A simple question with a simple answer.

[Alithis]

Over and over. Thread after thread. It seems that the 'schism' that Constantine feared may split HIS 'new religion' wasn't settled as some would assume. For the debate of 'trinity' has been rejected and debated ever since it's introduction into Christianity. This is NOT another 'trinity' debate.

It's a SIMPLE question that would appear few have EVER even contemplated. Yet it may be so profound as to answer this debate of 'trinity' once and for all. But ONLY if one comes to the PROPER answer to a SIMPLE question. Here goes:

Genesis 1:

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.


Here we have the FIRST three verses of the Bible. In these three verses it STATES that IN THE BEGINNING, God FIRST created the heavens and the earth. And at that TIME of creation, the Earth had NO form and was VOID, (nothing ON it). And we are also informed that only darkness existed. Then in the third verse it states that God said, "Let there be light". God CREATED light.


Let's move ahead just a little:


Genesis 1:


14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.


It now becomes clear that in the Beginning, BEFORE the forth day, When God said, "Let there be light", that this usage of the term 'light' MUST have a different meaning than literal, physical LIGHT. For it isn't until the FORTH day that stars, the Sun, the moon were 'created'. So it wasn't until the FORTH day that PHYSICAL light was introduced.


So the question is: What was THE LIGHT that was created IN THE BEGINNING. You know, the light that was created BEFORE the stars, Sun and MOON?


Blessings,


MEC

light is not a substance (and it is written also that "God is light ") it says in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth but it does not say he created "light" he need not create what he is .. he said let there Be light " (he later creates two sources of limited light but he himself has no limit) and since light is not a substance ,but more a state of seeing revealing and thus knowing ..one could say, in a limited manner of speaking ,that God said let there be an illuminating of my knowledge power glory and presence and wisdom and so much more ,all encapsulated in those four small words "let there be light "

 

[Imagican]

I would offer that regardless of how one tries to talk around the issue, IN the beginning, there was OBVIOUSLY 'no light' where God BROUGHT light into being. So, instead of saying God 'created' light 'in the beginning', He most certainly 'introduced it' into being in a place where previous it didn't exist.
And what exact manner has that 'light' been introduced to US: Mankind? What is THE source of our KNOWLEDGE of 'light'?
But regardless, it is clear that we BOTH agree that the 'light' wasn't in reference to LITERAL 'light'. More like 'truth' or 'love' or a matter of 'enlightenment'.
While the glory of God may well be a form of energy, maybe even light itself, LITERAL light, the 'light' that was brought to a place 'void and without form', IN the beginning, wasn't literal 'light' but more so some sort of PRESENCE of 'truth' as opposed to that which is DARKNESS, without 'truth'.
In the chapter of 1 John which states that "God is Light", every line concerning the subject pertains to TRUTH. Read it yourself:
1 John 1 (KJV)
1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us

3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

4 And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.

5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:

7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
And wouldn't it also stand to reason that 'light would beget LIGHT'? Like a 'duck' has baby ducks, wouldn't that which is LIGHT bring forth that which is LIGHT?
And doesn't Christ Himself state that He is the BEGINNING of the 'creation of God'?
I am confused as to how it could be any more clearly offered. What else could the 'beginning of the creation of God' mean than what it STATES?
Couple this FACT with what we are offered in Genesis and it then becomes apparent: If Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was the 'Beginning of the creation of God', and 'in the beginning God said, "let there be light", and Jesus Christ IS the "Light of this world", doesn't it FIT that the FIRST act of 'creation' of God pertaining to this world was Christ 'begotten'? And then we are told that all things were 'created' BY God, through Christ. Obviously this doesn't LITERALLY mean "ALL THINGS", for that to be truth then it would mean that Christ created God Himself. And we KNOW this isn't even possible. So 'all things' Must be in reference to 'something else'. It is my belief that the answer is 'obvious': 'all things pertaining to PHYSICAL life'. That which is needed for life to exist and LIFE itself.
While much of this understanding isn't a matter of pertinence so far as 'salvation' is concerned, it certainly could 'clear up' quite a bit of controversy so far as 'trinity' and other concepts and doctrines concerning the IDENTITY of Father and Son.
If what I have offered is 'truth', it completely destroys the concept of 'trinity'. For if Christ was 'created', (if there was a TIME when Christ did not exist, a time BEFORE Christ), then Father and Son are NOT 'co-eternal' as 'trinity' demands.

