I have my doubts that Catholicism is Christianity

Hiddenthings said:

Christ’s reference to Abraham @David Lamb affirms his pre-eminence in God’s purpose, not his pre-existence. The Jews had claimed Abraham as their father (John 8:39), so Jesus responds by asserting his superior role in God's plan: “Before Abraham was, I am.” He did not say, “Before Abraham was, I was,” as is often misread. Yet, like many today, the Jews misunderstood his meaning. Jesus was not claiming to be older in years than Abraham. This is clarified by his earlier statement: “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it and was glad” (John 8:56). Abraham, to whom the gospel was preached (Galatians 3:8), saw Christ’s day by faith as you correctly interpreted. Jesus was ‘foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times’ (1 Peter 1:20). He existed in God’s purpose, not in literal form. In the same way, he is described as the ‘Lamb slain from the foundation of the world’ (Revelation 13:8), though his actual death took place under Pilate, at a specific point in time.

The real issue lies in how you approach the Word of God, along with the non-biblical ideas you impose on the text. As a result, you're unable to fully grasp the true knowledge of Christ as he is revealed in Scripture.

It feels as though you filter everything through a lens just as you have shown with 1 Tim 2:15 you also do with John 8.

Click to expand...

So I have a question since I saw that you were quoting the ESV. What do you do with Jude 5?

Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. (Jude 5, ESV)

Which is echoing what Paul wrote:
For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 and all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness. (1 Corinthians 10:1–5, ESV)

We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents, 10 nor grumble, as some of them did and were destroyed by the Destroyer. (1 Corinthians 10:9–10, ESV)

But perhaps the greatest evidence is from Jesus’s own mouth:

give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”


31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” 33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.” 34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? 35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken— 36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? 37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; 38 but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” (John 10:28–38, ESV)

And later in John we read:

I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed. (John 17:4–5, ESV)

One has to ignore so much of the Old Testament and practically the entirety of the New Testament to come up with your Adoptionist view. To say nothing of the great I AM passages. As @David Lamb pointed out, that is the translation of God’s name from the Greek translation of the OT, the Septuagint (LXX), ἐγὼ εἰμί which comes from the Exodus 3.14:
Καὶ εἶπεν ὁ Θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν, λέγων, ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ Ὤν· καὶ εἶπεν, οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραὴλ, ὁ Ὢν ἀπέσταλκέ με πρὸς ὑμᾶς. (Exodus 3:14, Brenton LXX Gk)

God said to Moses, “I am who I am.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel: ‘I am has sent me to you. (Exodus 3:14, ESV)

The Jews certainly got what Jesus was saying, and immediately accused him of blasphemy. So either Jesus was insane (another accusation of the Jews), he was a blasphemer, or he really was God enfleshed (incarnate). Unless you want to try and make the case that Jesus was some sort of time traveler where he and Ziggy try and right certain wrongs Quantum Leap style.

I get the difficulty in trying to figure out how God became a man; yet we are not told how all the pieces fit together. That is why it is considered a mystery. Meaning we only see a portion of what God has revealed.

David Lamb said:

His hearers had just been making reference to his age ("You are not yet 50 years old"). Why would He reply to say that He was more eminent than Abraham?

Click to expand...

So, you're acknowledging that your belief aligns with those same wayward Jews?

They failed to recognize Christ’s pre-eminence, just as you do now.

Instead of embracing Christ’s understanding of Abraham (eye of faith = pre-eminence), you choose to align yourself with the spiritually inept listeners who misunderstood him and his teaching?

Remarkable the lengths Christians will go to support dogma.

Athanasius377 said:

So I have a question since I saw that you were quoting the ESV. What do you do with Jude 5?

Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. (Jude 5, ESV)

Click to expand...

