one verse for the trinity?

[steve4.truth]

I beleive you. I agree with you. It's not a weak point with JW's, currently. But things can and sometimes do change. The baptist church isn't likely at all to stop baptising by immersion. But the baptist church of today is much morel liberal in it's thinking than the baptist church of 1900. Give um enough time and they could be saying baptism is optional. Anybody, any organization can be taken down, given enough time and the right circumstances. But. basically I'm just saying the same thing i said in my previous post in a different form. Your answer doesn't address my point. your answer addreses the point of JW church changing overnight to governing a country, my post's point was that given enough time anything can happen..

Or do you believe your church leadership is immune from being tempted by satan?

ok, yes, it could happen.

But consider this: Jehovah predestined a restoration of true worship in the time of the end. Before I continue, let me clarify that it would not be my place to tell you that Jehovah's witnesses are that true religion. We believe that with all our heart--if we didn't, we would change religions. but that is something that you personally have to investigate.

The evidence for restoration of true worship in the time of the end:
Jehovah had ONE nation through whom he expressed His purposes in the OT--the Israelites. When that nation failed to accept His Son, Jesus, the Christian congregation became the only religion that represented God. But Jesus, Paul and Peter predicted a time of apostasy which came about after the death of the apostles. For almost 2 thousand years, there was no true religion on the earth--only individuals. But the bible also predicted a restoration of true worship just before the end.
Dan. 12:9,10 "He replied, "Go your way, Daniel, because the words are closed up and sealed until the time of the end. Many will be purified, made spotless and refined, but the wicked will continue to be wicked. None of the wicked will understand, but those who are wise will understand."
Isa. 2:2-4 "In the last days the mountain of the Lord's temple will be established as chief among the mountains; it will be raised above the hills, and all nations will stream to it.Many peoples will come and say, "Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob. He will teach us his ways, so that we may walk in his paths." The law will go out from Zion, the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore."
Jehovah's witnesses are the only international religion that has never engaged in warfare in any country.
Mt. 24:14 "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come."
For all nations to recieve the SAME message of the kingdom (not "get saved or you'll go to hell") in this time period requires extensive organization and unity because of national and language bariers.

But really, doesn't this make perfect sense? God never destroyed people without giving them a witness first. Noah warned his generation before the flood. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob warned the canaanites before they were destroyed. Isaiah, Jeremiah etc, warned the Israelites before Babylon destroyed Judea, and Jesus and his disciples warned the Israelites before the Romans destroyed Judaism in 70 CE. Isn't it logical that the greatest warning work would precede the greatest destruction--armageddon? --by a unified, organized, international group. Who is doing that???????????????????

 

[Gareth]

Jehovah never does anything without proper procedures taking place first. Before He acts three things are taken into consideration.
It is in line with His purpose.
There is always a warning given.
There are always survivors.

Just one point, the Witnesses would never run a country. As Jesus said, when before Pilate, his Kingdom was no part of this world. We Witnesses remain politically neutral despite the hatred it might bring upon us. It is yet another defining difference between ourselves and other faiths.

 

[Gareth]

I just love John 14. It is so comforting to get the essence of Jesus words before the day when he knows he will die an excruicating death. Time and again Jesus shows that the Father is an entity greater than Jesus himself. Yet Philip asks to be shown God, something no man had ever seen, and it would be enough. But Jesus said that he that saw Jesus had seen the Father. Trinitarians jump on this mainly because there is scant evidence for the existence of the theory as incorruptable proof. Even if it were true it would only point to a duality which was the agreement reached at Nicea in 325AD.

But this verse does not teach a duality or even a trinity. What Jesus did during his ministry and the powerful works he did, came not from his own power and strength but from the One who had sent him. In verse 10, he said he spoke not of his own originality but of the One who had sent him. He also spoke of being in union with the Father, not that they are one and the same, but, in reality, they are in complete agreement as Jesus, while in heaven and before coming to earth, had spent eons of time with the Father and as such thought the same way as the Father did, yet still remained subservient to the Father, as is brought out later in the same Chapter and in other writings, notably 1Cor. 15:20-28.

Trinitarians are always going to be on a loser with trying to find something tangible to try and prove something that doesn't exist in Scripture. Even as there were only three of the Bishops at Nicea who didn't vote for the trinity, these ones left that conference with their consciences intact. They knew beyond doubt that the Church had taken a wrong step, and that Almighty God would in time allow the Truth to become evident as and when He saw fit. As the prophet says, God will speed things up in His due time, and true knowledge will become abundant.

