A Man With Dreams, Allah, Beauty, Happiness, Happy Ramadan, Human, Husband, Islam, Life, Lord, Love, Marriage, Men, Peace, Quotes, Qura'n and Hadiths, Recomendations, religion, Sufi's, Wife, Wisdom, Women, World, Youth
A Man With Dreams
A man with dreams needs a woman with vision.
faith and support will change his reality.
If she doesn’t challenge you,
then she’s no good for you.
Men who want to stay ordinary will tell you not to have expectations of them.
Men who want to be great will expect you to push them,
pray with them and invest in them.
May This Ramadan be as bright as ever.
May this Ramadan bring joy, health and wealth to you.
May the festival of lights brighten up you and your near and dear ones lives.
May this Ramadan bring in u the most brightest and choicest happiness and love you have ever Wished for.
May this Ramadan bring you the utmost in peace and prosperity.
May lights triumph over darkness.
May peace transcend the earth.
May the spirit of light illuminate the world.
May the light that we celebrate at Ramadan show us the way and lead us together on the path of peace and social harmony.
Wish you a very happy Ramadan Mubarak. ❤
A Sudden Storm
I would never have wandered across these endless countries.
You have poured out so much grace for me.
Done me so many favors,
given me so many gifts.
I look everywhere for Your love.
I am filled with it.
Rabia al Basri
You will take my Heart completely
make it more fiery than a dragon.
Your eyelashes will write
on my Heart
the Poem that could never come from
the Pen of a Poet.
Maulana Jalaudin Rumi (RA)
Now Be Silent
Now be Silent.
Let the One
who creates words speak.
He made the door,
He made the lock,
He also made the key.
Maulana Jalaudin Rumi (RA)
is the one
Maulana Jalaludin Rumi (RA)
- The Roses Are In Bloom (justsimplyinlove.wordpress.com)
Allah, Anger, Boyle, Bush, Francis Boyle, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, God, Hate, Human, Iraq, Iraq War, Islam, Israel, Jews, Kuala Lumpur, Life, Lord, Men, Nazi Israel, Nazis, Nazism, Palestine, Peace, religion, Shia Islam, Syria, United States, USA, Victory, Videos, Wars, Women, World, Youth, Zionism, Zionists
Nazi Israel get the fuck out of Palestine ;
Just fuck off Susan, we had enough of you…..
You better check your own back yard, Mr. Zio-Nazi bastard Net….
we do not even have the body counts from Libya and you baby killers are onto Syria already …. who will help stop you and rid the world of YOUR terrorism …
Francis Boyle quotes M. Albright who said that 500,000 dead Iraqi’s was worth it
Approximately 3.3 million Iraqis, including 750,000 children, were “exterminated” by economic sanctions and/or illegal wars conducted by the U.S. and Great Britain between 1990 and 2012, an eminent international legal authority says.
The slaughter fits the classic definition of Genocide Convention Article II of, “Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part,” says Francis Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois, Champaign, and who in 1991 filed a class-action complaint with the UN against President George H.W. Bush.
The U.S. and U.K. “obstinately insisted” that their sanctions remain in place until after the “illegal” Gulf War II aggression perpetrated by President George W. Bush and UK’s Tony Blair in March, 2003, “not with a view to easing the over decade-long suffering of the Iraqi people and children” but “to better facilitate the U.S./U.K. unsupervised looting and plundering of the Iraqi economy and oil fields in violation of the international laws of war as well as to the grave detriment of the Iraqi people,” Boyle said.
In an address last Nov. 22 to The International Conference on War-affected Children in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Boyle tallied the death toll on Iraq by U.S.-U.K. actions as follows:
# The slaughter of 200,000 Iraqis by President Bush in his illegal 1991 Gulf War I.
# The deaths of 1.4 million Iraqis as a result of the illegal 2003 war of aggression ordered by President Bush Jr. and Prime Minister Blair.
# The deaths of 1.7 million Iraqis “as a direct result” of the genocidal sanctions.
Boyle’s class-action complaint demanded an end to all economic sanctions against Iraq; criminal proceedings for genocide against President George H.W. Bush; monetary compensation to the children of Iraq and their families for deaths, physical and mental injury; and for shipping massive humanitarian relief supplies to that country.
