The Nicene Creed

civilwarbuff · Feb 12, 2016

Maybe the end is closer than we think.....

MerriestHouse · Feb 12, 2016

JackRT said:
For many years I have struggled to understand the doctrine of the trinity. To say it is a mystery that we are not expected to comprehend simply doesn't cut it for me. Some time ago I discovered that in the original formulation of the trinity, the word in Greek which we traditionally have interpreted to mean "persons", as in "three persons in one God" is actually the same word used to designate the mask worn by actors in Greco-Roman theater. We cannot call this a "person" but we can certainly call it a "persona". This insight has put a totally new spin on the entire concept for me. We finite creatures cannot possibly hope to describe our transcendent God, but we can speak of the modes or roles or personae that assist our understanding. God as creator/father, God as spirit/sustainer, and the glimpse of God we obtain in the life and teaching of Jesus. In other words, trinity is not a description of God but is, rather, a description of the human experience of God in the language of fourth century Greek speaking Christianity. We are not limited to just these three. Any persona that promotes our understanding of and our relationship to God is completely acceptable. God could be mother as well as father. God could be Wisdom / Sophia / Word / Allah / Krishna / Manitou. God's possibilities are endless. These are merely our human images of God. God is, as always, ONE.

Isn't that like Oneness?

redleghunter · Feb 12, 2016

civilwarbuff said:
That sounds almost like an oxymoron......An atheist heading a Christian Church.....

Yes I posted a thread on the news story.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/a...n-ordained-in-united-church-of-canada-142493/

I will try to find the thread.

Wgw · Feb 12, 2016

MerriestHouse said:
I agree. The Jewish early disciples preserved the NT writings as well as the OT Scripture. Many of the so-called "church fathers" were influenced by pagan thought.

Not the Fathers, but rather, heresiarchs like Valentinius, Mani, Arius, et al.

Wgw · Feb 12, 2016

MerriestHouse said:
How many versions are there of the Trinity?

"So likewise the Father is Almighty: the Son Almighty: and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties: but one Almighty. So the Father is God: the Son is God: and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods: but one God."

At most, two; the only substantial variation in triadology is the RC doctrine of filioque, which the Orthodox reject.

redleghunter · Feb 12, 2016

MerriestHouse said:
I agree. The Jewish early disciples preserved the NT writings as well as the OT Scripture. Many of the so-called "church fathers" were influenced by pagan thought.

Not an accurate picture. The Scriptures were used extensively in church fathers apologetics. That is how they refuted the heretics by confirming the oral traditions with the apostolic written Word.

We owe our gratitude to these early theologians not 19th century-present revisionism.

Radical textual criticism tends to throw the baby out with the bath water. An unwise proposition.

Wgw · Feb 12, 2016

JackRT said:
For many years I have struggled to understand the doctrine of the trinity. To say it is a mystery that we are not expected to comprehend simply doesn't cut it for me. Some time ago I discovered that in the original formulation of the trinity, the word in Greek which we traditionally have interpreted to mean "persons", as in "three persons in one God" is actually the same word used to designate the mask worn by actors in Greco-Roman theater. We cannot call this a "person" but we can certainly call it a "persona".

Prosopon means more than mask; it can mean mask or face, but it also has the sense of person. So whereas it is wrong to translate prosopon as "discrete individual human" it is also wrong to render it "mask."

This insight has put a totally new spin on the entire concept for me. We finite creatures cannot possibly hope to describe our transcendent God, but we can speak of the modes or roles or personae that assist our understanding. God as creator/father, God as spirit/sustainer, and the glimpse of God we obtain in the life and teaching of Jesus.

Here, I get the impression you are going beyond Sabellianism in order to adopt a Unitarian rejection of the deity of our Lord. Certainly our Lord is not a "glimpse of God."

In other words, trinity is not a description of God but is, rather, a description of the human experience of God in the language of fourth century Greek speaking Christianity.

The word Trinity is of Latin origin, having originated with Tertullian; it furthermore was acceoted by all orthodox Christians of the fourth century: Latins, Greeks, Syriacs, Copts, Celts, Ethiopians, Armenians, Georgians, Indians...

We are not limited to just these three. Any persona that promotes our understanding of and our relationship to God is completely acceptable. God could be mother as well as father. God could be Wisdom / Sophia / Word / Allah / Krishna / Manitou. God's possibilities are endless. These are merely our human images of God. God is, as always, ONE.

Krishna, the Islamic god and Manitou represent entirely different religious perspectives which are essentially evil and worthy of derision. The gods of the gentiles are demons (Psalm 95:5 LXX).

If you disagree, consider the human rights track record and social achievements of Christianity (an end to gladiatorial combat, the hospital, et cetera) with the apalling history of Isla, or Hinduism, for example.

redleghunter · Feb 12, 2016

rakovsky said:
Welcome to post-"Reformed" Protestantism.

Slight correction. Welcome to post modern "anythingism."

And yes trying to nail down the theological basis for the post modern views is akin to giving a cat a bath.

Wgw · Feb 12, 2016

redleghunter said:
Slight correction. Welcome to post modern "anythingism."