 

[2ducklow]

ok, yes, it could happen.

But consider this: Jehovah predestined a restoration of true worship in the time of the end. Before I continue, let me clarify that it would not be my place to tell you that Jehovah's witnesses are that true religion. We believe that with all our heart--if we didn't, we would change religions. but that is something that you personally have to investigate.

The evidence for restoration of true worship in the time of the end:
Jehovah had ONE nation through whom he expressed His purposes in the OT--the Israelites. When that nation failed to accept His Son, Jesus, the Christian congregation became the only religion that represented God. But Jesus, Paul and Peter predicted a time of apostasy which came about after the death of the apostles. For almost 2 thousand years, there was no true religion on the earth--only individuals. But the bible also predicted a restoration of true worship just before the end.
Dan. 12:9,10 "He replied, "Go your way, Daniel, because the words are closed up and sealed until the time of the end. Many will be purified, made spotless and refined, but the wicked will continue to be wicked. None of the wicked will understand, but those who are wise will understand."
Isa. 2:2-4 "In the last days the mountain of the Lord's temple will be established as chief among the mountains; it will be raised above the hills, and all nations will stream to it.Many peoples will come and say, "Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob. He will teach us his ways, so that we may walk in his paths." The law will go out from Zion, the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore."

this refers to the millinium. THe time after the great tribulation.

Jehovah's witnesses are the only international religion that has never engaged in warfare in any country.
Mt. 24:14 "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come."
For all nations to recieve the SAME message of the kingdom (not "get saved or you'll go to hell") in this time period requires extensive organization and unity because of national and language bariers.

But really, doesn't this make perfect sense? God never destroyed people without giving them a witness first. Noah warned his generation before the flood. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob warned the canaanites before they were destroyed. Isaiah, Jeremiah etc, warned the Israelites before Babylon destroyed Judea, and Jesus and his disciples warned the Israelites before the Romans destroyed Judaism in 70 CE. Isn't it logical that the greatest warning work would precede the greatest destruction--armageddon? --by a unified, organized, international group. Who is doing that???????????????????

No one, currently.

Isaiah 66:8 Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall a land be born in one day? shall a nation be brought forth at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children.

Revelation 12:1-2 And a great sign was seen in heaven: a woman arrayed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars; and she was the child; and she crieth out, travailing in birth, and in pain to be delivered.

the woman is the church, the sun represents the NT, the moon represents the OT. 12 stars could represent several things. THe child is that perfected body of believers soon to come out of her, the church. god is going to do this all in a very short time.



Revelation 12:5 And she was delivered of a son, a man child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and unto his throne.

(interesting side note here, man child is in Greek male son, but iin rev. 12.5 male is neuter, not masculine, and the reason is is because the manchild is a body of believers made up of males and females. it's not a grammatical mistake as scholars like to think because they don't understand the meaning of the verse. They think manchild refers to Jesus thus they can't understand why male is neuter, it should me masculine to fit in with their theology, but it isn't. However it fits in with my theology.
check out the red, uion or son is masculine N-ASM, where as arsen or male is neuter N-ASN.

(Greek NT - (wh) w/ Grammar tags) Revelation 12:5 kai <2532> {CONJ} eteken <5088> (5627) {V-2AAI-3S} uion <5207> {N-ASM} arsen <730> {N-ASN} oV <3739> {R-NSM} mellei <3195> (5719) {V-PAI-3S} poimainein <4165> (5721) {V-PAN} panta <3956> {A-APN} ta <3588> {T-APN} eqnh <1484> {N-APN} en <1722> {PREP} rabdw <4464> {N-DSF} sidhra <4603> {A-DSF} kai <2532> {CONJ} hrpasqh <726> (5681) {V-API-3S} to <3588> {T-NSN} teknon <5043> {N-NSN} authV <846> {P-GSF} proV <4314> {PREP} ton <3588> {T-ASM} qeon <2316> {N-ASM} kai <2532> {CONJ} proV <4314> {PREP} ton <3588> {T-ASM} qronon <2362> {N-ASM} autou <846> {P-GSM}

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm
)

Revelation 12:13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.

the woman is the visible church that gives birth to the manchild that deals a death blow to the dragon for 3 and 1/2 years. then the manchild/bride of christ is raptured.



