Nicene Creed

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Raggedyman

Who is the first and the last according to the bible

Uh, that would be this guy.

Now when Joshua was near Jericho, he looked up and saw a man standing in front of him with a drawn sword in his hand. Joshua went up to him and asked, “Are you for us or for our enemies?”

“Neither,” he replied, “but as commander of the army of the Lord I have now come.” Then Joshua fell facedown to the ground in reverence, and asked him, “What message does my Lord[e] have for his servant?”

The commander of the Lord’s army replied, “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy.” And Joshua did so.

...........Who is also this guy: www.biblegateway.com...

Lol, how do you figure they are related

Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?”

God said to Moses, “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’”

Ahayah Asher Ahayah.

I Am He Who is, ... was and ever Will Be.

This is what is the basis of the claim:

"Before Abraham was, I am."

Not "I Am God."

Just I am. "Before you were in the womb I knew you."

Is a paraphrase of Jeremiah. So it's not like it's an unprecedented statement that applies only to Jesus pbuh but is a revelation or interpretation of what Jeremiah said as he sought to confuse the Yahudi who question him, he was cryptic.

But he didn't say that crucial word that is required to say he claimed he was God.

("I am) GOD!

God never has a problem clarifying He is God.

a reply to: Raggedyman



Show me where Jesus says "I am God in a Trinity" if it's true.

No need to get angry if it's so true prove it.

Unfortunately I have already proven beyond doubt to any thinking person that "The Lord OUR God is ONE God worship Him with all your heart."

That is literally all it takes to prove the the Nicene Creed blasphemy.

3 isn't 1.


All the sophistry, poor eisegesis, rhetoric about me and humility, IS NOT going to change that.

All you and your trinitarian arguments are so easy to prove fallacious that it's a demonic anti-miracle your trinitarian paganism still exists.

You worship a man as God who said don't worship me worship God.

"Only God is good."

And worthy of worship.

Jesus pbuh was CREATED BY GOD, depends on God for his power and says so himself.

Christians are either lazy for not reading the book to discover this reality or dishonest and pretend that John 1 isn't mistranslated and that saying I am is the same as saying I am GOD.

You think your religion is hard to expose?

This is before getting to the false apostle Paul even, there is much to expose there too.

a reply to: silo13

Look to my post above. I’m positive this is Christ explaining the trinity before his death and the feast of Pentecost.

I read your posts and agree with you completely. In fact that was overlooked by me and appreciate the confirmation. You are very observant and have taught me very well. God Bless --------------

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: silo13

Look to my post above. I’m positive this is Christ explaining the trinity before his death and the feast of Pentecost.

I read your posts and agree with you completely. In fact that was overlooked by me and appreciate the confirmation. You are very observant and have taught me very well. God Bless --------------

To wrong people agreeing on something neither can prove and that has been disproven.

Interesting.

a reply to: Disturbinatti

If you don't believe it that's ok, nothing I show,you makes any difference

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: silo13

Look to my post above. I’m positive this is Christ explaining the trinity before his death and the feast of Pentecost.

I read your posts and agree with you completely. In fact that was overlooked by me and appreciate the confirmation. You are very observant and have taught me very well. God Bless --------------

Not trying to be 'right' - this isn't a game for me - not that you're saying it is.
Just trying to share my opinion which I believe in my heart of hearts is true.
After reading your posts you seemingly know the truth and I was asking for your input.
Thank you.
God Bless you too.
~grace

a reply to: Seede
Before I forget.
There is a fabulous book by Robert Morris 'The God I never knew'.
Fabulous when it comes to the Holy Spirit.
If you don't have it I can send you my copy.
Let me check what's on YouTube...

peace

a reply to: silo13

There is a fabulous book by Robert Morris 'The God I never knew'. Fabulous when it comes to the Holy Spirit. If you don't have it I can send you my copy.

I did watch your video and must admit that Robert Morris is a very clear and precise scholar. I honestly did enjoy his video. I also found the paper bound book "The God I Never Knew" on Amazon and may, if I ever find time, send for it. I appreciate your offer nevertheless.

One thing I must make clear which I may not have been clear about and that is that when I said the Holy Spirit is not an entity, I meant that the holy Spirit is not a terrestrial entity such as Jesus was. I did not want to leave the wrong impression with anyone. Thank You and God Bless -------------

a reply to: Disturbinatti

It is Egypt and India where this idea likely blossomed first and 4 Xtians in Egypt no doubt, certainly not Asia, not 7 Churches of Revelation Asia.