And yes trying to nail down the theological basis for the post modern views is akin to giving a cat a bath.

My cat never liked baths.

redleghunter · Feb 12, 2016

Wgw said:
My cat never liked baths.

I tried once and almost lost a pint of blood.

AHH who-stole-my-name · Feb 12, 2016

Dkh587 said:
He is God but He is not The Father

Um. This sounds wrong to me. As I understand it they are the same person.

Dkh587 · Feb 13, 2016

AHH who-stole-my-name said:
Um. This sounds wrong to me. As I understand it they are the same person.

I don't believe that Yahusha, the one most people call Jesus, is the Almighty YAHUAH of Hosts. I believe they're 2 separate entities but that they are in unity with one another

I personally believe that Yahusha made appearances in the Tanakh(OT) as the angel/messenger of Yah

Numbers 20:16 NLT
“But when we cried out to YAH, he heard us and sent an angel who brought us out of Egypt. Now we are camped at Kadesh, a town on the border of your land.”

it was the Angel who was in the cloud and the fire

Exodus 13:21-22 NIV
“By day YAH went ahead of them in a pillar of cloud to guide them on their way and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, so that they could travel by day or night. Neither the pillar of cloud by day nor the pillar of fire by night left its place in front of the people.”

We see that YAH

That angel I believe is the Messiah....

Encountering and talking to this Angel was basically like seeing and interacting with Yah..

For example, it was the angel that was in the pillar of fire, and a cloud by day. It was NOT the Most High himself. It was not the Most High himself that appeared to (Moses) in the burning bush. It was the angel of YAH

This Angel/Messenger was like God to them, but he was not the Most High Yahuah

The messenger found Hagar and spoke to her

Genesis 16:7-8 NIV
“The angel of YAH found Hagar near a spring in the desert; it was the spring that is beside the road to Shur. And he said, “Hagar, slave of Sarai, where have you come from, and where are you going?” “I’m running away from my mistress Sarai,” she answered.”

Notice that she was speaking to the angel, but it also says that it was Yah was speaking to her. This is 2 different beings operating as 1. The Most High was speaking through this angel. The Hebrew word for angel is malak, which also means messenger.

Genesis 16:13 NLT
“Thereafter, Hagar used another name to refer to YAH, who had spoken to her. She said, “You are the God who sees me.” She also said, “Have I truly seen the One who sees me?”

Manoah calls the angel God

Judges 13:20-22 NIV
“As the flame blazed up from the altar toward heaven, the angel of YAH ascended in the flame. Seeing this, Manoah and his wife fell with their faces to the ground. When the angel of YAH did not show himself again to Manoah and his wife, Manoah realized that it was the angel of YAH. “We are doomed to die!” he said to his wife. “We have seen God!””

Joshua saw him in the form of a man. Baalam saw him in his spiritual form. But he had to open Baalam's eyes. Also, Look what he told Joshua: take your sandals off! Just like he told Moses

Joshua 5:13-15 NIV
“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 YAH I have now come.” Then Joshua fell facedown to the ground in reverence, and asked him, “What message does my Master have for his servant?” The commander of the army of YAH replied, “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy.” And Joshua did so.”

This "man" has a pretty high ranking. Joshua seems to understand who this is. This is clearly the Angel/Messenger that spoke to Moses

Numbers 22:31 NLT
“Then YAH opened Balaam’s eyes, and he saw the angel of YAH standing in the roadway with a drawn sword in his hand. Balaam bowed his head and fell face down on the ground before him”

‭‭

‭Manoah asked his name and He did not tell him what it was. Just like Jacob, after wrestling with the Angel, asked what his name was, but he did not tell Jacob. He said he saw God face to face. But we know that he wrestled the Angel

Genesis 32:29-30 NIV
“Then the man said, “Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with humans and have overcome.” Jacob said, “Please tell me your name.” But he replied, “Why do you ask my name?” Then he blessed him there. So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, “It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.”

Compare to Manoah asking his name

Judges 13:17-18 NIV
“Then Manoah inquired of the angel of YAH. “What is your name, so that we may honor you when your word comes true?” He replied, “Why do you ask my name? It is beyond understanding.”

Could this be the same name in Revelation 19:12?

Revelation 19:12 NLT
“His eyes were like flames of fire, and on his head were many crowns. A name was written on him that no one understood except himself.”

And how do we know Jacob wrestled with the Angel? Hosea tells us that he did

Hosea 12:3-4 NIV
“In the womb he grasped his brother’s heel; as a man he struggled with God. He struggled with the angel and overcame him; he wept and begged for his favor. He found him at Bethel and talked with him there—”

This is how I believe that Yahusha(Jesus) can be called God/Elohim in the Tanakh(Old Testament), but at the same time not be the Most High, God the Father, YAHUAH

I think Yahusha was that angel.

JackRT · Feb 13, 2016

redleghunter said:
The mods or admin folks can change your religion/Faith label

Tried that. It lasted a couple of days then reverted back.