Isaiah 26:17-18 Like as a woman with child, that draweth near the time of her delivery, is in pain and crieth out in her pangs; so we have been before thee, O Jehovah. We have been with child, we have been in pain, we have as it were brought forth wind; we have not wrought any deliverance in the earth; neither have the inhabitants of the world fallen.

god's people have never brought forth deliverance, not complete deliverance. Every revival has so to speak only brought forth wind but not the manchild, the bride of Christ, the prefected saints. the nation born in a day, the fully mature manchild that will be born out of the church, out of all denominations will be that nation of believers bringing deliverance to the nations. The church is groaning currently to be rid of the manchild she is currently like 9 months pregnant with. but one day, a nation of belivers will be born in a day and take everyone by surprise.
JW organization doesn't fit these scriptures above.

 

[Der Alte]

[ . . . ]Trinitarians are always going to be on a loser with trying to find something tangible to try and prove something that doesn't exist in Scripture. Even as there were only three of the Bishops at Nicea who didn't vote for the trinity, these ones left that conference with their consciences intact. They knew beyond doubt that the Church had taken a wrong step, and that Almighty God would in time allow the Truth to become evident as and when He saw fit. As the prophet says, God will speed things up in His due time, and true knowledge will become abundant.

So, according to your theory about 300, or so, bishops meekly, without a word, did nothing while some pagan belief was forced on them by the supposedly pagan Constantine? First Constantine was an Arian, if he had forced anything on the church, the RCC would have been JW. All those bishops had survived persecution by the Romans, because they would not bow down to pagan idols or the emperor, or follow pagan teaching. What is your explanation why they would suddenly, accept false teachings just because Constantine, or anyone else, said so? They faced death and torture before, the worst they faced from Constantine was banishment.

 

[The Gregorian]

So, according to your theory about 300, or so, bishops meekly, without a word, did nothing while some pagan belief was forced on them by the supposedly pagan Constantine? First Constantine was an Arian, if he had forced anything on the church, the RCC would have been JW.

Not hardly. Constantine's counsels were a heated debate. Some supported the idea of the diety of Christ, some opposed. However, there was not a "vote." It was a counsel, not a democratic procedure.

A debate was held so the bishops could give their point of view... Constantine took their counsel, and made his decision as to what the official "church teaching would be" based on that counsel.

Consider politicians anywhere in the world today... if such a counsel were to be held... do you REALLY think their official statement would be based on "What is truth?" Or "what politically and financially benefits them the most?"

With Christians and non-Christians warring within his kingdom (and considering he was still a pagan at the time), the decision of his counsel what it was. The pagans got to keep their customs (such as the trinity)... as long as they "called it Christian." No more fighting, everyone wins... except the truth, of course.

Also... you suggested that Constantine was an arian!? What in the world leads you to believe Constantine was monotheistic?

 

[Der Alte]

Not hardly. Constantine's counsels were a heated debate. Some supported the idea of the diety of Christ, some opposed. However, there was not a "vote." It was a counsel, not a democratic procedure.

I see, as usual, a list of assertions but I don't see any credible, verifiable, historical evidence. Once again I remind you there were at least two historians, whose writings have come down to us, contemporary with Constantine, Eusebius and Lactantius. Do either of them support your claims?

A debate was held so the bishops could give their point of view... Constantine took their counsel, and made his decision as to what the official "church teaching would be" based on that counsel.

I think the word you are meaning is "council" not "counsel" and again assertions with no evidence. How can you state what happened at a council 1684 years ago, with no evidence?

Consider politicians anywhere in the world today... if such a counsel were to be held... do you REALLY think their official statement would be based on "What is truth?" Or "what politically and financially benefits them the most?"

What may or may not take place in a modern political meeting is not evidence for what did happen at the first universal Christian council, unless you have evidence that I don't know about, which you have not presented. How about the annual meeting of the WTBTS? Could not the same thing be said, "if such a counsel were to be held... do you REALLY think their official statement would be based on "What is truth?" Or "what politically and financially benefits them the most?" And once again speculation without a single shred of evidence

Why would the 300+ Christian bishops who survived Roman persecution not be just as interested in "What is truth?" as you will claim those who attend your annual meeting? Where is your proof that they did not vote for truth?

With Christians and non-Christians warring within his kingdom (and considering he was still a pagan at the time), the decision of his counsel what it was. The pagans got to keep their customs (such as the trinity)... as long as they "called it Christian." No more fighting, everyone wins... except the truth, of course.