Interesting the translators adopted Jesus and not Lord. The lesson and context is clear. Jude warns that error had already begun to infiltrate the first-century community (Jude 3–4). As a response, he points his readers back to God's past actions. He isn’t merely reminding them that Israel perished in the wilderness due to unbelief, he’s also emphasizing that the Scriptures, and the consistent, thoughtful reading of them, are the only safeguard against the spiritual decline that was already unfolding just a few years after Jesus’ resurrection.

When the Lord Jesus Christ returns, it will become clear how Christianity suffered a similar decline, as people turned to manmade philosophies instead of God's truth.

Athanasius377 said:

One has to ignore so much of the Old Testament and practically the entirety of the New Testament to come up with your Adoptionist view. To say nothing of the great I AM passages. As @David Lamb pointed out, that is the translation of God’s name from the Greek translation of the OT, the Septuagint (LXX), ἐγὼ εἰμί which comes from the Exodus 3.14:
Καὶ εἶπεν ὁ Θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν, λέγων, ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ Ὤν· καὶ εἶπεν, οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραὴλ, ὁ Ὢν ἀπέσταλκέ με πρὸς ὑμᾶς. (Exodus 3:14, Brenton LXX Gk)

God said to Moses, “I am who I am.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel: ‘I am has sent me to you. (Exodus 3:14, ESV)

The Jews certainly got what Jesus was saying, and immediately accused him of blasphemy. So either Jesus was insane (another accusation of the Jews), he was a blasphemer, or he really was God enfleshed (incarnate). Unless you want to try and make the case that Jesus was some sort of time traveler where he and Ziggy try and right certain wrongs Quantum Leap style.

I get the difficulty in trying to figure out how God became a man; yet we are not told how all the pieces fit together. That is why it is considered a mystery. Meaning we only see a portion of what God has revealed.

Click to expand...

There is no definitive proof that Christ was alluding to the divine name in his statement, imperfectly translated in the Authorized Version as "I am that I am." In John 8:58, Jesus simply uses the present tense of the verb "to be." Even if the verse were understood as an allusion to the divine name, this alone does not prove that Jesus was claiming to be "Very God." In Exodus 3:14 the divine name is rendered, "I will be what I will be," a prophetic declaration of God's purpose.

Jesus Christ was “God manifest in the flesh” (1 Timothy 3:16), the Word (logos) made flesh (John 1:14). In this role, he expressed the divine character, “full of grace and truth” (see Exodus 33:19) and became the “firstborn among many brethren” (Romans 8:29). Christ was the result of the Word made flesh, not the originator of God’s redemptive plan. As he himself stated, “I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me” (John 8:42).

God did not become a man; rather, He revealed Himself through a man, one whom He raised up from among sinful flesh. This is why Paul refers to Jesus as the Second Adam in 1 Corinthians 15:45.

Once again, it's evident how difficult it is to prove pre-existence from these passages. Such a view must be imposed onto the text, relying on assumptions that are not supported by the broader biblical revelation concerning Christ and his origins.

Athanasius377 said:

I get the difficulty in trying to figure out how God became a man; yet we are not told how all the pieces fit together. That is why it is considered a mystery. Meaning we only see a portion of what God has revealed.

Click to expand...

This is the great lie, and it’s one I’m actively wrestling with in my discussion with David Lamb. When a false idea is introduced into the text, it creates a ripple effect throughout Scripture, eventually distorting the message until it becomes almost unrecognizable. Are you suggesting that God and Jesus cannot be clearly known or defined through the Word of God, that their relationship is somehow hidden behind mysterious theological constructs?

This is why @David Lamb cannot prove the hypostatic union or the pre-existence of Christ, because the Scriptures contain no teaching on these doctrines. As a result, the very foundation of Christian belief lacks biblical evidence.

The concept of a mystery, meaning something secret or hidden, should not suggest that everything about the Godhead and His plan of redemption for both Jew and Gentile remains unrevealed. To my understanding, Scripture fully discloses these truths. The only mystery in the Word of God pertain to events that will occur after the final "all in all" phase of God's plan for the Earth. A time we know little about.

