Canada's woke nightmare: A warning to the West | Documentary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qt2AuVQKpq0
Under Justin Trudeau, Canada has sought to position itself as the global bastion of progressive politics. In my latest Telegraph documentary, seen above, I went to the former British colony to find out how Canadians are dealing with Trudeau’s radical reforms; from the promotion of gender ideology in schools and the mass legalisation of drugs, to his extreme new suicide laws and clamp downs on freedom of speech. I began my investigation in one of the country’s most liberal cities, Vancouver. Possession of up to 2.5 grams of hard drugs, including heroin, cocaine and fentanyl, has been legalised in the city as part of a three year experiment which began in January of this year. If the aim was to combat the opioid crisis that already beset the city then it appears there is still much to be done as vast tent sites line the streets, patrolled by roaming zombie-like drug addicts. As we filmed on Hastings Street, infamous as the epicentre of Vancouver’s homelessness crisis, I witnessed a topless man shoot a needle into his arm five feet from me. Though it wasn’t quite as bad as San Francisco, where my cameraman and I came under attack from angry vagrants, the scenes were still shocking. It’s not just the homeless who patrol the streets of Vancouver. Chris Elston, better known online as Billboard Chris, campaigns against the imposition of gender ideology on children, whether through Canada’s education system or via dangerous operations to “transition” young adults. As his nickname suggests, Chris walks around Vancouver wearing signs protesting gender ideology, encouraging lively debates with passers-by which he puts on YouTube. Chris kindly allowed our crew to join him on a walkabout, where we found many Canadians horrified by the use of puberty blockers in children and the promotion of biological men in women’s sports. We did encounter some opposition of course, mostly through the odd shout or flicking of the finger. So much for Canadian politeness. One aggressive gentleman, tall, ageing and angry, began a tirade against Chris with the rather bizarre singular message that he is “queer”. Part of Canada’s social revolution can also be witnessed in its extreme new euthanasia laws. In 2016, the ruling Liberal Party passed legislation enabling assisted suicide for terminally ill Canadians. Next year the legislation will be expanded to include those with mental health problems. As Christianity declines across Canada, and the liberal obsession with “bodily autonomy” and “personal freedom” reaches its logical conclusion, a new dystopia is forming. As Dr Konia Trouton, a euthanasia advocate, told me, “we are an organised society but within that organisation we have to allow some freedoms and opportunities, this is not a communist system where we can try and reign that in”. The campaign group Euthanasia Prevention Coalition estimates that 13,500 people chose state-assisted suicide last year. To prevent wokeism from spreading it is important to have a strong opposition party. Canada’s Conservatives have been historically weak in pushing back against Trudeau, however, their recently elected leader, Pierre Poilievre, has injected fresh energy into the party. Whilst there are some who still question Poillievre’s conservative credentials, his strategy seems to be working; one recent poll gave his party a twelve point lead over Trudeau’s Liberals. However, the most successful opponents to Canada’s social revolution have so far not been politicians but members of the public. Our film highlights some of these brave individuals, including Dr Jordan Peterson, perhaps the most high-profile Canadian in the world other than the country’s leader. During my travels I found ordinary people appalled at Canada’s surrender to drug dealers, its contempt for freedom of speech, its enforcement of gender ideology on children and a breezy willingness to terminate the lives of its own citizens. However, for all the depressing stories of people losing their jobs, or being hounded by the government, these cases were equally inspirational. Whilst Canada is a warning to the West, there are also individual messages of hope from those brave individuals fighting for their freedom.

Think you know the bible? I doubt it. It is widely believed–even among Christians and some of their scholars–that the Catholic Church established its official doctrine of the Trinity at its Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. But this is incorrect. The traditional doctrine of the Trinity as stated in English—that God is one essence existing as three co-equal and co-eternal Persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit—was unknown then and for decades later. Although the Nicene Council did not provide minutes of its meetings, there is no evidence that it ever used the word “trinity,” which does not appear in the Bible, or even discussed the nature of “the (Holy) Spirit,” concerning which prior Christians had always held many varying views.

The main purpose of the Council of Nicaea was to resolve a debate within the Catholic Church which was threatening the peace of the Roman Empire. It was whether Jesus is fully God or essentially subordinate to God the Father, thus not equal to the Father in essence. It is quite clear in the writings of the church fathers of the second and third centuries, who were called “apologists,” that they subscribed to the belief that Jesus was God/god/deity yet essentially subordinate to the Father. Thus, they could call the Father “God Almighty,” yet refrain from doing the same regarding Jesus. I call this “big God and little god.” Origen even called Jesus a “second god.”