Blessings,
MEC

 

[Alithis]

have we just sort of said the same thing differing ways ?

 

[Imagican]

so you are asking Sodom and Gomorra to create a church? and you think that will turn out ok because we are smarter than every other generation ever.. so good luck that idea ( see Laodicean church and age ) no we are not smarter or wiser or anything better than Noah and his sons and or God and his ! " let those who are evil continue to be evil" .. nothing can be done that isn't sin to stop it.

NO. Absolutely NOT what I am saying. Nothing to DO with being 'smarter'. It has to do with KNOWLEDGE. We are more KNOWLEDGEABLE now than men were at the time of Moses. We have LEARNED more about the environment in which we live. We understand much more about the earth and things that have lived upon it than those at the time of Moses.
And due to this increased KNOWLEDGE, we are more capable of understanding some things NOW than those at the time of Moses.
Numbers alone have altered understanding. At the time of Moses, the concept of 'TRILLION' wasn't something that men could even fathom. A number outside of the realm of their understanding. Just like the idea of a telephone was beyond their comprehension.
That the world has become MORE evil doesn't alter that men HAVE learned much in the past five thousand years. And MUCH of what they have learned is the TRUTH as concerns 'physics' and 'history'. Heck, you go to the doctor and let them use MAN MADE machines on you, right? You know, like X rays and ultrasound and other image producing machines? You take prescription drugs when a doctor prescribes them? How about a CELL PHONE, got one? Use it? Drive a 'car'?
These are just a tiny example of things we have LEARNED since Moses. Heck, just imagine, we just sent a satelite millions upon millions of miles away and LANDED it on an asteroid. Refusing to acknowledge what we have learned doesn't keep it from existing.
And how about this idea: ONLY the 'church' was capable of discerning 'scripture for well over a THOUSAND years. They DENIED scripture to the congregation and the congregation was left COMPLETELY in the dark EXCEPT what the 'church' revealed to them. And we can clearly see through history that the 'church' OFTEN taught them LIES. So long as NO ONE other than the clergy was able to READ scripture, they got away with the lies. It wasn't until men OF the clergy began to SPEAK OUT in public that the congregation began to realize how MUCH they were being LIED to.
Now, we are told to JUDGE men that we choose to be our teachers BY THEIR FRUIT. We are also told NOT to accept doctrine that wasn't delivered by the apostles. Take these two into consideration and it becomes CRYSTAL CLEAR that the 'church' LYING to the congregation simply to make merchandise of them was certainly NO fruit of the Spirit. And look at ALL the doctrine and dogma introduced by 'the church' that was NEVER offered by the apostles.
Today we can LOOK back and SEE things in a completely DIFFERENT perspective than those that were LED into deception almost two thousand years ago. We can NOW 'clearly see' many of the deceptions created and instituted by the RCC.
And let me ask this: Do you believe that the Roman Empire was ANY less 'evil' than Sodom or Gomorrah? So it may not be what I'm offering that is difficult to fathom. It may be that it is what YOU are proposing that is contrary to the truth. Maybe it was a society WORSE than Sodom or Gomorrah that formed the RCC. Just LOOK at the atrocities the RCC performed against the congregation. Is this REALLY 'fruit of the Spirit'? And if they would LIE to make merchandise of the congregation, do you suppose they would be compelled to be TRUTHFUL about ANYTHING?
That's MY point. What makes YOU think that the MEN in Rome were capable of understanding GOD or His Son any better than YOU or MYSELF? Yet I have NO agenda to teach LIES in order to control others or take advantage of them. I don't NEED gold or silver to build CATHEDRALS or live like a KING. And I certainly have NO desire to FORCE my understanding upon others. No compulsion to torture or murder those opposed to my views or understanding.
Blessings,
MEC

 

[Imagican]