What if the fundamental tenet of the Christian faith were false?

Imagine the repercussions!

Hiddenthings said:

This is the great lie, and it’s one I’m actively wrestling with in my discussion with David Lamb. When a false idea is introduced into the text, it creates a ripple effect throughout Scripture, eventually distorting the message until it becomes almost unrecognizable. Are you suggesting that God and Jesus cannot be clearly known or defined through the Word of God, that their relationship is somehow hidden behind mysterious theological constructs?

This is why @David Lamb cannot prove the hypostatic union or the pre-existence of Christ, because the Scriptures contain no teaching on these doctrines. As a result, the very foundation of Christian belief lacks biblical evidence.

The concept of a mystery, meaning something secret or hidden, should not suggest that everything about the Godhead and His plan of redemption for both Jew and Gentile remains unrevealed. To my understanding, Scripture fully discloses these truths. The only mystery in the Word of God pertain to events that will occur after the final "all in all" phase of God's plan for the Earth. A time we know little about.

What if the fundamental tenet of the Christian faith were false?

Imagine the repercussions!

Click to expand...

You didn’t answer the question. What do you do with Jude 5 and the rest, the Cornucopia of scripture, that refutes your assertion. And why is Jesus claiming to exist before the foundation of the world? Are you really going to try and do the heresy two-step and spiritualize all the old and New Testament you don’t like? @BreadOfLife, @Marymog. Bros, I think this thread is far more important than some goofy reading of history. This gets to the heart of the Gospel and the Nature of God.

Athanasius377 said:

You didn’t answer the question. What do you do with Jude 5 and the rest, the Cornucopia of scripture, that refutes Your assertion.

Click to expand...

Cornucopia of scripture

Thanks for that laugh!

Jude 5, most scholars themselves question whether the reference could truly point to Jesus, based on internal evidence. Scripture consistently attributes the events such as the Exodus and the destruction of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (angels that sinned) not to Jesus, but to God acting through the Angel of His Presence. It was Yahweh who accomplished these things, not a pre-incarnate Christ in a literal sense.

If you choose to string together a series of verses to build an alternate narrative, that’s your choice, but don’t mistake it for solid scriptural support for the pre-existence of Christ.

You raise a valid and thought-provoking point: if Jesus truly pre-existed, why wasn't this truth revealed plainly and unmistakably? I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts on this, what is there to gain or lose from such a clear declaration? Surely, you would agree that the silence on this subject is striking, perhaps even deafening for those who strongly hold to it.

Alternatively, it’s clear that Jesus’ sacrifice is effective across all time, past, present, and future and its power reaching every generation. Romans 3:25; Hebrews 10:10,12,14

Athanasius377 said:

You didn’t answer the question. What do you do with Jude 5 and the rest, the Cornucopia of scripture, that refutes your assertion. And why is Jesus claiming to exist before the foundation of the world? Are you really going to try and do the heresy two-step and spiritualize all the old and New Testament you don’t like? @BreadOfLife, @Marymog. Bros, I think this thread is far more important than some goofy reading of history. This gets to the heart of the Gospel and the Nature of God.

Click to expand...

Just a reminder, you referred to the foundation of your belief as “a mystery,” implying it is ultimately unknowable. This is the lens through which you interpret text, but it places you at a disadvantage from the outset.

Scripture tells us that, at that time, the fullness of God's redemptive plan remained among the “secret things” that belonged to the Lord their God, a mystery not yet revealed (Deuteronomy 29:29; cf. Ephesians 1:9; 3:3–6; Romans 16:25).

Nowhere in the Bible, however, are we told that the Godhead is unknowable or that there remains a mystery regarding the relationship between God and the Lord Jesus Christ. The concept of “mystery” has become a fallback position in Christian theology, especially for those who cannot clearly define or support doctrines like the hypostatic union.

Athanasius377 said:

I think this thread is far more important than some goofy reading of history. This gets to the heart of the Gospel and the Nature of God.

Click to expand...