The “grossly hypocritical” UN refused to terminate the sanctions, Boyle pointed out, even though its own Food and Agricultural Organization’s Report estimated that by 1995 the sanctions had killed 560,000 Iraqi children during the previous five years.
Boyle noted that then U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright was interviewed on CBS-TV on May 12, 1996, in response to a question by Leslie Stahl if the price of half a million dead children was worth it, and replied, “we (the U.S. government) think the price is worth it.”
Albright’s shocking response provides “proof positive of the genocidal intent by the U.S. government against Iraq” under the Genocide Convention, Boyle said, adding that the government of Iraq today could still bring legal action against the U.S. and the U.K. in the International Court of Justice. He said the U.S.-U.K. genocide also violated the municipal legal systems of all civilized nations in the world; the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child; and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and its Additional Protocol 1 of 1977.
Boyle, who was stirred to take action pro bono by Mothers in Iraq after the economic sanctions had been imposed upon them by the Security Council in August, 1990, in response to pressure from the Bush Senior Administration. He is the author of numerous books on international affairs, including “Destroying World Order” (Clarity Press.)
and the world still ask what this ???…. yes this happened in Palestine all the time !
What you can see in common? You decide??? WTF civilization ???
U.S. soldier, Spc. Jeremy N. Morlock, posing with the bloodied and partially naked corpse of Gul Mudin, an unarmed Afghan civilian.
Killing 1 person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy.
Killed by US Christians uniformed invaders gangs.
Like Father Like Son… You Decide ?
Anti-Shia terrorist raped her, cut all her hair and left her on the side of the street without any cloth.
We strongly condemn this inhumane action and urges the different groups in Syria to issue a statement and ask the entire members to respect the Shia Muslim and stop any violence toward them.
Arrest of four activists, including the BassimTamimi
Today 10/24/2012 … a group of Palestinian and international activists storming the mall (Rami lave ) calling for boycott of Israeli goods
مجموعة من النشطاء الفلسطينيين والدوليين يقومون باقتحام المركز التجاري رامي ليفي المقام على اراضي فلسطينيية مطالبين بمقاطعة المنتوجات الاسرائيلية
Modern design of War… You Decide???
Zionist Lobby of America and Nazi Israelis Zionists are debating about ways to kill All Muslims!
- US Sponsored Genocide Against Iraq 1990-2012. Killed 3.3 Million, Including 750,000 Children (justsimplyinlove.wordpress.com)
- Sunday Fact Sheet (justsimplyinlove.wordpress.com)
- Bush, Blair Wanted for Crimes Against Humanity: Boyle (amunaor.wordpress.com)
- US President George W. Bush UK Prime Minister Tony Blair Convicted Of Nuremberg Crimes !!!!! (toolwielder.wordpress.com)
- | Quest for Justice: “Bush, Blair wanted for war crimes!” – Prof. Boyle! (truthaholics.wordpress.com)
- Bush, Blair wanted for war crimes: Boyle (jhaines6.wordpress.com)
- U.S. – U.K. Genocide Against Iraq 1990-2012 (veteranstoday.com)
- Op-Ed: US-UK Genocide Against Iraq 1990-2012 Killed 3.3 Million-Including 750K Children (weeklyintercept.blogspot.com)
- Op-Ed: US-UK Genocide Against Iraq 1990-2012 Killed 3.3 Million-Including 750K Children (ukprogressive.co.uk)
- Former President George H.W. Bush hospitalized (washingtontimes.com)
Constantine the greatest Roman Emperor
Anti-Trinitarians falsely portray Constantine as a pagan sun worshipper who had no faith in Christ and was practically the sole author of the Nicene creed. They paint the Nicene council as being run by a pagan with “no understanding” of Christian doctrine and then imply that Constantine drafted the final Nicene text and used his power to banish only those who opposed. These are all lies and deliberate misrepresentations of history!
|In this document:||Constantine’s Anti-Pagan stance as good as any “good” Old Testament King of Judah
Constantine’s Anti-Pagan stance as good as any “good” Old Testament King of Judah
Constantine’s Conversion and Genuineness of Faith
The fact that Constantine murdered his son is no proof that Constantine was not a Christian.
