Did you take English in College?
If God is coming from God you have two God's, no matter what substance they are.
The personal distinctions have nothing to do with anyone begetting anyone in eternity.
I said I was done debating the Nicene Creed, go back and read what I said. I don’t follow Traditions of the men, you do, the traditions of some backwoods Pastor who came up with some interpretation of scripture in the 19th century in wherever rural U.S, and now you question the Nicene Creed.
No need to go back to anything you said, the Creed is very clear, it has the Son coming from the Father in eternity, which means there was a moment in time that the Son didn't exist.
The Bible is the sole authority. Says Who??????????? You? O.K. Mr. Fundy Baptist, show me where it says “The Bible is the final authority for every believer, not the traditions of men” in the Sacred Scripture and no, 2 Timothy 3:16 ain’t gonna cut it. It does not say what you want it to say. Furthermore, St. Paul writes that the Church is the “pillar and foundation of Truth” (1 Tim 3:15) which contradicts your position of Fundalmentalist “Sola Scriptura”
Paul wasn't speaking about the Roman Catholic Church which denies the doctrines he wrote about, salvation by faith without works.
John did mention your 'church' in Rev.17 however, not a good ending for it.
Further more, Tradition is not bad, for all it means is “to pass on”. So lets take the passage you cite from St. Mark. making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye’(Mk.7:13) Your KJ citation does not reject Tradition. It rejcts Traditions of Man that reject God’s Word, which are just that Traditions of Man that are not rooted in the revelation of Christ. Tradition in and of itself is not bad. I am sure you celebrate July 4th, Memorial day in a certain fashion that was passed down from your Granfather, Father, etc. that, defacto is “Tradition”, and it in no way contradicts the Word of God.
Traditions are bad when they are substituted for the word of God, and that was Christ was rebuking the Pharisee's for.
No different then your 'church' does.
For that matter, St. Paul states “Therefore brothers, stand firm and hold to the Traditions that you were taught, by and oral statement or letter of ours” (cf. 2 Thes 3:16). St. Paul as the notion of Tradition in mind when he writes “For I received from the Lord what I handed on to You...” (cf. 1 Cor 11:23), since none of the NT Gospels had been written yet. St. Paul received the Tradition of the Eucharist from the Lord via the Apostles and the Church.
The 'traditions' that Paul refers to are the ones he was instructing the Thessalonians to obey the traditions that he taught them (2Thess.3:6).
No such nonsense of the 'Eucharist' in the early centuries of the church.
In addition, I find it interesting that “Tradition” is used when Fundamentalist types, such as yourself, when citing a passage that “you think” rejects Tradition, i.e. when you cite Mk 7:13. However, the NIV and KJ versions use the word “teachings” when citing 2 Thes 3:16 when the words are the same. Why the difference in citing? hmmmmmmmmm
I cited the KJB, that is why tradition is the correct word.
But the Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims has tradition, not teachings, as well.
Again, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all Co-Eternal in their Divinity. You have it wrong and will not admit it. The Catholic Church has never, does not now, and will never teach anything But ONE GOD. Period. God From God means Christ is the same Substance and was not a lesser substance that the Father, which is what Arius taught. Back to the phrase eternally begotten, that put to rest any form of subordinationism.
Now, how can they be co-eternal if one is coming from the other?
Throwing in words, doesn't change what is being said in substance.
The Nicene Creed is teaching two God's, by stating that 'God came from God'.
That they are the same substance is irrelevant to that fact.
The fact that Arius taught that they had a different substance is also irrelevant.
What is relevant is that the Nicene Creed is teaching that God 2 came from God 1
You just can't add one plus one.
Your 'church' tells you not to believe what the Creed actually is saying, and you just blindly obey.
You would even deny that 1 and 1 equals two.
So my eyes are wide open, you need to stop thinking Christianity and Doctrine started with “you reading the Bible” You say you are concerned with what the Scriptures teach.. which again means I am concerned with what I intepret them to teach.
You are as blind as the Pharisse's who claimed they could see (Jn.9:41)
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.