God became a Man For us but what if to Stay as a Man Forever

This would explain why the devil is hoppin mad. Mankind is Gods greatest, and will judge the angels. Lucifer went on the war path, the idiot.

So iniquity was found in Lucifer who used to hold the position at the apex of Gods throne, and we get the devils bargain. That's what this world in tow is all about. devil made a deal with God. No sittin back just thinking....I wonder who will win that one....the Creator of all or the whiner boy come lately.

My friend Brenda wrote that Jesus became man and then got His immortal body which passed through the walls....but once inside Jesus asked...hey....ya got anything to crunch on....any food! Brenda wrots that He will remain forever in that body....blew me away man.....God is a Spirit!

it fits Scripture stating that Jesus is the heir to God....I always conjectured on that. that explains it well.....

this thread meaning that Jesus in His immortal man body will stay forever

I always pictued God floating off to a spirit place and sweeping down through the crowd now and then....in the after world

.

a reply to: GBP/JPY

So no new spiritual bodys like we been taught in church then? I think you got it wrong yo.

so, one could take away from this thread that what we see in our online news headlines is the devil getting evicted.....

a reply to: GBP/JPY

Dude..I want some of what your having. Sounds like a hoot.

a reply to: GBP/JPY
Of course he is [also] still a man. His body was raised from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and there is no reason to imagine that he has lost it since.

This is all explained in the Athanasian creed, printed in the Anglican prayer-book sitting on my bookshelves.

The important point is that Christ is BOTH God AND man.
These two aspects are united "not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by taking of the manhood into God." In other words. the incarnation wasn't "God changing from one thing to another"; it was an addition, the act of bringing two things together.

a reply to: DISRAELI

The important point is that Christ is BOTH God AND man.

And also called the "Lamb of God" what's that all about.

And "new Adam" "Second Adam" and "Last Adam" very confusing.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: GBP/JPY
Of course he is [also] still a man. His body was raised from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and there is no reason to imagine that he has lost it since.

This is all explained in the Athanasian creed, printed in the Anglican prayer-book sitting on my bookshelves.

The important point is that Christ is BOTH God AND man.
These two aspects are united "not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by taking of the manhood into God." In other words. the incarnation wasn't "God changing from one thing to another"; it was an addition, the act of bringing two things together.

Good answer to paradigm

a reply to: olaru12
Explanations of those terms would take us way off topic, but I've done threads relating to both "Lamb" and "Second Adam". I'll try to track them down and link them.


Lamb of God
Second or Last Adam

I'm glad I did that Bible thread Index. I don't know about anybody else, but I'm certainly finding it useful.

a reply to: GBP/JPY

Jesus is called the second Adam for a reason. He didn't magically become nonhuman when he rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. He is still every bit as human as he was when he was born into this world. This is why he can claim to be our high priest standing before his Father on our behalf as our intercessor. A nonhuman cannot claim to represent us on anything. The scripture below is all the proof you should need that Jesus did not change his form when he went to heaven.

(Acts 1:9-11) "And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. [10] And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; [11] Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven."

a reply to: Dcopymope
All of us loose physical form upon dying. Our eternal spirit/soul leaves that body and retains the experience (another life experience/individualization of that soul progression added to other lifetimes).

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: Dcopymope
All of us loose physical form upon dying. Our eternal spirit/soul leaves that body and retains the experience (another life experience/individualization of that soul progression added to other lifetimes).

But the physical form never actually disappears. Paul shows this to be the case when discussing what happens at the resurrection for instance. When the saints are resurrected, its not a different body, its the same body he was born with made new. The earthly tabernacle is "clothed upon" by the heavenly tabernacle God prepared for the believers.

(2 Corinthians 5:1-8) "For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. [2] For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: [3] If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. [4] For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life. [5] Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit. [6] Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: [7] (For we walk by faith, not by sight[8] We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord."

