The thread is about idolatry.
Jesus is of the flesh. He did not ascend to heaven as God. He ascended as the Son of God, in flesh. Not even angels who are without flesh are venerated as God. That is what Lucifer wanted for himself, to be treated just as great as God, hence was cast down to deceive and test mankind in the like manner. To treat Jesus or anything created as equal to God is a form of idolatry.
There is a difference between the Divine God and the holy spirit that was sent and descended in order to be an advocate and a helper.
The Holy Spirit is not the same as God or on a level equal to God either, because it is not God, but rather was sent by God.

No argument here, Pansytilly...

In-short, Cowboy GH's assumption about technical definition of the Anglo-Saxon word 'God' or the Teutonic word 'Gott' isn't a singular Being... For him it's a collective of Spirit-Souls united in a nirvana of oneness.

(At Least I Think That's What He Is Thinking... I might be wrong, but I don't want to discus it further)

Im familiar with the trinity doctrine. Tho, im not an expert on how it was promulgated.
I do think it was an interpretation made to indulge human comfort in thinking that God can be downsized to something of the flesh, and therefore, with humanity, reachable, flawed, and just like one of us. This presumes that God thinks like one of us and we can assume his thinking and logic for him. And that could be the reason that the concept of the trinity remains largely acceptable...

You have some facts wrong.

Constantine didn't convert until on his death bed. He only legalized Christianity.

Constantine was NOT the first leader to claim the status of a god, and he did NOT claim to be a replacement for Christ, as you seem to imply (especially since, again, he remained a non-Christian throughout his life).

In fact, the idea of a leader being the son of a god dates back at least through the early Greeks, and the Egyptians as well.

Christianity brought pagan elements into Christianity in order to bring the followers of those other beliefs into their "big tent" version of Christianity. It's why so many official celebration dates were moved (Birth of Christ moved to match German celebration of Winter solstice and so on.

As for the MANY arguments about who is and isn't worshiping what, there is a huge amount of political history involved with that, which goes far beyond what you've posted.

Didnt Constantine assign himself as pope? The representative of Christ on earth?
That is probably part of his agenda for world domination in spreading his version of Christianity.

Perhaps the most momentous conversion in Western history was that of Constantine I, Roman Emperor and later proclaimed a Christian Saint. While his belief in Christianity occurred long before his death, it was only on his deathbed that he was baptised, in 337. While traditional sources disagree as to why this happened so late, modern historiography concludes[citation needed] that Constantine chose religious tolerance as an instrument to bolster his reign. His edict of toleration, subsequent patronage of the Christian church, even his convening of and presiding over the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, were all carried out while he was still officially a pagan, and while he bore the pagan office of pontifex maximus.

David, What do you base this statement on?
Where is the word "Trinity" in the new testament, or anywhere else in the Bible?

ooohhh...a very political move...say one thing, mean another... apply one thing, do another...not very religious in purpose...

maybe he got baptized for the wrong reasons. though it's possible that he could have sincerely wanted to convert (which i am in doubt of), he could have gotten baptized since he saw that the kind of christinity he advocated, was quickly spreading and accepted and would encompass all other religions.

by being baptized and "officially" made a part of christianity, he could be immortalized even in death -- by becoming a saint, by becoming a pope, and by ensuring that the concept of the Roman brand of christianity/catholicism will pass down the ages...

Couldn't agree with you more.. I don't think ur criticising Christianity but merely stating the facts.. Jesus only preached about worshipping the one true God (including the old testament).. Over time idol worshipping has crept into Christianity, I believe st Paul is responsible for this phenomena

When he was on the cross he said 'forgive them Father, for they know not what they do' or something similar.

To me that means he was asking someone higher than himself to forgive the Romans, just my thought anyway.

not just the Romans, also the Jews who persecuted him, i believe...

So, just how-much Idolatry should Christendom condone ?

That has been a "bone of hot contention" for a VERY long time. In particular, exactly what is considered Idolatry has been in contention. Some believe that ANY physical representation, even of a CONCEPT, is an act of idolatry, while others accept that people can use representations as tools, without succumbing to to worshiping the representations themselves.

Even in this small area, the arguments have expanded to include everything from political loyalties, to concept of wealth itself being sinful.

Note that we have seen acts of terrorism over the fact that some who follow Islam, refuse to admit ANY representation of their deity whatsoever; not just comedic or insulting ones. And part of the schisms which tore Christianity itself to shreds over he centuries, was exactly this subject area.

No Idol can serve to complement who and what the True God is.

(Acts 7: 48+49)

(John 4: 24)

(Exodus 20: 4)

(1st Corinthians 8: 4)

(Acts 17: 29+30)

Not entirely correct. They are one God for Jesus says "The father and I are one".

"God" is a word used to show someone(s) of authority, thus why we are only referred to as gods eg., know ye not that ye are gods, but never the animals. And yet it goes further in creation it states that man was given the "dominion" over the beasts of the world.

Dominion - sovereignty; control
God -
1. a person or thing of supreme value
2. a powerful ruler

We are the "rulers" of the beasts of this world, thus making us their "gods", thus why God states that he gave man dominion over the beasts.

But at the end of the day, there is only ONE God. For we have dominion over the beasts of this world, but Jesus Christ has dominion over us. I said specifically just Jesus for again Jesus and his father are "one". They don't argue, they don't do things differently. They don't act in separate ways, they work as "one" thus one doesn't have authority over the other. And please don't get this confused with things Jesus states throughout the scriptures such as "I do not my own will, but the father for he is greater". You have to keep things in context, while Jesus was here on Earth he was here to fulfill a covenant he made with us and to give us a new. He was here as a "servant", he didn't come in his glory. Thus him coming in the form of a servant, he referenced his father as "God".

And, nothing has changed...

Same old vacillations and switch-backs on a dogma.

What are you talking about? What "vacillations"?

Vacillation = the inability to decide between different opinions or actions; indecision

What has been indecisive on my part for you to claim it's vacillated?

CowboyGH, You like to say 'Father and Son are one', but You go back -and-forth on the simple question of whether-or-not they are One Being or One Joint Pair.

This is You vacillation.

You've been called-out on this on several occasions in the past and every time it's the same flip-flop on Your answer.

I'm sorry you got confused on that Sheik. Jesus says "The father and I are one"... the word(s) translated into that are referring to wills, desires, intentions, ect. Don't have any links off the top of my head, but if you don't believe me.. search the internet. He did not say he was his father, nor his father him but that they were "one"... they don't "argue, disagree, or think differently then one another". And I never flip-flopped my answer, sorry you've misunderstood something somewhere along the road here in our discussions.

If Your official answer is God The Father is a separate Being from Jesus The Son, and they're, 'One In Their Purpose Of Advancing Righteousness'... That would be an acceptable start.