Does Oneness theology (Modalism) teach a "sock puppet" view of God's nature?

  • 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.

Is the "sock puppet" analogy of Oneness theology a fair representation?

  • Yes

    Votes: 6 40.0%
  • No

    Votes: 7 46.7%
  • I don't know

    Votes: 2 13.3%

  • Total voters
    15
Apr 5, 2020
2,273
464
83
I've already made my point.

There is interpersonal activity between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit exhibited in Scripture.

I really don't care what individuals who hold doctrines that have been identified for centuries as heresies think.

As I have said, I have better uses of my time at the moment than to address heretics, including praying for our nation in the light of domestic terrorism. I don't feel like it's a good use of time to be arguing with heretics, when there is a much greater need. We are commanded to pray for our leaders in Scripture, and this is certainly a better use of my time at the moment.

I am actually believing that you think Mark 12:32-24 does not actually exists.

32 And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:

33 And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.

34 And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him any question.
 
May 29, 2018
577
19
18
... You believe there is one Person only within the Godhead.

As I have said, I have better things to do right now than argue with people who hold heretical views. We should be praying for our nation before God and asking for his intervention with regards to the rioting and the great threat that our nation is under. I realize you are Filipino so you probably don't care about these issues, but I do.
I am part of frontliner so I care about the present situation, are you a frontliner too?

God is alone as regarding His own Divinity, and there is only one Divine Person who is all-knowing and omnipresent(who is the Father/Spirit). If there is anything more of one Divine Person, surely it is not another thing/person from His own Divinity.

The first and greatest commandment first priority to God, and the second love your neighbors(that includes your own nation).
 
Apr 5, 2020
2,273
464
83
God, then, having His own Word internal within His own bowels,
........... begat Him, emitting Him
........... along with His own wisdom before all things.

but the wisdom [Spirit in this instance is Sophia] of God which was in Him, and
........... His holy Word which was always present with Him.

^
This view is from the Church Fathers and matches Mark 12 100%

I feel safe and secure in God believing this because God Himself in human form confirmed this!

It proves God is one Person but Triune simultaneously.

I think the Church Fathers had it absolutely correct!
 
Apr 5, 2020
2,273
464
83
God, then, having His own Word internal within His own bowels,
........... begat Him, emitting Him
........... along with His own wisdom before all things.

but the wisdom [Spirit in this instance is Sophia] of God which was in Him, and
........... His holy Word which was always present with Him.

^
This view is from the Church Fathers and matches Mark 12 100%

I feel safe and secure in God believing this because God Himself in human form confirmed this!

It proves God is one Person but Triune simultaneously.

I think the Church Fathers had it absolutely correct!


And it matches 100% from Jesus' own mouth:

John 4:
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

^
Here Jesus makes God to be one Person in the form of a Spirit. He (Jesus) even calls God (the Father) HIM ("twice.")
So this matches Mark 12 100%

So, not only does Jesus confirm the Scribe that God is 1 Person, but Jesus even declares it from His own mouth!
 
Apr 5, 2020
2,273
464
83
God, then, having His own Word internal within His own bowels,
........... begat Him, emitting Him
........... along with His own wisdom before all things.

but the wisdom [Spirit in this instance is Sophia] of God which was in Him, and
........... His holy Word which was always present with Him.

^
And if you think about it, this describes Jesus 100% having the fullness of God within Him!
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,739
1,928
113
I am part of frontliner so I care about the present situation, are you a frontliner too?

God is alone as regarding His own Divinity, and there is only one Divine Person who is all-knowing and omnipresent(who is the Father/Spirit). If there is anything more of one Divine Person, surely it is not another thing/person from His own Divinity.

The first and greatest commandment first priority to God, and the second love your neighbors(that includes your own nation).
What is a frontliner?
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,739
1,928
113
If you review clearly the video upload in youtube, you can see the formulator of early Nicene Creed is not a true Trinitarian just like of today.

The historical evidence indicates that the Oneness Modalistic Monarchians allied together with the Semi-Trinitarians to formulate the early 325 Nicene Creed to counter the Arian threat which denied the divinity of Jesus Christ. This explains why the Modalists and the Semi-Trinitarians were able to sign the early Nicene Creed while the Arians could not. If the Semi-Trinitarians of the early fourth century were true Trinitarians then they would not have formulated a Creed which supports Oneness Modalism. Therefore the Semi-Trinitarians who allied themselves with the Modalists against Arianism to formulate the 325 Nicene Creed could not have been true Trinitarians. Athanasius, Alexander of Alexandria, and other Semi-Trinitarians of the early fourth-century were not true Trinitarians as the Trinitarian doctrine was not yet fully developed. Any casual reader will notice that the early Nicene Creed does not use the words, “Trinity,” or “Three Persons,” nor does it clearly spell out the Trinitarian doctrine like other Creeds which came later. Therefore the early fourth-century Nicene Creed was not a true Trinitarian Creed as it was a compromised Creed that strongly favored Oneness Modalistic Monarchianism (“Sabellianism”).