Also, notice Paul says that even though our bodies are dissolved, that exact same earthly tabernacle is still "clothed upon" with the tabernacle from heaven. What does this prove scientifically? As far as I can see this backs up the law of conservation of Mass, which says that atoms, the thing everything is made of can neither be created nor destroyed, it only changes into another form. So even though a body appears to be "dissolved", its technically still there, otherwise, God wouldn't have anything to "cloth upon" with the body from heaven to start with. We were made as "living souls", which is the union of the body with the spirit, not "living spirits", which is something else entirely. This is further proven to be the case in scriptures like the one below where the saints in heaven are defined as "souls". You aren't considered a living being as some disembodied spirit. The only time where the atom will be destroyed is at the end of days, when God burns away heaven and earth in replacement for the new heaven and earth to come.

(Revelation 6:9-11) "And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: [10] And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? [11] And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled."

a reply to: Dcopymope
He mentioned Paul (did he mention Paul)?

Jesus, God's Son, dwelled on earth as a man.

“But will God really dwell on the earth? Look! The heavens, yes, the heaven of the heavens, cannot contain you; how much less, then, this house that I have built!” (1 Kings 8:27)

Myth: Mary Is the Mother of God

What is the origin of the myth?

“Veneration of the mother of God received its impetus when . . . the pagan masses streamed into the church. . . . Their piety and religious consciousness [that of pagans converted to Christianity] had been formed for millennia through the cult of the ‘great mother’ goddess and the ‘divine virgin.’”​—The New Encyclopædia Britannica (1988), Volume 16, pages 326 and 327.

What does the Bible say?

“You are to conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you must name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High. . . . And so the child will be holy and will be called Son of God.”​—Italics mine; Luke 1:31-35, The New Jerusalem Bible.

That passage of Scripture clearly states that Mary was the mother of the “Son of God,” not of God himself. Could she have carried within her the One whom ‘the heavens themselves cannot contain’? (1 Kings 8:27) She never made such a claim. It is the teaching about the Trinity that has sown confusion over the identity of Mary. By proclaiming her Theotokos (a Greek word meaning “God-bearer”), or “Mother of God,” the Council of Ephesus, in 431 C.E., set the stage for Mary worship. The city of Ephesus where this church council was held had for centuries been at the heart of idol worship celebrating the fertility goddess Artemis.

So it was that many aspects of the worship of the image of Artemis that “fell from heaven,” such as processions, were integrated into Mary worship. (Acts 19:35) Another practice that crept into Christian teaching was the use of images of Mary and others in worship.

Compare these Bible verses: Matthew 13:53-56; Mark 3:31-35; Luke 11:27, 28

FACT:

Mary was the mother of the Son of God, not of God himself. The Trinity myth gave birth to the worship of Mary as the Mother of God

Myth 6: God Approves of the Use of Images and Icons in Worship (One Myth Leads to Another)
Myth 4: God Is a Trinity

2 Timothy 4:3,4:

For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* [Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”] 4 They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.* [KJV: “myths”; Greek: myʹthos]

REJECT MYTHS, STICK TO THE TRUTH

What can we conclude from this brief review of myths that are still taught by many churches? These “tales [Greek, myʹthos] artfully spun” cannot rival the simple and comforting truths of the Bible.​—2 Peter 1:16, The New English Bible.

Therefore, with an open mind, do not hesitate to compare with God’s Word​—the source of truth—​what you have been taught. (John 17:17) Then, this promise will prove true in your case: “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”​—John 8:32.

Source: see link for myth 6 before (at the very end)

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: GBP/JPY
... His body was raised from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and there is no reason to imagine that he has lost it since.

How about this reason, inconveniently* pointed out by God's Word of truth (*: inconvenient to some that is):

“But I tell you this, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s Kingdom, nor does corruption inherit incorruption.” (1 Corinthians 15:50)

Incorruption (Greek, a·phthar·siʹa) refers to that which cannot decay or be corrupted, that which is imperishable. Having lived, served faithfully, and died in mortal, corruptible human bodies, the resurrected anointed ones receive an incorruptible spirit body. (1Co 15:44) Such a body that is “raised up in incorruption” will inherently be beyond decay or destruction and will apparently be self-sustaining.