Constantine’s had a good knowledge of Doctrine
Where did the key Nicene term “homoousios” (of one substance) come from? Ossius‘ influence on Constantine
Opposition to the Nicene creed
Nicea opposition same as we see in Luther
Constantine’s role as a Godly peacemaker
Constantine’s impartiality in dealing with Arius and Athanasius
Constantius (Constantine’s son) exiled and crushed by force, the Trinitarians
Arius triumphed for 50 years after Nicea, then was defeated till the 19th century.
Lies vs. Facts on the life of Constantine:
|How Anti-trinitarians misrepresent facts of history||True facts of history|
|Constantine was a pagan who worshipped the sun until just before he died.||
|Constantine’s conversion to Christianity was nothing more than a political move and was not genuine as evidenced by the fact he was not baptized until just before his death.||
|Constantine had no knowledge of Christian doctrine.||
|Constantine, (a pagan sun worshipper who knew nothing about Christian Doctrine) was the author of the Nicene creed.||
|Anti-Trinitarians irresponsibly portray Constantine as a faithless sun-god pagan idol worshipper with no understanding of Christianity who single-handedly introduces trinity to Christianity from the pagans and is almost the author of the Nicene creed.||
|The majority opposed the Nicene creed because they viewed Jesus as a creature, not God.||
|Constantine favoured Athanasius over Arius in the Nicene council.||
When Constantine came upon the temple mount in Jerusalem, he destroyed the temple of Jupiter that had been built in 135 AD by Hadrian. In building the “Church of the Holy Sepulchre” in 325 AD, Eusebius records how Constantine even removed the soil on the site and dumped it far away. Hadrian had built a temple to Venus on the site and Constantine destroyed and removed every trace of this pagan idolatry. This evidence proves that Jehovah’s Witnesses deliberately misrepresent Constantine as a pagan. Eusebius wrote in 325 AD: “How Constantine Commanded the Materials of the Idol Temple, and the Soil Itself, to Be Removed at a Distance: Nor did the emperor’s zeal stop here; but he gave further orders that the materials of what was thus destroyed, both stone and timber, should be removed and thrown as far from the spot as possible; and this command also was speedily executed. The emperor, however, was not satisfied with having proceeded thus far: once more, fired with holy ardor, he directed that the ground itself should be dug up to a considerable depth, and the soil which had been polluted by the foul impurities of demon worship transported to a far distant place.” (Eusebius , The Life of the Blessed Emperor Constantine, book 3, ch 27)
|Constantine’s Anti-Pagan stance as good as any “good” Old Testament King of Judah||
|Constantine’s Conversion and Genuineness of Faith||
|The fact that Constantine murdered his son is no proof that Constantine was not a Christian.||
|Constantine’s had a good knowledge of Doctrine||
|Where did the key Nicene term “homoousios” (of one substance) come from?Ossius’ influence on Constantine||
|Opposition to the Nicene creed||
|Nicea opposition same as we see in Luther||
|Constantine’s role as a Godly peacemaker||
|Constantine’s impartiality in dealing with Arius and Athanasius||
|Constantius (Constantine’s son) exiled and crushed by force, the Trinitarians||
|Arius triumphed for 50 years after Nicea, then was defeated till the 19th century.||
Other texts of interest:
“The Nicene Solution: In June 325 a general council met at Nicea. The number of bishops was apparently somewhere between 250 and 300. The most important of the Eastern bishops were present, but the West was poorly represented; the bishop of Rome did not attend but sent two presbyters in his place. The emperor at first gave the council a free hand, but was prepared to step in if necessary to enforce the formula that his advisor Hosius had agreed on with Alexander of Alexandria. Apparently a fairly large percentage of the delegates were not theologically trained, but among those who were, three basic “parties” were discernible: Arius and the Lucianists, led by Eusebius of Nicomedia; the Origenists, led by Eusebius of Caesarea, already highly reputed; and Alexander of Alexandria, with his following. The Lucianists, who fully expected to prevail, without previously conferring with the Origenists, put forth a rather blunt statement of their beliefs. To their considerable surprise, this was summarily rejected. It was then their hope that the Eusebian position, which was something of a midpoint between the Arian and the Alexandrian parties, would prevail. Indeed, Eusebius put forth a creed, which was unanimously pronounced to be orthodox by those present. Those of the party of Alexander, however, were not fully satisfied. They were favored by the emperor, and followed the strategy of accepting the Creed of Caesarea while demanding a more precise definition of some of its key terms. The emperor favored the inclusion of the word homoousios, as suggested to him by Hosius. The Alexandrian party then presented a carefully worked out statement, which they said was a revised form of the Creed of Caesarea, with certain steps taken to