I agree with this, more than you might realize! But it’s when we come to the nature of Christ, the very core of the Apostles’ teaching, that things become especially difficult for those who cling to the idea of a “mystery.” That’s where the real tension begins!

Hiddenthings said:

Cornucopia of scripture

Thanks for that laugh!

Jude 5, most scholars themselves question whether the reference could truly point to Jesus, based on internal evidence. Scripture consistently attributes the events such as the Exodus and the destruction of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (angels that sinned) not to Jesus, but to God acting through the Angel of His Presence. It was Yahweh who accomplished these things, not a pre-incarnate Christ in a literal sense.

If you choose to string together a series of verses to build an alternate narrative, that’s your choice, but don’t mistake it for solid scriptural support for the pre-existence of Christ.

You raise a valid and thought-provoking point: if Jesus truly pre-existed, why wasn't this truth revealed plainly and unmistakably? I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts on this, what is there to gain or lose from such a clear declaration? Surely, you would agree that the silence on this subject is striking, perhaps even deafening for those who strongly hold to it.

Alternatively, it’s clear that Jesus’ sacrifice is effective across all time, past, present, and future and its power reaching every generation. Romans 3:25; Hebrews 10:10,12,14

Click to expand...

Again, I ask, what do you do with Jude 5? You quoted from that version don’t stands to reason that it carries sone sort of authority. Add to that the most relevant scholarship points to its reading. See CGBM and the most recent translations. So much so that the NA 28 GNT affirms that reading its apparatus. And by extension all of the other verses? Furthermore, the witness of the earliest Christians, of which their writings are overwhelmingly on our side. One of us is correct, and the other is wrong. Perhaps we are both wrong. So give me your best Christology in a positive sense. What was Jesus doing on a cross? Make your best argument.

Athanasius377 said:

What do you do with Jude 5 and the rest, the Cornucopia of scripture,

Click to expand...

I should also add, for your benefit, the broader context of Jude 5 and explain why many modern scholars have moved away from interpreting the text as you are suggesting.

You will notice the use of Old Testament examples:

• Jude 1:5 The deliverance from Egypt
• Jude1:6 The rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram
• Jude1:7 The judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah
• Jude1:9 The adversaries opposing Joshua during the return from Babylon
• Jude1:11 Cain
• Jude1:11 Balaam
• Jude 1:11 Korah (mentioned again - significant!)

This demonstrates that New Testament writers, guided by the Spirit, recognized the ongoing relevance of Old Testament examples for the life and challenges of the church today.

In my view, the context of Jude 5 doesn’t actually support the idea of Jesus pre-existing his birth, making it a weak foundation for that argument.

Athanasius377 said:

Again, I ask, what do you do with Jude 5? And by extension all of the other verses? Furthermore, the witness of the earliest Christians, of which their writings are overwhelmingly on our side. One of us is correct, and the other is wrong. Perhaps we are both wrong. So give me your best Christology in a positive sense. What was Jesus doing on a cross? Make your best argument.

Click to expand...

No need to, Atha, your argument rests on what is unknowable, while mine is grounded in what has been clearly revealed. It would be like me speaking into a vacuum.

Hiddenthings said:

No need to, Atha, your argument rests on what is unknowable, while mine is grounded in what has been clearly revealed. It would be like me speaking into a vacuum.

Click to expand...

Again, I ask you. What do you do with Jude 5, and with all the verses where Jesus is claiming to be God. I await your answer

And the vacuum sucks.

A.

Athanasius377 said:

Again, I ask you. What do you do with Jude 5, and with all the verses where Jesus is claiming to be God. I await your answer

And the vacuum sucks.

A.

Click to expand...

This repeated line of questioning, especially when it ignores what’s already been addressed is becoming tiresome and to be honest, quite unengaging. Stay in the vacuum if you choose, but when you're ready to step out, I’ll be here, ready to show you what can be known.