NO BODILY RESURRECTION

Nowhere in the Scriptures do we read that the bodies of the dead will be raised up; even though the so-called Apostles’ Creed does teach the resurrection of the human body. The “dead,” yes, but not the “dead bodies.” Dead persons will be resurrected in God’s due time, and they will be given a suitable body; they will have the same personality. Note the clear reasoning of the apostle Paul on this matter in regard to the resurrection of the Christian holy ones: “‘How are the dead to be raised up? Yes, with what kind of body are they coming?’ . . . What you sow is not made alive unless first it dies; and as for what you sow, you sow, not the body that will develop, but a bare grain, . . . but God gives it a body just as it has pleased him . . . So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption, it is raised up in incorruption. . . . It is sown a physical body, it is raised up a spiritual body. . . . flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s kingdom, neither does corruption inherit incorruption.”—1 Cor. 15:35-38, 42-44, 50.

Regarding the resurrection, the Bible does not teach the raising of the human body.

This is all explained in the Athanasian creed, printed in the Anglican prayer-book sitting on my bookshelves.

The important point is that Christ is BOTH God AND man.
These two aspects are united "not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by taking of the manhood into God." In other words. the incarnation wasn't "God changing from one thing to another"; it was an addition, the act of bringing two things together.

Nice quotations, tellingly and typical though, they're not from God('s Word), any actual scriptures to support your eisegesis that teach any of those things? Eisegesis is the process of interpreting text in such a way as to introduce one's own presuppositions, agendas or biases. It is commonly referred to as reading into the text. (Wikipedia) The interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one's own ideas. (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary)

You may give a demonstration regarding the quotations you used and accompanying claims if you can't resist, your teachings are a bit hollow now as they are anyway. But it's not required nor requested nor encouraged nor recommended. Rather, “Do your utmost to present yourself approved to God, a workman with nothing to be ashamed of, handling the word of the truth aright. But reject empty [hollow] speeches that violate what is holy, for they will lead to more and more ungodliness, and their word will spread like gangrene.” (2 Timothy 2:15-17; between brackets was mine) “Guard what has been entrusted to you, turning away from the empty speeches that violate what is holy and from the contradictions of the falsely called “knowledge.” By making a show of such knowledge, some have deviated from the faith.

May the undeserved kindness be with you.” (1 Timothy 6:20,21)

“Look out that no one takes you captive by means of the philosophy and empty deception according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ”. (Colossians 2:8)

originally posted by: whereislogic
How about this reason, inconveniently* pointed out by God's Word of truth (*: inconvenient to some that is):

“But I tell you this, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s Kingdom, nor does corruption inherit incorruption.” (1 Corinthians 15:50)

I refer you to the very next verse;
WE SHALL ALL BE CHANGED.
It will still be a body, just a different kind of body.

That is the point of Paul's explanation. Your objection is the one that Paul quotes in v35, and he is in the middle of answering it. He is engaged in criticising people who say there will be no bodily resurrectiton.
Just take the trouble to read the whole thing, for yourself. It's also important here to take the trouble to do your own thinking, instead of copy-pasting pages of text from people who are determined to evade what Paul is saying.

I note your definition of eisegesis, which I knew, and I must point out that your blind guides are the experts. That's why they don't really want you to read the full text by yourself and do your own thinking. If you insist on following them, they will lead you into a ditch.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: GBP/JPY
...
This is all explained in the Athanasian creed, printed in the Anglican prayer-book sitting on my bookshelves.

Talking about the Athanasian Creed...first a bit of background (see bolded part concerning the Athanasian Creed):

How Did the Trinity Doctrine Develop?

At this point you might ask: ‘If the Trinity is not a Biblical teaching, how did it become a doctrine of Christendom?’ Many think that it was formulated at the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E.