And I would also like to ask this: According to God's Word: The Bible, are we to place our faith in MEN or in God and His Son?
To place one's faith in 'trinity' is to place one's faith in those that "CREATED IT". Not a SINGLE apostle ever even MENTIONED 'trinity'. It was a concept created by MEN hundreds of years AFTER the death of Christ and His apostles.
Blessings,
MEC

 

[Imagican]

As I repeatedly referenced the online teachings of the Church am unclear why one would need to resort to quoting dissenting opinions from history in attempt to cast doubt on either what is properly taught or how the doctrine came to be. Pointing out that someone may have held this opinion or that one (and that often demonstratively a changing position over the person's life) is not the same as claiming one knows or understands either what the Church teaches or what the Trinity Doctrine proclaims. Whether one believes these teachings or not, if one understood either of those - then one would also understand that saying things like Catholics believe in a God in three parts is not just an error it is a gross and offensive mis-representation of the teaching. And to repeatedly do that after being told otherwise is also not a little mean spirited.

So, what are you saying? That I should just ACCEPT what a 'church' teaches regardless of the Bible or what is revealed to me PERSONALLY? Or that I should keep my understanding to myself if it disagrees with ANY 'church'?
I believe that a more prudent manner of discernment can be obtained THROUGH history. Information that wasn't capable of being discerned at the time it took place. For the 'church' burned whatever they deemed damaging to their teachings. Killed whoever opposed their teachings. And kept the scriptures FROM the congregation for well over a THOUSAND years.
And you consider me offering this information 'mean spirited' simply because it is contrary to what you have chosen to believe?
You know Doc, while all of the past was taking place, no one had the RESOURCES we do today in order to form a PROPER opinion. The RCC withheld scripture from the congregation for well over a THOUSAND years. And things that the 'churches' did in ONE place, while recorded there, often were never even HEARD of in 'other places' until hundreds of years LATER.
"Trinity" teaches "THREE PERSONS in ONE God". Regardless of how YOU try and interpret it, that would be THREE parts of ONE God. Three parts making up ONE God.
That you and others have a difficult time understanding that ONE plus ONE plus ONE equals THREE is not 'my problem'. I have NO such hang ups when it comes to math.

Generally I would call propoganda a position that needs to distort and mis-represent an opposing position in order to espouse their "truth". I am not the one here repeatedly doing that.

I challenge you to SHOW one place that I have distorted the truth. ONE quote please. The MOST you can offer is that you don't agree with what I offer. I have offered NOTHING that isn't backed by history or the Bible.

And it did not take a hundred years for the beginning development of the doctrine to be required to defend against teachings the Church eventually found contrary to revealed truth. Jesus was not a man, Jesus was not really flesh, Jesus was not God, Jesus was the first thing made.....etc and so on. To suggest the history we have indicates everything was made up ("revealed") 400 years later is another gross and offensive mis-representation of the truth.

Not once have I offered 'EVERYTHING'. I have simply pointed out a FEW of the things that DID NOT EXIST until hundreds of years after the death of Christ AND His apostles. 'Trinity' being but ONE of the concepts or doctrines created by the RCC that were NEVER taught by the apostles.

And to imagine that one has stumbled upon something new in looking at these verses would be the greatest presumption yet, which is what my comments regarding those coming before us were about.

Not a SINGLE concept or idea that I've offered is NEW. And I didn't STUMBLE across any of them that I've offered.
Arius understood that Christ was created and his view was the PRE existing view until others began to CHANGE it. And it wasn't changed through revelation. It was changed by the edge of the sword. This NEW idea that Jesus is GOD was FORCED upon the congregation, NOT REVEALED to them.

Saint John did not equivocate. "He", "the Word", was there in the beginning and everything "made" was made by Him. Saint John spent three years with Him and the rest of his life around someone that spent 33 years with and knew Him better than any other human. I would think his record should carry some weight in these discussions. No where does this Saint suggest the Word (or the Light of this World) was created first before everything else. As a practical matter of viewing God as Spirit, and All Powerful and Omnipotent and Eternal (no beginning) at that, it would also be very odd to look at God as having to "create" His Word through which EVERYTHING that is made is created. [do we suppose Him at some point unable to express Himself until "creating" this Light?] These are the reasons the ancients started talking about whether or not Jesus, His 'First Born", really meant that the Word before becoming Man was a created thing. The view that always prevailed was a resounding NO.