According to the historian Eusebius, Constantine was a Christian long before Nicaea. And again a lot of condemning of 300+ Christian bishops, accusing all of them of being coward, liars, heretics, etc., with NO, NONE, ZERO evidence. Because that is the propaganda you have been indoctrinated with by the WTBTS

Also... you suggested that Constantine was an arian!? What in the world leads you to believe Constantine was monotheistic?

I suggested nothing, I emphatically stated it. And I know that because I have actually researched it, unlike a lot of other folks who believe everything their denominational leaders tell them. Where is your evidence to the contrary?

After the Council of Nicæa, he conversed more and more frequently and intimately with the bishops. his interest in Christianity grew with the years; but, as was to have been foreseen, he was sure to be led astray, for the needle lacked in the compass. He was more and more drawn over to the side of the Arians, and it was an Arian bishop who baptized him.

earlychurch.org.uk/Constantine

Constantine himself was torn between both the Arian and Trinitarian camps. As Constantine, after the Nicene council and against its conclusions, eventually recalled Arius from exile and banished Athanasius of Alexandria to Trier. Constantine himself was baptised into Christianity just before his death in May 337 by his distant relative Arianian Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia. During Eusebius of Nicomedia's time in the Imperial court, the Eastern court and the major positions in the Eastern Church were held by Arians or Arian sympathizers.

reddit.com/r/Christianity

The scandalous "majority" vote of the Nicene Council did not really settle anything and controversy continued unabated. Within a few years the Arians had regained so much ground that Constantine found it politically expedient to change sides and Arianism was restored to favor. (This writer suspects that this sudden reversal also made for peace at home, between Constantine and his Arian wife).

bibletopics.com

Eusebius of Nicomedia remained in exile in Gaul until 328, when (according to Epiphanius) he pretended to have repented, made a confession of faith, and Constantine allowed him to return. After he returned from the exile, Eusebius began to cultivate a friendship with Constantine&#8217;s sister, Constantia. Through this friendship he began to influence Constantine. By continually pointing out the faults of the Homo&#8217;ousian leaders (the anti-Arians) he caused Constantine to change his beliefs and become pro-Arian. Consequently, Constantine deposed Athanasius at a synod in Tyre in 335 and brought back Arius from exile and reinstated him in a synod at Jerusalem in 335. Epiphanius avoided mentioning in his writings that towards the end of his life Constantine became pro-Arian. Inadvertently, Photius implied that Constantine favored the Arians: &#8220;When Constantine the Great was nearing the end of his life, he had the testament of his last wishes sealed up, and handed to Eutocius, a man who bore in his breast the poison of the Arian heresy.&#8221;

prudentialpublishing.info/

For decades after Nicea, the power of the Roman state was used against supporters of the creed adopted by the council. Constantine and his successors repeatedly intervened on the side of the Arian heretics, the deniers of Christ&#8217;s divinity.

americamagazine.org​

 

[Supernaut]

There is absolutely no biblical justification for the trinity. If it were true, we would be a polytheistic faith, which we are not.

 

[2ducklow]

There is absolutely no biblical justification for the trinity. If it were true, we would be a polytheistic faith, which we are not.

If you are not trintiarian like the ucc what are you then?

 

[Supernaut]

If you are not trintiarian like the ucc what are you then?

LOL...I'm a non trinitarian Christian who has chosen the UCC as my Church. There are a vast number of non trinitarian Christians in the UCC.

 

[2ducklow]

LOL...I'm a non trinitarian Christian who has chosen the UCC as my Church. There are a vast number of non trinitarian Christians in the UCC.

when I was a kid many many years ago, my dad said he went to the united methodist church cause they don't care what you believe. He didn't like the baptist church with all that talk about believing in jesus for salvation etc. your church sounds kinda similar.
I always thought the church of christ was very dogmatic, i guess the ucc is different than just church of christ.

 

[Supernaut]

when I was a kid many many years ago, my dad said he went to the united methodist church cause they don't care what you believe. He didn't like the baptist church with all that talk about believing in jesus for salvation etc. your church sounds kinda similar.
I always thought the church of christ was very dogmatic, i guess the ucc is different than just church of christ.

I like the UMC as well. What I like about the UCC is that you do not have to subscribe to a doctrine if you're not ready or do not agree.

They believe that God meets you where you are. Whatever stage in life you are...He will meet you there.

Most importantly, they don't require a man made belief set in order to be saved.