The Council of Nicaea produced a “Nicene Creed.” It has been superseded in the history of Christianity only by “the Apostles Creed.” The primary thrust of the Nicene Creed is that Jesus is “very God of very God,” which means “fully God of fully God.” This terminology was borrowed from Greek philosophy. It means Jesus is equal to the Father in essence. And the Creed only says concerning the Holy Spirit, “We believe … in the Holy Spirit.”

The standard text on the history of this debate in fourth century about the identity of Jesus and the church’s doctrine of the Trinity is Trinitarian R. P. C. Hanson’s magisterial book entitled The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381 (1988, 953 pp.).

The main reason people think the doctrine of the Trinity is in the Nicene Creed of AD 325 is that in many churches, including large church denominations such as the Anglican/Episcopal Church, the creed created at the Council of Constantinople in AD 381 is read in these churches during many of their Sunday morning worship services, and it sometimes is represented wrongly as being the Nicene Creed. In fact, this Creed of Constantinople is the Nicene Creed altered and expanded to include the doctrine of the Trinity even though it does not use the term “trinity” which is obviously because it is not in the Bible.

The Creed of Constantinople embellishes and thereby expands the Nicene Creed. Since it does not eliminate anything from the Nicene Creed, it includes that Jesus is “very God of very God.” The most prominent addition regards the Holy Spirit. Whereas the Nicene Creed only says of the Holy Spirit, “We believe . . . in the Holy Ghost,” the Creed of Constantinople elaborates this prepositional phrase by saying, “We believe . . . in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.” Trinitarians claim this statement affirms their doctrine.

The Trinitarian addition in the Creed of Constantinople that is not in the Nicene Creed is based on the formulations worked out during the 370s in the writings of “the three Cappadocians,” who were theologians. They were Basil the Great, his younger brother Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus.

The following statements by R. P. C. Hanson reveal that the doctrine of the Trinity, made official by the Catholic Church at the Council of Constantinople, was a substantial change in the Christian doctrine of God that had preceded it:

“Very few Western bishops took the trouble to attend the Council [of Nicaea]. The Eastern Church was always the pioneer and leader in theological movements in the early Church” (p. 170).

“Turtullian may well have supplied the West with its Trinitarian vocabulary; he certainly did not supply the East with its Trinitarian theology” (p. 184). Turtullian’s trinity doctrine differed from the later, official, Trinity doctrine.”When we examine the creeds and confessions of faith which were so plentifully produced between the years 325 and 360, we gain the overwhelming impression that no school of thought during that period was particularly interested in the Holy Spirit” (p. 741).

“Gregory of Nyssa is to be sharply distinguished from the other two Cappadocian theologians in that he devised a doctrinal, indeed a theological, system more coherent and more elaborate than any the other two ever produced. There can be no doubt about his debt to Platonic philosophy” (p. 719).

“The three Cappadocian theologians may be said to have shifted the emphasis and to some extent the ground in the great debate which resulted in the formulation of the classic doctrine of the Trinity . . . partly because the question of the status of the Holy Spirit came to the fore in their time as it had not before” (p. 730).

“They elaborated a new vocabulary for expressing a Trinitarian doctrine of God and insisted that this was the only sound way . . . of expressing the ultimate burden of the witness of the Bible to his nature and character. . . . They used contemporary pagan philosophy with much greater confidence and freedom than any Christian writer before them” (p. 731).”The word ‘Trinity (trias) had long been in use (first by Theophilus of Antioch in the second half of the second century) and had been used to cover a multitude of conceptions” (p. 749).

“The Cappadocian Fathers made great and crucial contributions to the development of the full doctrine of the Holy Spirit” (p. 790).

“There is no doubt” that they were “introducing what must be called a change in doctrine. . . . I believe that it was necessary and right and marked the emergence of a genuinely Christian doctrine of God. But that it was a change can hardly be denied.” They felt “compelled to work with philosophical terms and concepts widely different from those of the Bible” (pp. 873, 875).

IMHO: GEORGE SOROS, AND MANY OTHERS, ARE ONLY "MASQUERADING" AS "JEWS", BECAUSE IT GIVES THEM A LOT OF FREE PASSES, AND COVER, FOR THEM TO HIDE BEHIND, WHILE THEY COMMIT THEIR GREEDY, EVIL, CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES!! BLAME THEM, AS INDIVIDUALS!!! IT'S NOT THE "JEWISH RELIGION"...

... IT'S THE SAME "WOLF IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING"... JUST AS THE "CATHOLIC POPE" IS A COMMUNIST, PEDOPHILE SCUM, HIDING BEHIND "CHRISTIANITY"!!!

https://keepthefaith599985944.wordpress.com/2023/08/23/23aug2023/