That is not totally correct, however. The Council of Nicaea did assert that Christ was of the same substance as God, which laid the groundwork for later Trinitarian theology. But it did not establish the Trinity, for at that council there was no mention of the holy spirit as the third person of a triune Godhead.

Constantine’s Role at Nicaea

For many years, there had been much opposition on Biblical grounds to the developing idea that Jesus was God. To try to solve the dispute, Roman emperor Constantine summoned all bishops to Nicaea. About 300, a fraction of the total, actually attended.

Constantine was not a Christian. Supposedly, he converted later in life, but he was not baptized until he lay dying. Regarding him, Henry Chadwick says in The Early Church: “Constantine, like his father, worshipped the Unconquered Sun; . . . his conversion should not be interpreted as an inward experience of grace . . . It was a military matter. His comprehension of Christian doctrine was never very clear, but he was sure that victory in battle lay in the gift of the God of the Christians.”

What role did this unbaptized emperor play at the Council of Nicaea? 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.”

Hence, Constantine’s role was crucial. After two months of furious religious debate, this pagan politician intervened and decided in favor of those who said that Jesus was God. But why? Certainly not because of any Biblical conviction. “Constantine had basically no understanding whatsoever of the questions that were being asked in Greek theology,” says A Short History of Christian Doctrine. What he did understand was that religious division was a threat to his empire, and he wanted to solidify his domain.

None of the bishops at Nicaea promoted a Trinity, however. They decided only the nature of Jesus but not the role of the holy spirit. If a Trinity had been a clear Bible truth, should they not have proposed it at that time?

Further Development

After Nicaea, debates on the subject continued for decades. Those who believed that Jesus was not equal to God even came back into favor for a time. But later Emperor Theodosius decided against them. He established the creed of the Council of Nicaea as the standard for his realm and convened the Council of Constantinople in 381 C.E. to clarify the formula.

That council agreed to place the holy spirit on the same level as God and Christ. For the first time, Christendom’s Trinity began to come into focus.

Yet, even after the Council of Constantinople, the Trinity did not become a widely accepted creed. Many opposed it and thus brought on themselves violent persecution. It was only in later centuries that the Trinity was formulated into set creeds. The Encyclopedia Americana notes: “The full development of Trinitarianism took place in the West, in the Scholasticism of the Middle Ages, when an explanation was undertaken in terms of philosophy and psychology.”

The Athanasian Creed

The Trinity was defined more fully in the Athanasian Creed. Athanasius was a clergyman who supported Constantine at Nicaea. The creed that bears his name declares: “We worship one God in Trinity . . . The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God; and yet they are not three gods, but one God.”

Well-informed scholars agree, however, that Athanasius did not compose this creed. The New Encyclopædia Britannica comments: “The creed was unknown to the Eastern Church until the 12th century. Since the 17th century, scholars have generally agreed that the Athanasian Creed was not written by Athanasius (died 373) but was probably composed in southern France during the 5th century. . . . The creed’s influence seems to have been primarily in southern France and Spain in the 6th and 7th centuries. It was used in the liturgy of the church in Germany in the 9th century and somewhat later in Rome.”

So it took centuries from the time of Christ for the Trinity to become widely accepted in Christendom. And in all of this, what guided the decisions? Was it the Word of God, or was it clerical and political considerations? In Origin and Evolution of Religion, E. W. Hopkins answers: “The final orthodox definition of the trinity was largely a matter of church politics.”

Apostasy Foretold

THIS disreputable history of the Trinity fits in with what Jesus and his apostles foretold would follow their time. They said that there would be an apostasy, a deviation, a falling away from true worship until Christ’s return, when true worship would be restored before God’s day of destruction of this system of things.

Regarding that “day,” the apostle Paul said: “It will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed.” (2 Thessalonians 2:3, 7) Later, he foretold: “When I have gone fierce wolves will invade you and will have no mercy on the flock. Even from your own ranks there will be men coming forward with a travesty of the truth on their lips to induce the disciples to follow them.” (Acts 20:29, 30, JB) Other disciples of Jesus also wrote of this apostasy with its ‘lawless’ clergy class.—See, for example, 2 Peter 2:1; 1 John 4:1-3; Jude 3, 4.