Speaking of India, actually, it's a Japanese sect of Buddhism, but another interesting and similar expression of the 4 fold nature of God is the Shinto Buddhist's chant "Nom Moyo Rengo Kyo". I am, I move, I imagine, I manifiest.

originally posted by: Disturbinatti
a reply to: windword


Technically it can't exist is true.

I will add another reason though.

Because God created math and math demands 2=2, 3=3, etc.

3 can not be 1 in any realistic way and it is like saying God violates His own natural ordinances.

............

I understand what you are saying(1=1,2=2) but this is not always correct. Numbers are symbols in an equation to represent a value.In the Fibonacci number (Fn)sequence(the basis of the equations for the building blocks(DNA..etc) of quantum(particles…matter life) the number 3=2,4=3,
Fn0=0
Fn1=1
Fn2=1
Fn3=2
Fn4=3
etc etc……

Fn0+Fn1=Fn2
Fn1+Fn2=Fn3
Fn2+Fn3=Fn4
etc ,etc….


Technically when the Fn are used in representation of the basis equation for the “Tree of Life”

Fn1=1=God (the Father)
Fn2=1=Yahoshua(The Son of God) the seed of the Father
Fn3=2=the holy spirit(separated life) the Tree of Life

When Yahoshua proclaimed “I and the Father are “1””…. the Fibonacci number sequence more accurately exhibits through a simple math equation his proclamation and does not support the false assertion of Christianity’s “Jesus” is equal to the Father God because they are not the same.

The Father is the source(progenitor) of ALL Life(spirit) because the Father God is the beginning and end of the equation of Life.However in essence that makes Yahoshua( which means Yahweh is deliverance) “a” Father also.Technically this could be called a trinity however it is nothing like the pagan Trinity that Christianity believes.

a reply to: Rex282

I am willing to concede you understand math better than I. I know what the Fibonacci sequence looks like, a 6, snail shell, I know it is fascinating but I don't truly understand it.

But in the context of our current discussion and in light of the actual statements of Jesus pbuh it is not applicable as he personally refuted the possibility of multiplicity applied to God.

He calls the philosophers "First Cause", God, 1.

Even they would agree 1 is always 1. I don't think even neo Platonists believe in multiplicity of First Cause they understood everything that proceeded from it was an inferior emanation.

Logos-Sophia, etc. To borrow from Philo who took Psalms "With Wisdom (Sophia) God created....With Understanding (Reason, Logos) God established...."

But Philo was staunchly Monotheistic and middle Platonic, Hebrew. He combined philosophy with Judaism and called Logos "High Priest" and similar to Melchizedek, "son of God," also.

In a strictly figurative sense.

Also the profundity of Logos isn't captured in the translation "Word", it means many things but (divine) Reason and Word alternate throughout the English Philo but both are Logos.

a reply to: Disturbinatti
I wasn't trying to defend the doctrine of the Trinity or Christendom (which is not Christianity). I know and knew ʼAdho·naiʹ is in the plural. The translation or meaning of the word ʼAdho·naiʹ wasn't the point I was making. The point I was making was that the whole word does not appear in the verses you were quoting. Earlier (throughout pages 1-4?) you continued to say "the Lord" when quoting Jesus words at Mark 12:29. That's not what he said, or what Mark wrote down, or what's recorded at Deuteronomy 6:4,5 ("...but the one who has my word should speak my word truthfully.” ..declares Jehovah" at Jeremiah 23:27). You are acting no different than the Trinitarians or Jews when it comes to using God's personal only and unique name. Especially when it comes to quoting the commandment that Jesus emphasized as the most important one to obey:

"You must love Jehovah your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your strength."

SOVEREIGNTY

Supremacy in rule or power; the dominion or rule of a lord, king, emperor, or the like; the power that, in the final analysis, determines the government of a state.

In the Hebrew Scriptures the word ʼAdho·naiʹ appears frequently, and the expression ʼAdho·naiʹ Yehwihʹ 285 times. ʼAdho·naiʹ is a plural form of ʼa·dhohnʹ, meaning “lord; master.” The plural form ʼadho·nimʹ may be applied to men in simple plurality, as “lords,” or “masters.” But the term ʼAdho·naiʹ without an additional suffix is always used in the Scriptures with reference to God, the plural being employed to denote excellence or majesty. It is most frequently rendered “Lord” by translators. When it appears with the name of God (ʼAdho·naiʹ Yehwihʹ), as, for example, at Psalm 73:28, the expression is translated “Lord GOD” (AT, KJ, RS); “Lord God” (Dy [72:28]); “Lord, my Master” (Kx [72:28]); “Lord Jehovah” (Yg); “Sovereign Lord Jehovah” (NW). In Psalms 47:9; 138:5; 150:2, Moffatt uses the word “sovereign,” but not to translate ʼAdho·naiʹ.