I would offer that a PROPER reading and discernment of John reveals that NEVER did he mean what the RCC interpreted his words to mean. And his writing DOES reveal the 'light' being present FROM the beginning. Let's see: PREVIOUS to Christ being BORN in the flesh:

John 1 King James Version (KJV)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

These words are in reference to the relationship of God, and His Son with MANKIND from the beginning. BEFORE the Son became manifest in the flesh. And they PLAINLY reveal the LIGHT that 'became' IN THE BEGINNING.

In "darkness", especially utter darkness, people are drawn to "Light". Jesus, the Man, is very much a person (and Person) who draws all of us to Him (God). Nothing about that contradicts or conflicts with the creation story. On the other hand, imagining God having to 'create' His Own Word in order for that Word to be the "light of the world" contradicts what Saint John says about that Light of the world. Namely that the Word is uncreated.

You see Doc, it is YOU that doesn't even understand what you are offering. NO. God didn't CREATE His Word. Not according to John or any other Gospel or Epistle. God SHARED His Word with His Son according to the words of Christ Himself. Christ STATES that the words He offered were NOT HIS OWN, but GIVEN Him by God.
So the reference to the Word in the beginning is in reference to AGENCY. Representation. Just like saying that a judge IS the 'court' or saying that a general IS the Army. It is not meant LITERALLY but in a figurative sense so far as REPRESENTATION.
And we can KNOW that this is truth by reading the words of Christ Himself that STATE that the words He offered were NOT HIS OWN. If the Word of God was LITERALLY Christ, then Christ would BE the Word. That means that the words He offered WOULD have been HIS OWN. Since He PLAINLY states that the words He offered WERE NOT HIS OWN, then obviously YOUR interpretation of John 1 CAN'T be correct. If Christ WERE the Word as taught by 'trinity', then the words He shared WOULD have been HIS OWN. Yet He states that they were NOT His OWN but 'given Him' by God. But it does take a little bit of ability to accept what is ACTUALLY offered rather than what the 'churches' often teach.
And the 'church' doesn't REALLY teach that Jesus IS God. It teaches that Jesus is ONE of THREE persons that make up ONE God.
Yet I contend that God would STILL be God regardless of the Son. Since He 'created' the Son, the Son is nothing but an extension of God, not God Himself.
And that is EXACTLY how God revealed Himself to His 'chosen people': ONE God, uncompounded, NO OTHER Gods beside Himself. This is HOW God distinguished Himself from ALL 'other gods'.
Yet you would have me believe that He deceived those He called His 'chosen'. That He wasn't REALLY uncompounded, but in fact, THREE persons in ONE God.
And not only do the Jews understand the false teachings of the RCC, but those that profess to be Muslims ALSO recognize that to profess a belief in 'trinity' is to profess to believe in MORE than ONE God.
Neither the Hebrews/Jews NOR the Arabs, (who believed in the SAME God), believed in a 'multi part god'. They KNEW that any such belief system would be POLYTHEISTIC rather than Monotheistic. And both to this day remain MONOTHEISTIC. ONE God, uncompounded. NO OTHER Gods beside Himself.
And we KNOW that Christ now SITS at the 'right hand of God'. If Christ were indeed God, then that would make God sitting NEXT to God. Yet there are NO OTHER GODS beside Himself.
And once again, let me offer that my views are NOTHING NEW. They are merely DIFFERENT than those created and instituted by MEN claiming to BE 'the church'.
Blessings,
MEC

 

[Chicken Little]

'NO. Absolutely NOT what I am saying. Nothing to DO with being 'smarter'. It has to do with KNOWLEDGE. We are more KNOWLEDGEABLE now than men were at the time of Moses. ' you can believe that I don't ! they had different obstacles but the same beasts.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

My case is made again, who is lying/misrepresenting here what the Church teaches?