Paul also wrote: “The time is sure to come when, far from being content with sound teaching, people will be avid for the latest novelty and collect themselves a whole series of teachers according to their own tastes; and then, instead of listening to the truth, they will turn to myths.”—2 Timothy 4:3, 4, JB.

Jesus himself explained what was behind this falling away from true worship. He said that he had sowed good seeds but that the enemy, Satan, would oversow the field with weeds. So along with the first blades of wheat, the weeds appeared also. Thus, a deviation from pure Christianity was to be expected until the harvest, when Christ would set matters right. (Matthew 13:24-43) The Encyclopedia Americana comments: “Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.” Where, then, did this deviation originate?—1 Timothy 1:6.

What Influenced It

THROUGHOUT the ancient world, as far back as Babylonia, the worship of pagan gods grouped in threes, or triads, was common. That influence was also prevalent in Egypt, Greece, and Rome in the centuries before, during, and after Christ. And after the death of the apostles, such pagan beliefs began to invade Christianity.

Historian Will Durant observed: “Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. . . . From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity.” And in the book Egyptian Religion, Siegfried Morenz notes: “The trinity was a major preoccupation of Egyptian theologians . . . Three gods are combined and treated as a single being, addressed in the singular. In this way the spiritual force of Egyptian religion shows a direct link with Christian theology.”

Thus, in Alexandria, Egypt, churchmen of the late third and early fourth centuries, such as Athanasius, reflected this influence as they formulated ideas that led to the Trinity. Their own influence spread, so that Morenz considers “Alexandrian theology as the intermediary between the Egyptian religious heritage and Christianity.”

In the preface to Edward Gibbon’s History of Christianity, we read: “If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians . . . was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief.”

A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge notes that many say that the Trinity “is a corruption borrowed from the heathen religions, and ingrafted on the Christian faith.” And The Paganism in Our Christianity declares: “The origin of the [Trinity] is entirely pagan.”

That is why, in the Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics, James Hastings wrote: “In Indian religion, e.g., we meet with the trinitarian group of Brahmā, Siva, and Viṣṇu; and in Egyptian religion with the trinitarian group of Osiris, Isis, and Horus . . . Nor is it only in historical religions that we find God viewed as a Trinity. One recalls in particular the Neo-Platonic view of the Supreme or Ultimate Reality,” which is “triadically represented.” What does the Greek philosopher Plato have to do with the Trinity? (I'll come back to that in my next comment)

The Bible was completed in the first century C.E. Teachings that led to the development of the Trinity began to be officially formulated in 325 C.E.—more than two centuries later—at a council in the city of Nicaea in Asia Minor, now Iznik, Turkey. According to the New Catholic Encyclopedia, the creed attributed to the Council of Nicaea set out the first official definition of ‘Christian orthodoxy,’ including the definition of God and Christ. Why, though, was it deemed necessary to define God and Christ centuries after the Bible was completed? Is the Bible unclear on these important topics?

What the Nicene Creed says:

“We believe . . . in one Lord Jesus Christ . . . that is of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God.”

“The Nicene Creed is actually not the product of the First Council of Nicea (325) . . . but of the First Council of Constantinople (381),” says The New Westminster Dictionary of Church History. (what's up with all these misleading labels for their Creeds? The Athanasian Creed isn't actually from Athanasius, the Nicene Creed isn't actually from Nicaea)

“The Council of Nicea in 325 stated the crucial formula for [the yet future Trinity] doctrine in its confession that the Son is ‘of the same substance . . . as the Father.’”—Encyclopædia Britannica.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Platonism

PLATO, it is thought, lived from 428 to 347 before Christ. While he did not teach the Trinity in its present form, his philosophies paved the way for it. Later, philosophical movements that included triadic beliefs sprang up, and these were influenced by Plato’s ideas of God and nature.