See the video again...
The original Nicene creed was modified in AD 381 because the new enemies went from being the Arians to the Semi-Arians.

The church's clarification on their theology of God was progressive.

I don't see what the point is, anyways. Nicene was not meant to be the final statement, that could not be modified in any way. And, it was a clarification on what the Church already knew, as they were experiential Trinitarians.

They knew that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were distinct Persons yet there is only one God, therefore their view was already set...it was only the clarification of terms that remained.
 
May 29, 2018
577
19
18
The original Nicene creed was modified in AD 381 because the new enemies went from being the Arians to the Semi-Arians.

The church's clarification on their theology of God was progressive.

I don't see what the point is, anyways. Nicene was not meant to be the final statement, that could not be modified in any way. And, it was a clarification on what the Church already knew, as they were experiential Trinitarians.

They knew that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were distinct Persons yet there is only one God, therefore their view was already set...it was only the clarification of terms that remained.
UnitedWithChrist the modification of original Nicene Creed caused the creation of Trinity doctrine after 50 years and no longer be reliable because that is already the apostasy of the church begins(the Roman Catholic church), and deleted the very following important words "is from the substance of the Father" and "who affirm the Son of God is another person... is condemned by catholic and apostolic churchs".

Let us see what was the text of the original Nicene Creed.

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father the only-begotten; that is from the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (ὁμοούσιον) with the Father; by whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

And in one Holy Spirit.

But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' who affirm the Son of God is another person or another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic church"

The Son is from the substance(divinity) of the Father. This is clearly to emphasize and identify where's the divinity of the Son came from(which is the divinity of the Father). It is interesting to note those early formulators of Nicene creed consider PERSON as substance or essence, so the Son is not another person of God.
 
May 29, 2018
577
19
18
The original Nicene creed was modified in AD 381 because the new enemies went from being the Arians to the Semi-Arians.

The church's clarification on their theology of God was progressive.

I don't see what the point is, anyways. Nicene was not meant to be the final statement, that could not be modified in any way. And, it was a clarification on what the Church already knew, as they were experiential Trinitarians.

They knew that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were distinct Persons yet there is only one God, therefore their view was already set...it was only the clarification of terms that remained
.
UnitedWithChrist the modification of original Nicene Creed caused the creation of Trinity doctrine after 50 years and no longer be reliable because that is already the apostasy of the church begins(the Roman Catholic church), and deleted the very following important words "is from the substance of the Father" and "who affirm the Son of God is another person... is condemned by catholic and apostolic churchs".

Let us see what was the text of the original Nicene Creed.

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father the only-begotten; that is from the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (ὁμοούσιον) with the Father; by whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

And in one Holy Spirit.

But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' who affirm the Son of God is another person or another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic church"

The Son is from the substance(divinity) of the Father. This is clearly to emphasize and identify where's the divinity of the Son came from(which is the divinity of the Father). It is interesting to note those early formulators of Nicene creed consider PERSON as substance or essence, so the Son is not another person of God.

Take note, what is always the introduction of every creeds "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty", that means the divinity is the Father which is in Jesus, if Jesus is God that means He is the Father!
 
May 29, 2018
577
19
18
The original Nicene creed was modified in AD 381 because the new enemies went from being the Arians to the Semi-Arians.

The church's clarification on their theology of God was progressive.

I don't see what the point is, anyways. Nicene was not meant to be the final statement, that could not be modified in any way. And, it was a clarification on what the Church already knew, as they were experiential Trinitarians.

They knew that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were distinct Persons yet there is only one God, therefore their view was already set...it was only the clarification of terms that remained.
I waited for the whole day and night for the response of UnitedWithChrist in my latest reply to his post #267.

Anyway, I will continue to further discuss what really happened at the Council of Constantinople.

The Council of Constantinople declared finally the Trinitarian doctrine of the co-equality and co-exist of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son. Among the council’s canons was one giving the bishop of Constantinople precedence of honor over all other bishops except the bishop of Rome, because Constantinople is the New Rome. Now you can see, they came now to practice the Roman church popery or papal system, and more later doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception, purgatory and other doctrines.

Concerning the modified Nicene Creed of Constantinople, the Eastern churches have always rejected it because they consider it a theological error and an unauthorized addition to a venerable document. The Nicene Creed was originally written in Greek while the modified Nicene Creed of Constantinople written in Latin. Latin is the official language of the Roman Empire where the Roman Catholic church originates.

So the original Nicene Creed in Greek is reliable than the modified Nicene Creed in Latin. Let me repost again the original Nicene Creed text.

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father the only-begotten; that is from the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (ὁμοούσιον) with the Father; by whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

And in one Holy Spirit.

But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' who affirm the Son of God is another person or another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic church"
 
May 29, 2018
577
19
18
The original Nicene creed was modified in AD 381...
Let me post what is written in modified Nicene creed in 381 AD...

"I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who
proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,

who has spoken through the prophets.

In one holy and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen."
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,739
1,928
113
Let me post what is written in modified Nicene creed in 381 AD...

"I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.


I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.


I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who
proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,

who has spoken through the prophets.


In one holy and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen."
What is your point?

Is your point that the original apostles' creed was an enshrined explanation which could not be improved upon?
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,739
1,928
113
I waited for the whole day and night for the response of UnitedWithChrist in my latest reply to his post #267.

Anyway, I will continue to further discuss what really happened at the Council of Constantinople.

The Council of Constantinople declared finally the Trinitarian doctrine of the co-equality and co-exist of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son. Among the council’s canons was one giving the bishop of Constantinople precedence of honor over all other bishops except the bishop of Rome, because Constantinople is the New Rome. Now you can see, they came now to practice the Roman church popery or papal system, and more later doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception, purgatory and other doctrines.

Concerning the modified Nicene Creed of Constantinople, the Eastern churches have always rejected it because they consider it a theological error and an unauthorized addition to a venerable document. The Nicene Creed was originally written in Greek while the modified Nicene Creed of Constantinople written in Latin. Latin is the official language of the Roman Empire where the Roman Catholic church originates.

So the original Nicene Creed in Greek is reliable than the modified Nicene Creed in Latin. Let me repost again the original Nicene Creed text.

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father the only-begotten; that is from the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (ὁμοούσιον) with the Father; by whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

And in one Holy Spirit.

But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' who affirm the Son of God is another person or another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic church"
By the way, for other folks, I will note to you that just_truth has been sending me private messages urging responses to his questions.

As I have already stated, I am more concerned about Black Lives Matters and their activities, which I believe will ultimately lead to an attempt to overthrow our government.

Additionally, regarding the Council of Constantinople, he is relying on statements, probably made by a Oneness Pentecostal or similar heretic, with regards to the Council. I would challenge him to prove, from unbiased sources, his statements.

As I have said, I belonged to a cult. After I left the cult, I realized that cults blatantly misrepresent and lie about historical facts in order to support their propaganda. Oneness Pentecostalism and the sects associated with it are plainly cults.

His cultic behavior is observed in the fact that he keeps sending me messages when he knows that I don't want to discuss this issue further, and that I am occupied with other things. In fact, he has sent private messages to me prompting me for responses to his endless questions.

There is a point where swine are recognized as swine, and casting pearls before them is unproductive.

It is plain to see that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and their actions are represented in an interpersonal manner, and this cannot be disregarded. That is the entire gist of this conversation.

We also know that there is one God, but since there the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each identified as God, and we see interpersonal activity between them, this gives us the basis for the Triune God, or the Trinity doctrine.

Additionally, historical facts are often either distorted or entirely falsified by these groups in order to support their faulty theology. For instance, I do not think he will be able to find a genuine historian who claims that the Pope was appointed the head over the universal church at Constantinople. The evolution of the Papacy was a gradual process, which occurred much later.

But, if you listen to the fairy tales of cultists, you will hear a different story. That is largely because they want to declare themselves to be a restoration of the original gospel, who teaches the "truth" which was suppressed for centuries. This is a pretty uniform claim amongst many cultists, including the group I came from. Distorting church history, which was filled with issues because all men are sinners, is part of their propaganda. Another is a magical attempt to turn an evangelical Christian into a slightly revised Roman Catholic.
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,739
1,928
113
I waited for the whole day and night for the response of UnitedWithChrist in my latest reply to his post #267.

Anyway, I will continue to further discuss what really happened at the Council of Constantinople.

The Council of Constantinople declared finally the Trinitarian doctrine of the co-equality and co-exist of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son. Among the council’s canons was one giving the bishop of Constantinople precedence of honor over all other bishops except the bishop of Rome, because Constantinople is the New Rome. Now you can see, they came now to practice the Roman church popery or papal system, and more later doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception, purgatory and other doctrines.

Concerning the modified Nicene Creed of Constantinople, the Eastern churches have always rejected it because they consider it a theological error and an unauthorized addition to a venerable document. The Nicene Creed was originally written in Greek while the modified Nicene Creed of Constantinople written in Latin. Latin is the official language of the Roman Empire where the Roman Catholic church originates.

So the original Nicene Creed in Greek is reliable than the modified Nicene Creed in Latin. Let me repost again the original Nicene Creed text.

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father the only-begotten; that is from the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (ὁμοούσιον) with the Father; by whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

And in one Holy Spirit.

But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' who affirm the Son of God is another person or another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic church"
By the way, you have a lot of hubris, expecting that I am to reply to you within 24 hours or you have somehow been slighted. I am not obligated to reply to you at all. Like I have said, casting pearls before swine is not something I am interested in doing.
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,739
1,928
113

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,739
1,928
113
UnitedWithChrist the modification of original Nicene Creed caused the creation of Trinity doctrine after 50 years and no longer be reliable because that is already the apostasy of the church begins(the Roman Catholic church), and deleted the very following important words "is from the substance of the Father" and "who affirm the Son of God is another person... is condemned by catholic and apostolic churchs".

Let us see what was the text of the original Nicene Creed.

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father the only-begotten; that is from the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (ὁμοούσιον) with the Father; by whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

And in one Holy Spirit.

But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' who affirm the Son of God is another person or another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic church"

The Son is from the substance(divinity) of the Father. This is clearly to emphasize and identify where's the divinity of the Son came from(which is the divinity of the Father). It is interesting to note those early formulators of Nicene creed consider PERSON as substance or essence, so the Son is not another person of God.

Take note, what is always the introduction of every creeds "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty", that means the divinity is the Father which is in Jesus, if Jesus is God that means He is the Father!

Why are you trying to deceive people?

Here is what you said:

But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' who affirm the Son of God is another person or another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic church"

Here is what an additional comment (not part of the Creed) says:

[But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'— they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.]

There was no mention of the phrase "another Person".

By the way, if I understand your position correctly, you would in fact believe that the Son of God came into existence at the Incarnation. You deny that he was a distinct Person along with the Father before the creation, as John 1:1-3 clearly teaches. The word "with" in these verses indicates a face-to-face relationship.

But I could spend all day pointing out issues and you would never listen so maybe you can explain to me why I should engage you.
 
May 29, 2018
577
19
18
OK..I'm not sure if that means you support terrorist activity or not. If it means that you are assisting police forces in your country, good. That still doesn't change your bad theology :D
I do not know what is running in your mind why you come to think I support terrorist activity while I introduced myself a police frontliner.

As much I cannot think, that despite the Oneness really come to the word of God of defending the Holy One but call them heretics.
A bad theology cannot become a doctrine of the majority of Believers during the second century when the Roman Catholicism did not yet come to power.
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,739
1,928
113
I do not know what is running in your mind why you come to think I support terrorist activity while I introduced myself a police frontliner.

As much I cannot think, that despite the Oneness really come to the word of God of defending the Holy One but call them heretics.
A bad theology cannot become a doctrine of the majority of Believers during the second century when the Roman Catholicism did not yet come to power.
I feel sad that you believe the narrative of Oneness Pentecostalism. It is a false, paranoid narrative similar to the one I inherited from my religious upbringing as an Armstrongite.

Concerning your involvement with law enforcement, I am glad you are not involved with the sorts of groups we are facing today in the USA.
 
May 29, 2018
577
19
18
Why are you trying to deceive people?

Here is what you said:

But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' who affirm the Son of God is another person or another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic church"

Here is what an additional comment (not part of the Creed) says:

[But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'— they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.]

There was no mention of the phrase "another Person".
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.


By the way, if I understand your position correctly, you would in fact believe that the Son of God came into existence at the Incarnation. You deny that he was a distinct Person along with the Father before the creation, as John 1:1-3 clearly teaches. The word "with" in these verses indicates a face-to-face relationship.

But I could spend all day pointing out issues and you would never listen so maybe you can explain to me why I should engage you.
.

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.