And the 'church' doesn't REALLY teach that Jesus IS God. It teaches that Jesus is ONE of THREE persons that make up ONE God.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p2.htm#234

From the Catechism, which is online for all to read the details of what the Church teaches.
"242 Following this apostolic tradition, the Church confessed at the first ecumenical council at Nicaea (325) that the Son is "consubstantial" with the Father, that is, one only God with him."
"252 The Church uses (I) the term "substance" (rendered also at times by "essence" or "nature") to designate the divine being in its unity, (II) the term "person" or "hypostasis" to designate the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the real distinction among them, and (III) the term "relation" to designate the fact that their distinction lies in the relationship of each to the others."
"253 The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the "consubstantial Trinity".83 The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: "The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God."84 In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature."85

254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another. "God is one but not solitary."86 "Father", "Son", "Holy Spirit" are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: "He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son."87 They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: "It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds."88 The divine Unity is Triune.

255 The divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another: "In the relational names of the persons the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance."89 Indeed "everything (in them) is one where there is no opposition of relationship."90 "Because of that unity the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son."91" "

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Over and over. Thread after thread. It seems that the 'schism' that Constantine feared may split HIS 'new religion' wasn't settled as some would assume. For the debate of 'trinity' has been rejected and debated ever since it's introduction into Christianity. This is NOT another 'trinity' debate.

It's a SIMPLE question that would appear few have EVER even contemplated. Yet it may be so profound as to answer this debate of 'trinity' once and for all. But ONLY if one comes to the PROPER answer to a SIMPLE question. Here goes:

Genesis 1:

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.


Here we have the FIRST three verses of the Bible. In these three verses it STATES that IN THE BEGINNING, God FIRST created the heavens and the earth. And at that TIME of creation, the Earth had NO form and was VOID, (nothing ON it). And we are also informed that only darkness existed. Then in the third verse it states that God said, "Let there be light". God CREATED light.


Let's move ahead just a little:


Genesis 1:


14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.


It now becomes clear that in the Beginning, BEFORE the forth day, When God said, "Let there be light", that this usage of the term 'light' MUST have a different meaning than literal, physical LIGHT. For it isn't until the FORTH day that stars, the Sun, the moon were 'created'. So it wasn't until the FORTH day that PHYSICAL light was introduced.


So the question is: What was THE LIGHT that was created IN THE BEGINNING. You know, the light that was created BEFORE the stars, Sun and MOON?


Blessings,


MEC

I believe the light was the intense light energy conveyed when God made the Big Bang. God is light as well. Our solar system was not formed, yet there was light elsewhere.

It's hard to grasp at first, but then it becomes obvious! And lines up with what we know about physical creation.

 

[Imagican]

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, of the essence of the Father, God of God,] Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance 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 the Holy Ghost.
[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.]
The most IMPORTANT part of this 'Creed' is the LAST. The 'church' stating that it self designated ITSELF to be able to CONDEMN anyone that disagreed with their CREED.
Basically what the Nicene Creed established was Father and Son being of the SAME essence. Basically attaching a GREEK form of philosophy to a SPIRITUAL concept. Without ANY basis other than the desire of those with the most influence to worship Jesus, the Son, AS GOD Himself.
I ask this: at the Council at Nicaea, was the BIBLE the determining factor used to decide that Jesus is of the SAME essence as God? Or was this something discerned by MEN using their OWN terms?
The answer is OBVIOUS. For the actual TERMS they used do not even EXIST in the Bible:
consubstantial, consubstantialis, homooúsios.
The obviousness being that these terms do not even EXIST in the Bible so the answer is that the CONCEPT of Jesus being of the SAME substance as the Father is UTTERLY 'man made' without any Biblical reference.
So it was MEN that created the concept of equality. For Christ Himself offers that He and the Father are NOT equal. He STATES that the Father is GREATER than the Son. He states that there are things that ONLY the Father KNOWS. And then we have the word: BEGOTTEN. The ONLY 'BEGOTTEN' Son of God. Every use of this term is in reference to a time BEFORE the existence of. That something does not EXIST until it is BEGOTTEN. That the moment of it's existence is the TIME it was 'begotten'.
That's what the BIBLE offers. But men decided, in order to worship the Son AS The Father, they would determine that the Father and Son are of the SAME essence. In utter contradiction to the Bible itself.
Blessings,
MEC