The COC is vastly different from the UCC. No relation whatsoever..except in name alone.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Challenge: there is not one verse in the Bible that teaches the trinity--3 persons, all 3 God, actually one person.

conclusion: If this were the "cardinal doctrine" of every mainstream church, it should be clearly and explicitely taught in at least one verse.

To explain the Trinity just look at your own being/kind.
You are an Adam person =a person/soul in the Adam "spirit". That is Bible teaching. Do you know how many persons there are, multiplied in the one Adam spirit?
Did you know that there were two Adam persons in the beginning, made of only one Adam kind spirit, and they were commanded to multiply "Adam"? [Malachi 2:15 -Adam is one spirit, and made male and female persons to multiply the seed]
YHWH does not multiply, but YHWH is a multiplicity of three persons, always self existing; and all His created spirits of all created flesh are multiplicities of many, many, many, many... billions of persons.

Biblically, there are persons in Adam and there are Persons in YHWH.
First, there were two Adam persons, the male firstborn Adam and the female taken from him, with her own remnant of the one Adam spirit, flesh, bone, and blood.
Genesis 5:2 Male and female made He them and called their name Adam...
Look at the Hebrew word Adam, in the concordance: Adam multiplied, as commanded, on the face of the earth. Genesis 6:2
Gen 6:1
And it came to pass, when Adam began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
Eze 27:13 Javan, Tubal, and Meshech, they [were] thy merchants: they traded the persons/souls of Adam and vessels of brass in thy market.
YHWH is one Spirit, uncreated and self existing, and, biblically, YHWH exists in three Persons, and only one is ever "YHWH SEEN", and that One is the only Similitude of YHWH any created being will ever see, and Adam is made in His own bodily image -which was to come, as Romans 5:14 states.

Adam is one created spirit, and the one Adam spirit exists in every multiplied Adam person: each fruit has its own share -or remnant- of the one Adam spirit, so to speak, in a biblical manner .
The one created Adam spirit is even what obeys YHWH and multiplies the Adam souls/persons, by being the force inherent in Adam to drive Adam to obey the command to be fruitful and multiply the Adam kind, on the face of the earth.

So persons in the kinds/spirits is the doctrine of the Word of God.
YHWH is One Spirit, three Persons. Adam -your own kind- is one spirit, and many multiplied and multiplying billions of persons, male and female persons.

 

[steve4.truth]

Nice theory, but no scriptural proof.

 

[steve4.truth]

The Encyclopædia Britannica relates: "Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed . . . the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, 'of one substance with the Father' . . . Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination."



Also, why did so few bishops even attend??? Just a fraction of the bishops went--likely those who were more open to input from a secular ruler on spiritual matters.


And why didn't they clarify the role of the Holy Spirit in that first council if the trinity is obviously biblical? The trinity wasn't even discussed--only the deity of Jesus.

 

[Der Alte]

The Encyclopædia Britannica relates: "Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed . . . the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, 'of one substance with the Father' . . . Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination."

Once upon a time when I was in grad school, among other sources, I cited an article from the Ency. Brit. My professor's assistant bled all over it, i.e. scrawled across it with red pen, something to the effect, "Do you consider this a scholarly source?" I silently said not any more I don't. Now a question for you. Do you consider the EB, a secular source, reliable for anything relating to the Christian faith?

Here are the names of several historians who lived concurrent with Nicaea, and wrote about it, Eusebius, Lactantius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and Rufinus. None of them support the EB. According to the real history, Constantine spoke only at the opening ceremony and throughout the council his bishop spoke for him. He did not even vote.

Also, why did so few bishops even attend??? Just a fraction of the bishops went--likely those who were more open to input from a secular ruler on spiritual matters.

I can think of some reasons other than your presumption that the 300+ bishops who attended were liars, cowards, heretics, or worse, with NO, ZERO, NONE evidence. They had to travel by walking or horse/donkey back hundreds and hundreds of miles in all kinds inhospitable terrain, forests, wilderness, mountains, desert, etc. with the danger of being attacked by bandits at every turn. And virtually every Christian alive at the time had survived years of Roman persecution facing torture and death on a daily basis because they would not worship the emperor and the other Roman deities. Why would Christians who had survived such persecution suddenly without so much as whimper allow anyone to force anything pagan on the church just because Constantine asked them nicely?

And why didn't they clarify the role of the Holy Spirit in that first council if the trinity is obviously biblical? The trinity wasn't even discussed--only the deity of Jesus.