The Greek word de·spoʹtes means one who possesses supreme authority, or absolute ownership and uncontrolled power. (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, 1981, Vol. 3, pp. 18, 46) It is translated “lord,” “master,” “owner,” and when used in direct address to God is rendered “Lord” (KJ, Yg, and others), “Ruler of all” (Kx), “Sovereign Lord” (NW), at Luke 2:29, Acts 4:24, and Revelation 6:10. In the last text, Knox, The New English Bible, Moffatt, and the Revised Standard Version read “Sovereign Lord”; Young’s translation and the Kingdom Interlinear read “master.”

So, while the Hebrew and Greek texts do not have a separate qualifying word for “sovereign,” the flavor is contained in the words ʼAdho·naiʹ and de·spoʹtes when they are used in the Scriptures as applying to Jehovah God, the qualification denoting the excellence of his lordship.

It's similar for Elohim (the Hebrew word for God, gods, god, a god, the god and all other grammatical variants that I might have overlooked):

Hebrew Terms. Among the Hebrew words that are translated “God” is ʼEl, probably meaning “Mighty One; Strong One.” (Ge 14:18) It is used with reference to Jehovah, to other gods, and to men. It is also used extensively in the makeup of proper names, such as Elisha (meaning “God Is Salvation”) and Michael (“Who Is Like God?”). In some places ʼEl appears with the definite article (ha·ʼElʹ, literally, “the God”) with reference to Jehovah, thereby distinguishing him from other gods.—Ge 46:3; 2Sa 22:31; see NW appendix, p. 1567.

At Isaiah 9:6 Jesus Christ is prophetically called ʼEl Gib·bohrʹ, “Mighty God” (not ʼEl Shad·daiʹ [God Almighty], which is applied to Jehovah at Genesis 17:1).

The plural form, ʼe·limʹ, is used when referring to other gods, such as at Exodus 15:11 (“gods”). It is also used as the plural of majesty and excellence, as in Psalm 89:6: “Who can resemble Jehovah among the sons of God [bi·venehʹ ʼE·limʹ]?” That the plural form is used to denote a single individual here and in a number of other places is supported by the translation of ʼE·limʹ by the singular form The·osʹ in the Greek Septuagint; likewise by Deus in the Latin Vulgate.

The Hebrew word ʼelo·himʹ (gods) appears to be from a root meaning “be strong.” ʼElo·himʹ is the plural of ʼelohʹah (god). Sometimes this plural refers to a number of gods (Ge 31:30, 32; 35:2), but more often it is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence. ʼElo·himʹ is used in the Scriptures with reference to Jehovah himself, to angels, to idol gods (singular and plural), and to men.

When applying to Jehovah, ʼElo·himʹ is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence. (Ge 1:1) Regarding this, Aaron Ember wrote: “That the language of the O[ld] T[estament] has entirely given up the idea of plurality in . . . [ʼElo·himʹ] (as applied to the God of Israel) is especially shown by the fact that it is almost invariably construed with a singular verbal predicate, and takes a singular adjectival attribute. . . . [ʼElo·himʹ] must rather be explained as an intensive plural, denoting greatness and majesty, being equal to The Great God.”—The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. XXI, 1905, p. 208.

The title ʼElo·himʹ draws attention to Jehovah’s strength as the Creator. It appears 35 times by itself in the account of creation, and every time the verb describing what he said and did is in the singular number. (Ge 1:1–2:4) In him resides the sum and substance of infinite forces.

At Psalm 8:5, the angels are also referred to as ʼelo·himʹ, as is confirmed by Paul’s quotation of the passage at Hebrews 2:6-8. They are called benehʹ ha·ʼElo·himʹ, “sons of God” (KJ); “sons of the true God” (NW), at Genesis 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1. Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, by Koehler and Baumgartner (1958), page 134, says: “(individual) divine beings, gods.” And page 51 says: “the (single) gods,” and it cites Genesis 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7. Hence, at Psalm 8:5 ʼelo·himʹ is rendered “angels” (LXX); “godlike ones” (NW).

The word ʼelo·himʹ is also used when referring to idol gods. Sometimes this plural form means simply “gods.” (Ex 12:12; 20:23) At other times it is the plural of excellence and only one god (or goddess) is referred to. However, these gods were clearly not trinities.—1Sa 5:7b (Dagon); 1Ki 11:5 (“goddess” Ashtoreth); Da 1:2b (Marduk).