Hiddenthings said:

I should also add, for your benefit, the broader context of Jude 5 and explain why many modern scholars have moved away from interpreting the text as you are suggesting.

You will notice the use of Old Testament examples:

• Jude 1:5 The deliverance from Egypt
• Jude1:6 The rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram
• Jude1:7 The judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah
• Jude1:9 The adversaries opposing Joshua during the return from Babylon
• Jude1:11 Cain
• Jude1:11 Balaam
• Jude 1:11 Korah (mentioned again - significant!)

This demonstrates that New Testament writers, guided by the Spirit, recognized the ongoing relevance of Old Testament examples for the life and challenges of the church today.

In my view, the context of Jude 5 doesn’t actually support the idea of Jesus pre-existing his birth, making it a weak foundation for that argument.

Click to expand...

Yes, and I would say Jesus is the one who judged them all. He is God, and the Father is God, And The Holy Spirit is God.

He is the A

Hiddenthings said:

This repeated line of questioning, especially when it ignores what’s already been addressed is becoming tiresome and to be honest, quite unengaging. Stay in the vacuum if you choose, but when you're ready to step out, I’ll be here, ready to show you what can be known.

Click to expand...

So Jesus was just kidding in Rev 14

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” (Revelation 22:13, ESV)

Again I ask you, what do you do with Jude 5, and why is Jesus hanging on a Cross?

Vacuum is still sucking.

A.

Big Boy Johnson said:

Jesus and His Apostles did not teach catholicism

This is WHY catholicism is false doctrine.

Those following catholicism will find out the hard way that this religious system does not lead one to Heaven

Click to expand...

The message of Salvation is for all people in fact !

That's why it's Called Catholic !

One needs Salvation through Christ Jesus !

Religion never Saved anyones Soul in fact !

Religion ? Geting water baptised and going to Church studying the Bible hopefully is the start, that leads one to Jesus and then to know and abide in Christ Jesus !

I have no regards a persons Denomination to much at all ? I see the person first and foremost for who they are, where they are at ? not their Religion ! I find themselves as to What they Think is one thing, I do not hold that against them, for it's what they know that I am interested in. as I have found most within a Church are only lukewarm and just follow along ! So they will never question anything ?

But I have always question everything even as a Child. why is that ? well I have to so as to understand such from A to Z .
Because if I do not understand such a thing, I can not back my faith in such up, if I have little faith in something as that's it, I can only go so far as I know about that point of a subject and then point it out as so !

A Tire ? say ? A mate said this type that he has put on was ? good ! and went on to say this brand is owen by another brand and they were cheap but had good grip ?
So, ok I Bought the same type and they were total crap ! grip yes but every other thing about them was real totaly crap ! just outright rubbish that only a moron would back as being good ! So I inform him of such, well he had not tested them, it's his wifes car ? He just believed the spin from the Dealer !
Now he also bought a cheap Tire for his car and they were good for cheap, but needed to run high PSI so as to perform well, so I was impressed with that ! but he got it all wrong with the other ones. Then he found out that I was correct with what he put on his wifes car.

But why say they are so good when he did not truly know ? he had faith ? blind faith ! in that product !
Now I had faith in him, on such a subject that's why I thought fine, he will know !

But see some people are Idiots, why say or promote such when it's not a proven fact !
I would not of backed anything up untill I truly knew for a fact, I would of only said they are a soft rubber compound, but I have not tested them myself !

So some people will say things they do not know for a fact, as being the fact. just on the Dealer word for such. He has done the same with other products as well ! That I full well was just stupid nonsense on his part, in not truly understanding the issue ! and I said so ! but he believed the Dealer knew better. The Dealer knew jack. just floging a product and making stupid claims.

The same ends is within Religions. so as to get you in etc.

Athanasius377 said:

So Jesus was just kidding in Rev 14

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” (Revelation 22:13, ESV)

Click to expand...

Rev 14 or 22:13?