Showing that you have not even familiarized yourself with the issues. The council was convened to deal with the specific heresy of Arianism. And the Holy Spirit was in fact mentioned.

And OBTW the quote from the EB you are posting from a 2d or 3d hand source is the 1917 edition which is in the public domain. More recent editions which have much better scholarly research does not contain the information you posted.

 

[Der Alte]

Nice theory, but no scriptural proof.

Here are eleven passages, from the list of 86, below, that are unique. Each passage shows Father, Son, and Holy Spirit having a different relationship, effect, role, etc., with respect to believers. For example, #2, believers are saved by, the kindness and love of God our Saviour, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy, Ghost, shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour.

(1.) 2 Co 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.

(2.) Tit 3:4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;

(3.) Jud 1:20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

(4.) 1 Pe 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, [Repeated three times, cf. 2 Th 2.13, Ro 15:16] unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: [Repeated twice, cf. Heb 9.14]Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

(5.) Luk 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing, which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God,.

(6.) Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost,.
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call,.

(7.) Rom 15:16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ, to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost,.

(8.) Rom 15:12 And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse,, and he, that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him, shall the Gentiles trust.
13 Now the God of hope, fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost,.

(9.) Heb 9.14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit, offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!,

(10.) 2 Thess 2.13 But we ought always to thank God, for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God, chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, and through belief in the truth.
14 He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ,.

(11.) I Cor 12.3 Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.
4 There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit.,
5 There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord.,
6 There are different kinds of working, but the same God, works all of them in all men.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><
The Gospels and Acts

Matt 1.18-22, Matt 3.9-11, Matt 3.16-17, Matt 4.1-4, Matt 10.19-23, Matt 28.19, Mark 12.35-37, Lk 1.15-17, Lk 1.30-35, Lk 1.67-69, Lk 2.25-32, Lk 4.12-13, Lk 10.21, Lk 12.8-10, Jn 1.32-34, Jn 3.31-35, Jn 14.15-17, Jn 14.25, Jn 15.26, Jn 16.7-10, Jn 16:13-15, Jn 20.16-22, Acts 1.4-5, Acts 1.7-8, Acts 2.32-33, Acts 2.38-39, Acts 4.8-10, Acts 4.24-26, Act 4.29-31, Acts 5.30-32, Acts 7.51-56, Acts 8.14-17, Acts 9.15-20Acts 10.38, Acts 11.15-17, Acts 11.23-24, Acts 15.7-11, Acts 16.6-10, Acts 20.22-24, Acts 28.23-25.

The Pauline writings

Rom 1.1-4, Rom 5.1-5, Rom 8.9-11, Rom 8.13-16, Rom 8.26-29, Rom 14.15-17, Rom 15.16, Rom 15.18-19, Rom 15.30, I Cor 2.8-10, I Cor 2.14-16, I Cor 6.9-11, I Cor 6.14-19, I Cor 12.3-5, 2 Cor 1.20-22, 2 Cor 3.3-4, 2 Cor 13.14, Gal 3.1-5, Gal 4.4-6, Gal 5.21-25, Eph 2.17-18, Eph 3.14-17, Eph 4.4-6, Eph 4.30-32, Eph 5.18-20, Phil 3.3, I Thess 1.4-6, 2 Thess 2.13-14, I Tim 3.15-16, Titus 3.4-6.

The General Epistles

Heb 2.3-4, Heb 6.3-6, Heb 9.14 Heb 10.29-31, I Pet 1.2, I Pet 3.18, I Pet 4.14, I Jn 3.21-24, I Jn 4.13-14, I Jn 5.6-9.

Rev 14:12-13, 22:17-18,​

 

[The Gregorian]

Do you consider the EB, a secular source, reliable for anything relating to the Christian faith?

So, we're barred from using secular sources. We're barred from using any religious sources if they disagree with orthodoxy... We must support our opinions only using the human opinion of members of your chosen congregation?

How objective.

According to the real history, Constantine spoke only at the opening ceremony and throughout the council his bishop spoke for him. He did not even vote.

Of course he didn't "vote." It wasn't a "voting" situation. The bishops gave their counsel, and he announced what "truth" was after having listened to their counsel... just like a parent listens to his child's suggestion, then makes the same decision he would have made had the child not spoke. However, letting the child (or in this case, "The church") argue before giving his opinion, he gave them the illusion that his opinion was based on their debate.