At Psalm 82:1, 6, ʼelo·himʹ is used of men, human judges in Israel. Jesus quoted from this Psalm at John 10:34, 35. They were gods in their capacity as representatives of and spokesmen for Jehovah. Similarly Moses was told that he was to serve as “God” to Aaron and to Pharaoh.—Ex 4:16, ftn; 7:1.

In many places in the Scriptures ʼElo·himʹ is also found preceded by the definite article ha. (Ge 5:22) Concerning the use of ha·ʼElo·himʹ, F. Zorell says: “In the Holy Scriptures especially the one true God, Jahve, is designated by this word; . . . ‘Jahve is the [one true] God’ De 4:35; 4:39; Jos 22:34; 2Sa 7:28; 1Ki 8:60 etc.”—Lexicon Hebraicum Veteris Testamenti, Rome, 1984, p. 54; brackets his.

Sources: Sovereignty: Insight, Volume 2
God: Insight, Volume 1

It's still a bit of a red herring from the point I was making though, but it's appropiate information in a thread about the doctrine of the Trinity.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Raggedyman
Now, why the early Christians thought it necessary to truncate the Jewish God into a Trinity is anyone's guess.

I think historical documentation, records and other types of evidence in comparison with what the bible says about the subject in Jeremiah chapter 23 and many other places is very clear and extensive on this. I wouldn't describe it as "anyone's guess" but rather undeniable for those who want to be honest with themselves and do some self-reflection rather than self-deception, regardless whether or not they believe in the doctrine of the Trinity or not, or whether they believe this history is "anyone's guess" or not. Babylonian teachings (as taught by Babylon the Great nowadays) are very obvious once you've studied a few of their key teachings and how they spread to Egypt, Greece and India and the rest of the world:

- immortality of the soul
- literal hellfire or an 'underworld' in which the damned suffer (for which you need the above Pagan philosophy)
- Triads (or Trinities, Triune Gods)

Just remember that Deuteronomy 6:4 really says "Jehovah our God is one Jehovah."

What is the origin of the Trinity doctrine?

The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”—(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

In The Encyclopedia Americana we read: “Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. 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.”—(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.

According to the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, “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 [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”—(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.

John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”—(New York, 1965), p. 899.

Source: Trinity: Reasoning

a reply to: Disturbinatti

I was just a moment ago wondering why it is that the Nicene Creed is more authoritative than the New Testament as it has remained the majority of Christians belief since the Council of Nicea, a mysterious Council indeed.

The Nicene Creed is not 'more authoritative' than the New Testament.

The Nicene Creed is essentially the definition of the new religion, Christianity.

The New Testament does not define a new religion, the early followers of Christ considered themselves Jews. First, Last, and Always. One god is the essential starting point for Judaism. Even Paul considered his converts to be Jews, non-Hebrew Jews (the covenant only applied to Hebrews was his argument), but Jews none-the-less.

On the other hand, the converted Gentiles were coming from a completely different viewpoint, there were gods everywhere. It was much easier for them to imagine a god with different aspects. Most of the Greek and Roman gods that we know about today are actually the result of merging aspects of various tribal gods. For example, different tribes might have each had a god of the sea or the waters, then over time those different gods with their different attributes were merged to become Neptune as tribal rivalries, wars, and mergers brought them together. In India, Shiva is both the god of destruction and creation. It is not, and was not, a difficult concept back then. The single god of the Hebrews was the extraordinary, difficult to grasp, concept 'back then'.

So when Caesar saw a chance to use this new cult (and that is exactly what it was, a 'Jesus Cult' within Judaism [Paul notwithstanding]) as a weapon against his political enemies (including the Priests and the Soldiers and the Senate etc) he needed a coherent set of attributes with which to control it.

The Nicene Creed provided the definition of the new religion. That definition does not follow from the New Testament, but the books of the New Testament were chosen because they didn't contradict the Creed either (if, of course, you can get your head around the Trinity).

Again, the 3 aspects of the Holy Trinity, even though it is hard for us to grasp today, and was and is an absolute deal breaker for 'real' Jews, it was not a particularly troublesome concept for most people to understand when the Nicene Creed was written.

a reply to: Disturbinatti

Nicene conspiracy, nice.