The French Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel (New Universal Dictionary) says of Plato’s influence: “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge shows the influence of this Greek philosophy: “The doctrines of the Logos and the Trinity received their shape from Greek Fathers, who . . . were much influenced, directly or indirectly, by the Platonic philosophy . . . That errors and corruptions crept into the Church from this source can not be denied.”

The Church of the First Three Centuries says: “The doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late formation; . . . it had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures; . . . it grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing Fathers.”

By the end of the third century C.E., “Christianity” and the new Platonic philosophies became inseparably united. As Adolf Harnack states in Outlines of the History of Dogma, church doctrine became “firmly rooted in the soil of Hellenism [pagan Greek thought]. Thereby it became a mystery to the great majority of Christians.”

The church claimed that its new doctrines were based on the Bible. But Harnack says: “In reality it legitimized in its midst the Hellenic speculation, the superstitious views and customs of pagan mystery-worship.”

In the book A Statement of Reasons, Andrews Norton says of the Trinity: “We can trace the history of this doctrine, and discover its source, not in the Christian revelation, but in the Platonic philosophy . . . The Trinity is not a doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, but a fiction of the school of the later Platonists.”

Thus, in the fourth century C.E., the apostasy foretold by Jesus and the apostles came into full bloom. Development of the Trinity was just one evidence of this. The apostate churches also began embracing other pagan ideas, such as hellfire, immortality of the soul, and idolatry. Spiritually speaking, Christendom had entered its foretold dark ages, dominated by a growing “man of lawlessness” clergy class.—2 Thessalonians 2:3, 7.

Coming back the the Nicene Creed, does the Bible teach that the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit are three persons in one God? For one thing, Jesus never claimed to be equal to God. Instead, Jesus worshipped God. (Luke 22:41-44) Another line of evidence concerns Jesus’ relationship with his followers. Even after he was raised from the dead to the spirit realm, Jesus called his followers “my brothers.” (Matthew 28:10) Were they brothers of Almighty God? Of course not! But through their faith in Christ—God’s preeminent Son—they too became sons of the one Father. (Galatians 3:26) Compare some additional scriptures with the following statement from the creed misleadingly* attributed to the Council of Nicaea. (*: as discussed before regarding the term "Nicene Creed" for a creed that is the product of the First Council of Constantinople in 381, almost 60 years after the First Council of Nicea in 325)

What the Nicene Creed says:

“We believe . . . in one Lord Jesus Christ . . . that is of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God.”

What the Bible says:

“My Father is greater than I [Jesus].”—John 14:28. * [Italics mine. All the quotations in this section are from the King James Version.]

“I [Jesus] ascend unto my Father, and your Father, and to my God, and your God.”—John 20:17.

“To us there is but one God, the Father.”—1 Corinthians 8:6.

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”—1 Peter 1:3.

“These things saith the Amen [Jesus], . . . the beginning of the creation of God.”—Revelation 3:14.

“The Christian Bible, including the New Testament, has no trinitarian statements or speculations concerning a trinitary deity.”—Encyclopædia Britannica.

“The doctrine of the trinity . . . is not a product of the earliest Christian period, and we do not find it carefully expressed before the end of the second century.”—Library of Early Christianity—Gods and the One God.

“In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the [Catholic] Church had to develop her own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin.”—Catechism of the Catholic Church.

a reply to: whereislogic
Not germane to the response I gave you.
I did suggest that you read the chapter yourself, properly, and do your own thinking. That's what they're afraid of.

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
this thread meaning that Jesus in His immortal man body will stay forever

I always pictued God floating off to a spirit place and sweeping down through the crowd now and then....in the after world

.

God is not a thing that can be captured by mind.

Where is that Moon that never rises or sets?
Where is that soul that is neither with nor without us?
Don't say it is here or there.
All creation is Him but for the eyes that can see..
...rumi