Yahweh has no beginning or end! He is the one who creates those with a beginning and end - you know like Rev 1:18

“Do not be afraid! I am the first and the last, 1:18 and the one who lives! I was dead, but look, now I am alive—forever and ever—and I hold the keys of death and of Hades! Re 1:17–18.

Interesting the emphasis on Living! Wonder why?

Hiddenthings said:

Rev 14 or 22:13?

Yahweh has no beginning or end! He is the one who creates those with a beginning and end - you know like Rev 1:18

“Do not be afraid! I am the first and the last, 1:18 and the one who lives! I was dead, but look, now I am alive—forever and ever—and I hold the keys of death and of Hades! Re 1:17–18.

Interesting the emphasis on Living! Wonder why?

Click to expand...

You’re dodging the question. You’re trying to shift the burden. A logical error. So again, how is Jesus. The beginning and the end if he doesn’t preexist creation.

The vacuum still sucks.

A.

I have my doubts that Christianity is Christian.

I can't recall who said this, but its a worthy quote.

"Christianity has the dubious distinction of being the only religion that begins by dismissing the creed of its founder."

Hiddenthings said:

Rev 14 or 22:13?

Yahweh has no beginning or end! He is the one who creates those with a beginning and end - you know like Rev 1:18

“Do not be afraid! I am the first and the last, 1:18 and the one who lives! I was dead, but look, now I am alive—forever and ever—and I hold the keys of death and of Hades! Re 1:17–18.

Interesting the emphasis on Living! Wonder why?

Click to expand...

Here is my positive belief:

The creed of St Athansius the Great. And before anyone gets all torqued up about the term, “catholic”, it means that universal. We Reformed (Anglican), Roman, Lutheran, Baptist, and even the Orthodox affirm this creed.

Whosoever will be saved, * before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith.


Which faith, except every one do keep whole and undefiled, * without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.


And the catholic faith is this: * That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;


Neither confounding the persons, * nor dividing the substance.


For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, * and another of the Holy Ghost.


But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one; * the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.


Such as the Father is, such is the Son, * and such is the Holy Ghost:


The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, * and the Holy Ghost uncreated;


The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, * and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible;


The Father eternal, the Son eternal, * and the Holy Ghost eternal.


And yet they are not three eternals, * but one eternal;


As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated; * but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible.


So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, * and the Holy Ghost almighty.


And yet they are not three almighties, * but one almighty.


So the Father is God, the Son is God, * and the Holy Ghost is God.


And yet they are not three Gods, * but one God.


So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, * and the Holy Ghost Lord.


And yet not three Lords, * but one Lord.


For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity * to acknowledge every person by himself to be God and Lord,


So are we forbidden by the catholic religion * to say there are three Gods or three Lords.


The Father is made of none, * neither created, nor begotten.


The Son is of the Father alone, * not made, nor created, but begotten.


The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son, * neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.


So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; * one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts.


And in this Trinity none is before or after other; * none is greater or less than another;


But the whole three persons are coeternal together * and coequal.


So that in all things, as is aforesaid, * the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.


He therefore that will be saved * must thus think of the Trinity.


Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation * that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.


For the right faith is that we believe and confess * that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man;


God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; * and man, of the substance of his mother, born in the world;


Perfect God and perfect man, * of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting;


Equal to the Father as touching his Godhead, * and inferior to the Father as touching his manhood;


Who although he is God and man, * yet he is not two, but one Christ;


One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, * but by taking of the manhood into God;


One altogether, not by confusion of substance, * but by unity of person.


For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, * so God and man is one Christ,


Who suffered for our salvation, * descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead.


He ascended into heaven; he sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God almighty, * from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead,


At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, * and shall give account for their own works,


And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, * and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire.


This is the catholic faith, * which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.


Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, * and to the Holy Ghost;


As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, * world without end. Amen.


Bray, Samuel L., and Drew Nathaniel Keane, editors. The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and Other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church. International Edition, IVP Academic: An Imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2021, pp. 27–30.