close loopholes that could be interpreted in Arian fashion. The Origenists had considerable reservation about some elements of the creed, fearing that phrases such as “out of the Father’s substance” and “of the same substance as the Father” could be interpreted in a material sense, could be understood as Sabellian, and were not of biblical origin. The emperor exerted considerable influence, saying that there was a desire to preserve the spirituality of the Godhead. Consequently, the statement was approved by all except three members of the council. Even most of Arius’s allies abandoned him, and as Pelikan says, “saluted the emperor, signed the formula, and went right on teaching as they always had.” The creed read as follows: We believe in one God, the FATHER Almighty, Maker of all things, visible and invisible; And in one Lord JESUS CHRIST, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, [the only-begotten, that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (homoousios) with the Father; by whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth]; who for us men, and for our salvation came down and was incarnate and became man; he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; from whence he will come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the HOLY GHOST. [But for those who say: “There was a time when he was not”; and, “He was not before he was made”; and “He was made out of nothing,” or “He is of another substance” or “essence,” or “The Son of God is created,” or “changeable,” or “alterable”-they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church .] The statement is significant both for what it affirmed and what it denied. The word homoousios, which was to carry such great significance in the years ahead, is especially interesting. There was some suspicion of this word on the part of the orthodox because of its earlier association with Gnosticism and even Manicheism. Even its defenders experienced some embarrassment about this term because of its identification with the condemned ideas of Paul of Samosata. This term, however, upon which Constantine insisted, was given a special turn of meaning here. What was being affirmed and insisted upon was that the Son is different, utterly different, from any of the created beings. He is not out of any other substance, but out of the Father. The condemnations attached to the confession also spoke very emphatically to the Arian position, specifically rejecting its major affirmations. Arius refused to sign this statement and was apparently joined by only two other members of the council. The rest, including those supposedly supportive of Arius’s position, signed the creed. It is generally agreed that this was a triumph for the views of Alexander, and that the primary architect of it was Athanasius, strongly supported by Amphilocius and Didymus in the East and Ambrose and Hilary in the West. One question that then must be raised, however, pertains to just what the council meant by this statement. On the one hand, the usual meaning of the word homoousios, as used by Origen, for example, was generic, namely, “of the same nature.” In that sense, it could signify the kind of substance or stuff common to several individuals of a class, as would be true of a collection of humans, for example. On the other hand, it could connote an individual thing as such. While a large number of scholars have contended that the council used the term in this latter sense, there are good grounds for questioning such a conclusion. Both J. N. D. Kelly and G. L. Prestige argue that whether that is properly the terms meaning, it was this more modest version that they had in mind. Among their reasons are the fact that Arius, prior to the council, objected to the term homoousious, but it is apparent that he was repudiating the Son’s alleged divinity, rather than the unity of God. Further, the issue before the council, it is virtually universally agreed, was not the unity of the Godhead but rather the coeternity of the Son with the Father, and his full divinity, as contrasted with the creaturehood that the Arians attributed to him. In addition’ if Eusebius and his allies had thought that homoousios was being used to teach the doctrine of numerical unity of substance, they would have seen this as a concession to Sabellianism and would have vigorously resisted it. Finally, we know that later the most orthodox theologians continued to use the term in the sense of generic unity.” (God in Three Persons, Millard J. Erickson, p82-85)