It's like the ancient proverb: What's the only way to get a woman to do what you want? Make her think it was her idea.

Since we're talking about "real history" ... where are you getting this "real history" from? You're making a claim that all these sources are wrong, however your source is completely accurate with NO, ZERO, NONE actual references.

Why would Christians who had survived such persecution suddenly without so much as whimper allow anyone to force anything pagan on the church just because Constantine asked them nicely?

The question isn't "why would Christians who have been persecuted by the roman government for so long finally give in?" ... but rather... why are YOU under the impression that the same empire that had been persecuting Christians for SO long finally just said "oh, nvm, we're going to be nice now and just let you have your way?"

Think about it from a pagan Emporer's perspective.

And the Holy Spirit was in fact mentioned.

According to what? Because every report I've ever read on the Nicene creed was that the major point of debate was the diety of Christ. That because he was the Son of God, and because "kind begets kind" that Jesus must be the same kind as the one who begat him... i.e. his Father was a "God", therefore he must be of the "God"kind as well. This shows a second God-being... there was no talk about him being "equal" or "the same being" until decades later.

And OBTW the quote from the EB you are posting from a 2d or 3d hand source is the 1917 edition which is in the public domain. More recent editions which have much better scholarly research does not contain the information you posted.

this is dandy. When we give our opinion, you dismiss it because "the JWs have only been around for 100 years! And other congregations have been around for much longer!" ... yet, they give a reference you disagree with, then provide a LATER reference saying it's more updated?

So, which is it? Are newer sources "better because they are updated?" Or, are we to trust older sources because they're older?

Either way, it's fallacious... although I'm not sure what the proper term would be for "saying something's right solely on the basis of it being older/newer." What's the term for that?

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Nice theory, but no scriptural proof.

No Scripture proof for what? -persons in the single kinds? Yes there is, and I gave it.

Genesis 5:2 Male and female made He them and called their name Adam...
Look at the Hebrew word "Adam", in the concordance: Adam multiplied, as commanded, on the face of the earth. Genesis 6:2
Gen 6:1
And it came to pass, when Adam began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
Eze 27:13 Javan, Tubal, and Meshech, they [were] thy merchants: they traded the persons/souls of Adam and vessels of brass in thy market.

There are persons in Adam and there are persons in YHWH. In Adam, there are two persons, in the beginning, in Genesis 1; and in Genesis 5:2, the Scripture says "male and female made He them and called their name "Adam".
The male and female, called "Adam" =two persons in Adam; and Adam multiplied the created seed in the loins of the firstborn Adam, as Genesis tells us, and filled the face of the earth with multiplied Adam persons.
YHWH Elohym, who created the single kinds as multiplicities, exists in a multiplicity of exactly three Persons and is unchanging and not multiplying.

In Genesis 1, there are persons in the uncreated YHWH Elohym who speak with each other -"Let Us" and who made Adam in their own, single, one/echad image/similitude.
In Romans 5:14 that image which Adam is made in is of Jesus Christ who was to come, and who is come in flesh of second Man creation, as the second Adam, the Redeemer/Kinsman of Adam, and who is YHWH the Word, come in that flesh.

"Let Us" make Adam in our [single] similitude/image, said YHWH Elohym. YHWH is revealed as a multiplicity from Genesis 1, and revealed as three Persons throughout the Word, with "One", single/echad image, and Adam was made in that image, the image of God the Word, who is come in flesh.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

On the indivudual kinds: the word Adam is translated as "man", in the English, and all mankind, then, is Adamkind. J
esus Christ is YHWHkind, and is dressed [incarnated] in a second creation human being body of flesh, and therefore is dual natured, being YHWH the Word as to His Deity, and Israel, the second creation human being son of God.

His name is not "Adam", in the Word of God, as second creation Firstborn of earth, but is Israel, in the Word. If He was an Adam person, as we are, then He would not be the second Man, and would not be without sin, and would not have "Life" to give or lay down for anyone, for no Adam person has "Life" in himself nor can any Adam person bring any acceptable gift for redemption before the Glory, as a son of God, in the heavenly Holies. Adam, being defiled, defiles all gifts that he touches or which touch him, as Haggai chapter 2 expresses so well.
For that reason, YHWH put on the clothing of second creation human being "Firstborn Ish" of earth, to redeem us and our dominion which was lost in the fall, back, for the Glory -as the Word of God teaches us.