 200 A.D. well before these so-called councils of Rome met.
This is one of the reasons I started the two threads on "Who is Jesus Christ," "Can the Trinity be Biblically Proven" and my thread on "Who is the Angel of the Lord." As I keep saying, please check out what I'm saying with what the Bible teaches. I am not (like you and some others around here) just giving my opinions on issues. Do your homework!
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
and the doctrine doctrine dates back to rome and not before. thats the whole point of the roman councils in the first place, to give us their version of what the bible teaches. rome teaches they are the mediator, Jesus teaches the Son is.
Oh I'll tell you where you are jaybird, your no where! Because you don't know what your talking about. The following is the Roman Catholic Churches site and what they have done is quote the early church fathers well before their church was formed
who identified Jesus Christ as God. The Trinity | Catholic Answers
In fact, that is about the only thing their church got right. As far as I'm concerned the Pope could be ther anti-christ but I'm not 100% convinced, it's my opinion based on all the other garbage they teach. Now, I gave you a completely legitimate argument which you cannot refute becasue I know you did not check out the facts that I gave. Show me one lie in what I posted? And yes, I know exactly what the RCC teaches. Just because you throw in the following statement, "rome teaches they are the mediator, Jesus teaches the Son is." is that suppose to make you an expert? Here is a site that explains the orgin of the RCC. mhttps://gotquestions.org/origin-Catholic-church.html
Of course Jesus Christ is our mediator but what does that have to do with the history of the trinity, which we are discussing? And btw, you have no clue as to the purpose of the Councils. Tell me what was the purpose of the Council of Nicea at 325 A.D? Why did they meet jaybird?
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
who identified Jesus Christ as God. The Trinity | Catholic Answers
In fact, that is about the only thing their church got right. As far as I'm concerned the Pope could be ther anti-christ but I'm not 100% convinced, it's my opinion based on all the other garbage they teach. Now, I gave you a completely legitimate argument which you cannot refute becasue I know you did not check out the facts that I gave. Show me one lie in what I posted? And yes, I know exactly what the RCC teaches. Just because you throw in the following statement, "rome teaches they are the mediator, Jesus teaches the Son is." is that suppose to make you an expert? Here is a site that explains the orgin of the RCC. mhttps://gotquestions.org/origin-Catholic-church.html
Of course Jesus Christ is our mediator but what does that have to do with the history of the trinity, which we are discussing? And btw, you have no clue as to the purpose of the Councils. Tell me what was the purpose of the Council of Nicea at 325 A.D? Why did they meet jaybird?
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
you didn't do your homework thoroughly enough. Read the following, all prior to the council of nicea.
Ignatius of Antiochprovides early support for the Trinity around 110, exhorting obedience to "Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit"'
Justin Martyr(AD 100–c. 165) also writes, "in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit".
The first of the early church fathers to be recorded using the word "Trinity" was Theophilus of Antiochwriting in the late 2nd century. He defines the Trinity as God, His Word (Logos) and His Wisdom (Sophia) in the context of a discussion of the first three days of creation.
The first defence of the doctrine of the Trinity was in the early 3rd century by the early church father Tertullian. He explicitly defined the Trinity as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and defended the Trinitarian theology against the "Praxean" heresy.[29]
"... I do not regard the Spirit as coming from anywhere else than from the Father through the Son.” (Against Praxeas ch 4).
Bear always in mindthat this is the rule of faithwhich I profess; by it I testify that the Father, and the Son, and the Spiritare inseparable from each other, and so willyou knowin what sense this is said. Now, observe, my assertion is that the Father is one, and the Son one, and the Spiritone, and that They are distinct from Each Other --- that it is not by way of diversity that the Son differs from the Father, but by distribution: it is not by division that He is different, but by distinction. This statement is taken in a wrong sense by every uneducated as well as every perversely disposed person, as if it predicated a diversity, in such a sense as to imply a separation among the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit. --- Happilythe LordHimself employs this expression of the personof the Paraclete, so as to signifynot a division or severance, but a disposition (of mutual relations in the Godhead); for He says, I will pray the Father, and He shall send you another Comforter...even the Spirit of truth,John 14:16thus making the Paracletedistinct from Himself, even as we say that the Son is also distinct from the Father; so that He showed a third degree in the Paraclete – (Against Praxeas ch 9.)
"But Scripture is not in such danger that you need to come to its help with your reasoning, lest it should seem inconsistent with itself. It is quite right both when it lays down that there is one God and when it shows that there are two, Father and Son, and it is self-sufficient". (Against Praxeas ch 18.)
"We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation . . . [which] brings about unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in kind. They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit." (Against Praxeas ch.23).
"Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These three are one[being], not one [persona], as it is said, 'I and my Father are One,' in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number." (Against Praxeas ch 25)
Ignatius of Antiochprovides early support for the Trinity around 110, exhorting obedience to "Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit"'
Justin Martyr(AD 100–c. 165) also writes, "in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit".
The first of the early church fathers to be recorded using the word "Trinity" was Theophilus of Antiochwriting in the late 2nd century. He defines the Trinity as God, His Word (Logos) and His Wisdom (Sophia) in the context of a discussion of the first three days of creation.
The first defence of the doctrine of the Trinity was in the early 3rd century by the early church father Tertullian. He explicitly defined the Trinity as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and defended the Trinitarian theology against the "Praxean" heresy.[29]
"... I do not regard the Spirit as coming from anywhere else than from the Father through the Son.” (Against Praxeas ch 4).
Bear always in mindthat this is the rule of faithwhich I profess; by it I testify that the Father, and the Son, and the Spiritare inseparable from each other, and so willyou knowin what sense this is said. Now, observe, my assertion is that the Father is one, and the Son one, and the Spiritone, and that They are distinct from Each Other --- that it is not by way of diversity that the Son differs from the Father, but by distribution: it is not by division that He is different, but by distinction. This statement is taken in a wrong sense by every uneducated as well as every perversely disposed person, as if it predicated a diversity, in such a sense as to imply a separation among the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit. --- Happilythe LordHimself employs this expression of the personof the Paraclete, so as to signifynot a division or severance, but a disposition (of mutual relations in the Godhead); for He says, I will pray the Father, and He shall send you another Comforter...even the Spirit of truth,John 14:16thus making the Paracletedistinct from Himself, even as we say that the Son is also distinct from the Father; so that He showed a third degree in the Paraclete – (Against Praxeas ch 9.)
"But Scripture is not in such danger that you need to come to its help with your reasoning, lest it should seem inconsistent with itself. It is quite right both when it lays down that there is one God and when it shows that there are two, Father and Son, and it is self-sufficient". (Against Praxeas ch 18.)
"We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation . . . [which] brings about unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in kind. They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit." (Against Praxeas ch.23).
"Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These three are one[being], not one [persona], as it is said, 'I and my Father are One,' in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number." (Against Praxeas ch 25)
Last edited:
J
no where because i follow the bible and not councils. you keep going on and on about about this group and that group, all outside the bible, where is it taught, all spelled out plainly, in the bible? its not, so why? maybe there is a reason.
but of course they got it right, when you kill off anyone and everyone that says different you win. IMO i dont think Jesus and the 12 meant for the faith to be spread in such ways.
IMO Nicea met to decide which books would be official. and to direct the people of Christianity. eventually all the books and power would be in the hands of the priest, and the people searching for answers would be at their mercy.
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto[/QUOTE]
but of course they got it right, when you kill off anyone and everyone that says different you win. IMO i dont think Jesus and the 12 meant for the faith to be spread in such ways.
Of course Jesus Christ is our mediator but what does that have to do with the history of the trinity, which we are discussing? And btw, you have no clue as to the purpose of the Councils. Tell me what was the purpose of the Council of Nicea at 325 A.D? Why did they meet jaybird?
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto[/QUOTE]
There you go again jaybird, always giving your opinion on issues and never giving evidence/proof to back up your opinion. The council of Nicea "DID NOT" meet to put the cannon of Scripture together. You can read it for yourself here: What Really Happened at Nicea? - Christian Research Institute
And yet again you keep talking about these counciles and the creeds of men that everybody is following according to you, which is not true. In fact, the creeds served a useful purpose which I'll let you look up for yourself (but I doubt that you will because of closed mindedness). And then to again "paint with a broad brush) that, "but of course they got it right, when you kill off anyone and everyone that says different you win. IMO i dont think Jesus and the 12 meant for the faith to be spread in such ways." Everyone is a killer according to your "IMO" as if were responsible for the sins of others?
It's really sad that you have such a careless and uninformed attitude in all your post because IMO your spiritually lazy and will not do your homework to see if what anybody says is true based on comparing what they say on the Bible mr. pesimistic.
ON GOD THE SON,
bluto
And yet again you keep talking about these counciles and the creeds of men that everybody is following according to you, which is not true. In fact, the creeds served a useful purpose which I'll let you look up for yourself (but I doubt that you will because of closed mindedness). And then to again "paint with a broad brush) that, "but of course they got it right, when you kill off anyone and everyone that says different you win. IMO i dont think Jesus and the 12 meant for the faith to be spread in such ways." Everyone is a killer according to your "IMO" as if were responsible for the sins of others?
It's really sad that you have such a careless and uninformed attitude in all your post because IMO your spiritually lazy and will not do your homework to see if what anybody says is true based on comparing what they say on the Bible mr. pesimistic.
ON GOD THE SON,
bluto
J
There you go again jaybird, always giving your opinion on issues and never giving evidence/proof to back up your opinion. The council of Nicea "DID NOT" meet to put the cannon of Scripture together. You can read it for yourself here: What Really Happened at Nicea? - Christian Research Institute
And yet again you keep talking about these counciles and the creeds of men that everybody is following according to you, which is not true. In fact, the creeds served a useful purpose which I'll let you look up for yourself (but I doubt that you will because of closed mindedness). And then to again "paint with a broad brush) that, "but of course they got it right, when you kill off anyone and everyone that says different you win. IMO i dont think Jesus and the 12 meant for the faith to be spread in such ways." Everyone is a killer according to your "IMO" as if were responsible for the sins of others?
It's really sad that you have such a careless and uninformed attitude in all your post because IMO your spiritually lazy and will not do your homework to see if what anybody says is true based on comparing what they say on the Bible mr. pesimistic.
ON GOD THE SON,
bluto
And yet again you keep talking about these counciles and the creeds of men that everybody is following according to you, which is not true. In fact, the creeds served a useful purpose which I'll let you look up for yourself (but I doubt that you will because of closed mindedness). And then to again "paint with a broad brush) that, "but of course they got it right, when you kill off anyone and everyone that says different you win. IMO i dont think Jesus and the 12 meant for the faith to be spread in such ways." Everyone is a killer according to your "IMO" as if were responsible for the sins of others?
It's really sad that you have such a careless and uninformed attitude in all your post because IMO your spiritually lazy and will not do your homework to see if what anybody says is true based on comparing what they say on the Bible mr. pesimistic.
ON GOD THE SON,
bluto
i think its sad that when the church became corrupted they burned Christians because they had a different opinion, i think its sad that poor people for more than 800 years were told they were to stupid to read the holy scriptures for themselves, and i think its sad when people get banned for speaking their opinion from where the Spirit leads them.