“THE COUNCIL OF NICEA: In 325 a Council was convoked by Constantine the emperor at Nicea in Bithynia. The names of over 220 of those in attendance known. Most of these came from the East. Five or six came from the West, among these Hosius of Cordova and the priests Vitus and Vincent, who represented Pope Sylvester. There is no record of the acts of the Council. Only its Creed, 20 canons, and a synodal letter condemning Arius are extant (Denz 125-130). The Nicene Creed says simply: We believe in one God, the Father almighty, creator of all things both visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten born of the Father, that is, of the substance of the Father; God from God, light from light, true God from true God; begotten, not created, consubstantial with the Father; through Him all things were made, those in heaven and those on earth as well…. And we believe in the Holy Spirit. As for those who say: ‘There was a time when He did not exist’ and ‘before He was begotten, He did not exist’ and ‘He was made from nothing, or from another hypostasis or essence,’ alleging that the Son of God is mutable or subject to change such persons the Catholic and apostolic Church condemns (Denz 125-126). What the Creed rejected is clear enough. It was Arius’ doctrine that the Son is not true God but a creature, that He was not begotten of the substance of the Father but was made from nothing, that He was not eternal but rather that ‘there was a time when He did not exist.’ What was affirmed was a belief in one God, the Father almighty, creator of all things; and in one Lord Jesus Christ. through whom all things were made and who is the Son of God, the only-begotten of the Father, born of the substance of the Father. true God from true God, begotten not created, consubstantial with the Father; and in the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is merely mentioned together with the Son and the Father, to indicate belief in the Triad of Father and Son and Holy Spirit, but He is given no further attention. All the conciliar stress was on the Son, His status, and His relation to the Father. Somewhat surprisingly the Council still used the words ousia and hypostasis as synonyms. Several points stand out. The Council Fathers did not use the term Logos for Christ but the more evangelical word Son. They stressed that He was not created but begotten, not made from nothing but born from the substance of the Father, thus indicating that His was not a metaphorical or adoptive sonship but a real, metaphysical sonship that entailed consubstantiality or community of divine nature between the Father and the Son. They emphasized His divinity by saying He was not only born of the Father and not created but also was eternal and was God from God, true God from true God. But the word that has continued to stand out most of all is the word consubstantial or homoousios. What does it mean in the Nicene Creed? Before Nicea it generally meant ‘of generically the same substance. For later Catholic theologians it means ‘of identically the same substance.’ For a long time it had been widely assumed that the specific teaching of Nicea was that the Son as consubstantial with the Father had identically the same substance as the Father, and that the Council had thus taught not only the divinity of the Son but also His numerical identity of substance with the Father. But in recent years there has developed a growing tendency to question and reject this assumption. It is clear that the Council did not explicitly affirm that the Son was ‘consubstantial with the Father’ had the one same identical divine substance as the Father, and hence this was not its specific or formal teaching. But when it said the Son was ‘consubstantial with the Father,’ it meant at least that He is ‘utterly like the Father in substance,’ ‘utterly unlike creatures in substance,’ that He is ‘of the Father’s substance’ and ‘of no other substance.”” But if the Council did not explicitly affirm numerical consubstantiality of Son and Father, was the idea of numerical consubstantiality prominent in the minds of the Nicene Fathers? Today there is a tendency to doubt or deny this also, and for a variety of reasons . It is urged that if the word consubstantial up to Nicea had only meant generic identity or likeness of substance, it would not suddenly be accepted as meaning numerical identity of substance. and if it had been so understood then the Eusebians would have cried out ‘Sabellanism.’ Further, it is argued that since the great issue at Nicea was the Son’s full divinity and coeternity and not the unity of the Godhead, the word consubstantial would have been understood to signify the Son’s full divinity, His total likeness in substance to the Father and total unlikeness to creatures in substance. It is pointed out also that later on when the numerical identity of substance was fully acknowledged, some orthodox theologians still used the word consubstantial in the sense of generic unity. All this seems to make an impressive case for the view that the Nicene Fathers generally understood ‘consubstantiality’ as likeness in substance. But perhaps an even stronger case can be made for the traditional view that they understood consubstantiality as identity of substance. Could they have failed to realize that if the Son was ‘of the Father’s substance,’ then He must be like the Father in substance? Why, then, would they add consubstantial if it merely meant ‘like the Father in substance’? Again, it would seem to be unnatural” for monotheists to admit two divine ousiai. And yet the Fathers must have realized that they would be doing just that if they said the Son was only ‘like the Father in ousia.’ Further, why is it logical to say that the Fathers used ‘consubstantial’ in its Origenist sense of ‘like the Father,’ when they must have known that for Origen it meant ‘like but inferior to the Father,’ while they were intent on affirming the Son’s equality with the Father? Again, why should the Fathers be unready to accept a new meaning instead of the traditional meaning of this term, if they were ready to use this ‘new’ term itself instead of a traditional Biblical term? Again, if Hosius of Cordova influenced the adoption of the term, would he have failed to indicate to the Nicene Fathers that for him and the West it signified ‘identity of substance’? Finally. to all this we might add Athanasius’ declaration that it was the intention of the Nicene decree to go beyond mere likeness and touch identity (De decr. nic. syn. 20). SUMMARY In the New Testament the eternity and divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit were indicated clearly enough but nowhere formally declared. There was no formal doctrine about Christ’s origin. nature, relation to the Father and to the Holy Spirit. There was no formal doctrine about a Triune God. But the elements for such a doctrine were there. In their somewhat infelicitous attempts to explain the Son’s divine status and His relation to the Father by a two-stage theory of a preexistent Logos, the Apologists obscured if they did not deny the eternal personality and the eternal generation of the Son. Clement and Origen rejected the two-stage theory of the Apologists and maintained the eternal generation of the Son. But Origen, in his attempt to combine strict monotheism with a hierarchical order in the Trinity, ended up by making the Son and the Holy Spirit not precisely creatures but ‘diminished gods,’ inferior to the Father who alone was God in the strict sense. The stage was set for Arius. He saw in Scripture, the Apologists, and especially Origen two interwoven ideas, one that the Son was God, the other that the Son was subordinate and inferior to the Father in divinity. He saw a tension between these two ideas that the Father alone was God in the strict sense and that the Son was a ‘diminished god’ but not a creature, and he was not satisfied with the tension. He felt it must be resolved, and so he put a blunt question: Is the Son God or creature? He answered his question just as bluntly: The Son is not God. He is a perfect creature, not eternal but made by the Father out of nothing. And thus the subordinationist tendency in the Apologists and in Origen had reached full term. The question that Arius put and answered so bluntly was a ‘live’ question, of vital importance to the Christian and trinitarian faith of the Church and one that was deeply disturbing. The Church had to face up to the Arian question and go on record for or against the Arian answer. It did this at Nicea. Though there may be doubt about the understanding of ‘consubstantial’ at Nicea, there can be no doubt about the historical and dogmatic importance of the Council itself. For there the Church definitively rejected the answer that Arius gave to the question he put: Is the Son God or creature? The Council firmly rejected Arius’ contention that the Son was a creature, not eternal, and made out of nothing. It firmly declared that He was begotten, not made, was born of the Father’s substance. was true God from true God, was consubstantial with the Father. It did more. In the New Testament affirmations about the Son were largely functional and soteriological, and stressed what the Son is to us. Arians willingly recited these affirmations but read into them their own meaning. To preclude this Arian abuse of the Scripture affirmations Nicea transposed these Biblical affirmations into ontological formulas, and gathered the multiplicity of scriptural affirmations, titles, symbols, images, and predicates about the Son into a single affirmation that the Son is not made but born of the Father, true God from true God, and consubstantial with the Father. A definitive answer was given to the question of Arius not in the empirical categories of experience, the relational category of presence, or even the dynamic categories of power and function but in the ontological category of substance, which is a category of being. Nicaea did not describe; it defined. It defined what the Son is, in himself and in his relation to the one God the Father. The Son is from the Father in a singular, unshared way, begotten as Son,, not made as a creature. The Son is all that the Father is. except for the Name of Father. This is what homoousion means. This is what the Son is. . . . The Nicene definition … formally established the statute of the ontological mentality within the Church. It was the precedent for the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, which resolved the issue of the internal constitution of Christ, the Son Incarnate, in the ontological categories of nature and person. . . . By its passage from the historical-existential categories of Scripture to the ontological or explanatory categories exhibited in the homoousion Nicaea sanctioned the principle of the development of doctrine . . . of growth in understanding of the primitive affirmations contained in the New Testament revelation.” (The Triune God, Edmund J. Fortman, p 66-70)
- The Doctrine Of The Trinity (justsimplyinlove.wordpress.com)