But I also feel like for us humans it might not be good to pursue a standard where evil/good is a thing. Are we evil? Yes. Cruel, brutal, deadly to many lifeforms. Are we their "god becomes flesh" Pharaoh? Often. Think about how dogs "worship" us.
They've learned to apease us, read every wish from our eyes. But their brains are really much smaller than ours.
So if we face a "god" a self aware being so huge we can't even imagine it and it's almighty all-knowing unfailable in comparison, doesn't that make us that beings dogs?
I mean: "the ones with a much smaller brain"?

a reply to: whereislogic
Just to emphasize this one:

John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”—(New York, 1965), p. 899.

That's a big shot Trinitarian:

John McKenzie became the premier Catholic Biblical scholar of the mid-twentieth century; indeed, John Courtney Murray, SJ, wrote that John McKenzie was “the best Catholic theologian he knew of in the United States.” [1]
...
John McKenzie taught for nineteen years at the Jesuit Theologate in West Baden, Indiana, before transferring to Loyola University Chicago. He left Loyola to become the first Catholic Faculty member at the University of Chicago Divinity School. Following this, he taught at the University of Notre Dame, at Seton Hall University, and at DePaul University.

He was self-taught in ten languages. His scholarly and popular writings were voluminous. He was much sought after as a lecturer as well. In the English-speaking world, his 900,000-word Dictionary of the Bible remains the most frequently used single-volume biblical dictionary available.
...
From approximately 1954 to 1974 he was considered the dean of Catholic Biblical scholars. During this period, he was elected President of the Catholic Biblical Association and became the first Catholic ever elected President of the Society of Biblical Literature. It should also be noted that during this period he was also President of probably the largest Anti-Vietnam War organization, Clergy and Laity Concerned, whose founding members also included the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., Rabbi Abraham Heschel, and Reverend William Sloane Coffin.

Source: wikipedia

McKenzie acknowledging that “The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.” is like top-shot evolutionists (Richard Dawkins, Craig Venter, Gould, Shapiro, Kenneth Miller, etc.) acknowledging that junk DNA isn't really junk (that it's a misnomer for example) but it's still nothing to be embarassed about; as in there's no need to investigate further if the other arguments used as supposed "evidence for evolution" are just as crappy and no need to remind anyone that evolutionists earlier claimed that the supposed 'fact' that it was 'junk' or useless coding was evidence that all of the genome was the result of natural evolutionary processes including the parts that are useful or have a function in relation to the preservation and continuation of life, that it was evidence that it was a byproduct of that unguided process, just like vestigial organs and so-called "unintelligent design", an argument that falls flat on its face when in reality it's not 'junk' or useless for that function I described earlier, and demonstrating that it was one big argument from ignorance about what the part that was prematurely labelled "junk DNA" actually does in the cell, what it's responsible for in terms of the overall functionality of the DNA in relation to the preservation of life:

a reply to: whereislogic



"Big shot Trinitarian."

Big shot liar.

I have proven without being a "big shot" that Jesus pbuh a MUCH BIGGER SHOT refutes the possibility.

One more time:

"THE Lord OUR God is ONE God worship Him with all your heart...."

ONE, OUR (God),(worship) HIM, ALL (your heart).

God is ONE.

The God OF Jesus pbuh

Who says worship GOD.

With ALL YOUR HEART.

Worship Jesus pbuh with .0000000000001 % of your heart and you violate his request.


Trinitarian Churches live a lie.

So follow your little big shot...

I am with Jesus pbuh.

a reply to: Peeple


Without recognizing evil we deny reality.

Ignoring things doesn't cure problems.

Not a good idea. Evil is real and the inspiration behind Nicene Creed is evil, satan if you will if you won't then corruption and political expedience.

a reply to: whereislogic



Do you see how few words it takes to literally prove I am right?

And how many you used but failed?

Because I have truth on my side, you don't.

originally posted by: Seede
of one substance with the Father, ---------------[So does the NT]

Seem to be some top Trinitarian (and secular) research publications and scholars that disagree with you when you think through their acknowledgements.

John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”—(New York, 1965), p. 899.
...
“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.
...
“The Council of Nicaea met on May 20, 325 [C.E.]. 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.”—Encyclopædia Britannica (1970), Volume 6, page 386.

Sources already mentioned. Those "teaching the commandments of men as doctrines" is what I remember Jesus warning for when talking about hypocrites (also Mark I think, but both Luke and Matthew record the same, they are actually Jehovah's words as related through his prophet Isaiah, a recurring theme).

Here's more (at 8:08 but I recommend the context):

And more from wikipedia (and their sources) in the video below starting at 1:25, in comparison with what the bible really teaches and says about these subjects including the behaviour of those involved: