Today at 04:38 AM jodrey said this in Post #246
Basically, without getting into details, the Nicene Creed paints a picture of one Being, which is God, and that includes both the Father and the Son in that picture as the same Being. (The Holy Ghost actually isn't explicitly included with that Being, which is interesting. I wonder when people decided to stick him in.) There are only two lines that explicitly state that the Father and the Son are the same. This is reinforced by the second paragraph, which speaks about Christ as if He were the Father. However, the entire Creed refers to each as an individual, semantically separating each being, while it should instead only refer to God. According to the Orthadox Trinity, the Holy Ghost is God, not the Holy Ghost; Jesus Christ is God, not another person; the Father (Elohim) is God also: but both the Bible and the Nicene Creed refer to these individuals as if they really were individuals. Some might argue that sometimes it's important to define the role of the manifestation through a specific name, but this is not always the case, and sometimes, if God were all one, it would be just the same to refer to Jesus Christ as God as it would be to refer to the Holy Ghost to God. The linguistic stylings of the Nicene Creed make it very confusing.
There are different "versions" of the Trinity. It all depends on how "individual" God is. The Orthadox theory is that God is one singular Being, one person, so to speak, and basically that He takes on different forms, such as the Son or the Holy Ghost, and that has several logic flaws. If you say that one person takes on different "disguises" at various times, that's one thing. However, when that manifestation can only exist in one way in one point in time, or in other words, different "subpersons" cannot exist all at the same time, as the Bible shows that this would have to be possible. Christians who believe this theory though are perfectly fine with it, claiming that it is beyond logic, that we simply cannot understand God. The other popular theory is that of the "God-group," the way in which the three individuals make up a group, which is God, and this theory is usually held by protestants and liberals, and pretty much anyone else who doesn't believe understand the Orthadox theory. This makes far more logical sense than the three-is-one idea. But these are the two principle theories regarding the nature of God. There are others, I guess, which are not mainstream. My belief is even further from the Orthadox theory, that each individual is very distinct, and although they make up a whole in purpose, each one has his own godly power, personality, and spirit. This would be the "3=3" theory, which makes the most logical sense, although many people get hung up on a few different scriptures regarding it. Then there is also a theory that God is very strictly one Being, and there is no deviation on the matter. This makes the least logical sense. Basically, it all comes down to the Bible. If something doesn't reason out well in your mind people will say, "It's a divine mystery; you can't understand God." It all comes down to the Bible, and people will always find ways in and around their beliefs to make everything seem valid, so it's very difficult to get anywhere. The Bible does not address the specific question regarding the Trinity because the concept never existed in biblical times to get considered. It's something that's slowly taken form and gone in both directions over the years, following the start of the Catholic Church.
It's a waste of time to argue out the Trinity.