If the Passover of the New Covenant (Jesus flesh and blood) is the only way to receive forgiveness of sins, then why did the Council of Nicaea remove this important teaching in AD 325?

  1. If the Passover of the New Covenant (Jesus flesh and blood) is the only way to receive forgiveness of sins, then why did the Council of Nicaea remove this important teaching in AD 325?
  2. Does Genesis imply that there is two God’s – God the father and God the Mother because of Genesis 1:26 where it says “let us” and which resulted in two images one male and one female? If you combine Galatians 4:26 and revelation 21:9 and revelation 22:17 does this prove that Elohim means God the Father and God the Mother?
  3. Who is the bride of the lamb in revelation 21:9 and who is the bride in rev 22:17? Can you list verses to support your answer?
  4. What is exactly is the “will of my father”? In Matt 7:21
  5. What did Apostle Paul mean when he said there is only one God the father, and one Lord in Jesus Christ?
  6. What did Apostle Paul really mean when he said Jersuelm that is above is our mother?


First of all, I know of no scripture that teaches that the Passover of the New Covenant is the only way to receive forgiveness of sins.  I do agree that salvation is found only in Christ and in his blood, but why you are using the phrase “Passover of the New Covenant” as the essential teaching for salvation is not clear to me.  Perhaps there is a discussion I am not seeing that led you to this question. Please tell me specifically what you believe was removed from accepted Christian doctrine by the Council of Nicaea so that I can respond to what this council did and to its importance and whether or not it was a wise thing to do from a biblical perspective.  Sorry, but I need specifics before I can respond to this.

Genesis definitely does not imply that there are two Gods.  If there is any teaching in the Old Testament which is abundantly clear, it is that there is only one God. In Deuteronomy we are told what we are told repeatedly throughout the Old Testament, which is that there is One God. “Hear O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is One.”   Genesis certainly does not contradict this.  Nowhere does it say that there are two Gods.  Nowhere does it even imply that there are two Gods.  It has Adam walking with God in the Garden of Eden, and there is unambiguously only one God walking with Adam.  It is true that in the first chapter, the royal “We” and “Us,” is used by God and the plural word Elohim is used, but experts in the Hebrew tell us that this is a matter of literary style and not an indication of multiple Gods.  The idea of God the Mother is foreign to the Bible—plain and simple.  God is obviously neither male or female.  He dies not have genitals and he does not have a Y-chromosome.  God is neither male nor female.  He is referred to using male gender pronouns, which is not surprising.  He is called Father by Jesus, but clearly God has some of the traits we typically associate with femaleness, such as tenderness and compassion.  The use of the female pronoun for Jerusalem that is above in Galatians 4:26 is completely irrelevant to the gender of God and it rather obviously is not an indication of a separate Mother/God.  This would be the grossest misuse of this scripture.  Here Paul is using the metaphor of Jerusalem to represent spiritual Israel, which is God’s people in the present age—the Church.  No amount of pulling passages out of context will provide any real support for the totally anti-biblical view that there is more than one God or a God-Mother separate from a God-Father.  The enemies of Christianity will do this sort of scripture shopping and proof-texting, but this use of Galatians 4:26 or Revelation 21:9 to try to prove that Elohim is a plural God is irresponsible and I believe an unscholarly use of the Bible.

The bride of the Lamb in Revelation 21:9 is the Church.  This is proved by Ephesians 5:22-33, as well as by the context of Revelation as a whole.  I can list other passages if you like, but this will be the conclusion of all conservative biblical scholars.  It certainly is not some sort of female God.  Only an uninformed critic, reading the Bible to find reasons to refute traditional beliefs would come to this conclusion.

The “will of the Father” in Matthew 7:21 is his general will.  This passage is about those who choose to obey God and who make efforts to live according to his general will, as opposed to those who choose to rebel against God and to reject his general will for their lives.  In Matthew 7:21 there is not a single specific part of God’s will in mind, but the general will of God.  As an example, a child can disobey a single command of his or her parent and still be under their parent and not in outright rebellion.  On the other hand, there are children who have rebelled against their parents, left them and live in opposition to them.  It is the second category that God has in mind in Matthew 7:21.  So, there is no “exact” answer to the question what is the will of the Father in Matthew 7:21

On your fourth question, I assume you are referring to 1 Corinthians 8:6.  For this we have to look at the context of the question.  The point he is making is that there is only one God and that idols are nothing, as they are representatives of a “god” which is literally not even real.  He then tells us that there is one God alone.  Then he talks about both the Father and the Son.  Of course, this three-in-one God is taught in the New Testament, for example in John 1:1 in which we learn that Jesus (the Son) is both with God (presumably the Father) and is at the same time God.  I know that the doctrine commonly referred to as the trinity is difficult to grasp, but this is what Paul is talking about in the passage.  The point here is that there is only one God, but he is known both as Father and as Son.  I will admit that this is a difficult passage, but it is what the Bible teaches.

In your last question you go back to Galatians 4:26. Again, he is using  a metaphor here, which is not an uncommon metaphor in the New Testament.  The Church is referred to as the New Israel.  Judaism is referred to here as “Mt. Sinai” and as “the present city of Jerusalem.”  Christianity is “the Jerusalem that is above and is free.”  We are the promised children of God.  We are Abraham’s descendants.  The “physical Jerusalem” is a reference to physical Israel or the Jews.  Spiritual Israel are Abrahams spiritual descendants, which is the Church and members of that Church.  A supporting passage is Romans 4:16-17 in which Paul describes two kinds of offspring of Abraham—the physical descendants (the Jews) and those who are saved by the blood of Jesus.  As Christians, Abraham is our Father and the heavenly Jerusalem is our Mother.  Of course these are metaphors but they represent the spiritual reality.  The entire section of Romans 4:1-25 is teaching this, as is Galatians 4:21-31.  The metaphors, if taken too literally, can be a bit confusing, to be sure.  We, as Christians are the bride of Christ, yet the church us referred to as a Mother as well in Galatians 4:26.  If we step back and consider what is being taught, then the basic teaching is clear.

If I have left anything unclear, do not hesitate to ask follow-up question.

John Oakes

Comments are closed.