MerriestHouse · Feb 13, 2016

Wgw said:
Prosopon means more than mask; it can mean mask or face, but it also has the sense of person. So whereas it is wrong to translate prosopon as "discrete individual human" it is also wrong to render it "mask."

Here, I get the impression you are going beyond Sabellianism in order to adopt a Unitarian rejection of the deity of our Lord. Certainly our Lord is not a "glimpse of God."

The word Trinity is of Latin origin, having originated with Tertullian; it furthermore was acceoted by all orthodox Christians of the fourth century: Latins, Greeks, Syriacs, Copts, Celts, Ethiopians, Armenians, Georgians, Indians...

This is why some of us trust the Hebrew and Greek languages of the Jews and not the Latin of Rome. When scripture was translated from Greek into Latin (Vulgate) and then into English, much was lost in the translation, and much was added in the translation. I prefer the Greek to English Interlinear. It was translated using the oldest Greek manuscripts available.

MerriestHouse · Feb 13, 2016

Wgw · Feb 13, 2016

MerriestHouse said:
This is why some of us trust the Hebrew and Greek languages of the Jews and not the Latin of Rome. When scripture was translated from Greek into Latin (Vulgate) and then into English, much was lost in the translation, and much was added in the translation. I prefer the Greek to English Interlinear. It was translated using the oldest Greek manuscripts available.

The KJV was translated primarily from the Greek Byzantine text and the Hebrew MT. That said, the Vulgate is a very good translation into Latin, by the pious St. Jerome, and the Latin word persona comes much closer than the modern English person towards grasping the full meaning of prosopon.

MerriestHouse · Feb 13, 2016

Wgw said:
The KJV was translated primarily from the Greek Byzantine text and the Hebrew MT. That said, the Vulgate is a very good translation into Latin, by the pious St. Jerome, and the Latin word persona comes much closer than the modern English person towards grasping the full meaning of prosopon.

There is no case in the whole Scripture does the word God mean God in tree persons. a tri-personal God is never mentioned. Jesus never even hinted that he was over-turning his whole Hebrew heritage in the matter of defining who God is by including himself in the so-called Godhead. (btw, Godhead is not in the original Greek Scripture) RSV, Romans 1:20 "Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse" The KJV has it: his eternal power and Godhead.

Christianity grew out of a Jewish context, with Jewish theology and Jewish concerns. I believe Scripture must be interpreted by its earliest teaching because of it's Jewish framework.

Jerome was a Roman. He learned Latin and knew very little Greek. He was far removed from the Jewish disciples. He knew nothing of it's Jewish framework.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome

"Jerome used a quote from Virgil—"On all sides round horror spread wide; the very silence breathed a terror on my soul"[15]—to describe the horror of hell. Jerome initially used classical authors to describe Christian concepts such as hell that indicated both his classical education and his deep shame of their associated practices, such as pederasty which was found in Rome. Although initially skeptical of Christianity, he was eventually converted.[16] After several years in Rome, he travelled with Bonosus to Gaul and settled in Trier where he seems to have first taken up theological studies."

Wgw · Feb 13, 2016

MerriestHouse said:
There is no case in the whole Scripture does the word God mean God in tree persons. a tri-personal God is never mentioned. Jesus never even hinted that he was over-turning his whole Hebrew heritage in the matter of defining who God is by including himself in the so-called Godhead. (btw, Godhead is not in the original Greek Scripture) RSV, Romans 1:20 "Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse" The KJV has it: his eternal power and Godhead.

Godhead and deity are broadly speaking, synonymous. Our Lord does attest to His divinitg in various verses over which we have iterated ad nauseum ad infinitum.

Christianity grew out of a Jewish context, with Jewish theology and Jewish concerns. I believe Scripture must be interpreted by its earliest teaching because of it's Jewish framework.

Herein one must be careful to distinguish between the ancient hieratic religion of Moses and Ezra, and the corruption of contemporary Rabinnical Judaism, which is Pharisaism malevolved in opposition to Christianity, intermingled with Gnostic (Kabbalah) and Islamist iconoclastic influence (we know from the synagoge at Dura Europos that Judaism historically had iconography, something it tragically lost).

Jerome was a Roman. He learned Latin and knew very little Greek.

Not true; St. Jerome, like most educated Romans, had extensive knowledge of Koine Greek, which was the lingua franca of the Eastern half of the Roman Empire, and was widely spoken even in Rome (the Roman Church did not start using Latin extensively until the late 2nd century). St. Jerome also learned Hebrew Mad Aramaic, which were less well known among Romiioi.

He was far removed from the Jewish disciples. He knew nothing of it's Jewish framework.

That's a rather silly assertion; St. Jerome it should also be noted was unusual among the Fathers in that he preferred the Hebrew texts to the Septuagint. He knew rather more of Judaism than many other prominent Patristic figures.

However, we are chasing shadows: St. Jerome is not directly relevant to the OP, which relates to the Nicene Creed.

royal priest · Feb 13, 2016

MerriestHouse said:
Jesus never even hinted that he was over-turning his whole Hebrew heritage in the matter of defining who God is by including himself in the so-called Godhead.

Actually, there is significant evidence that Jesus believed He was One with the Father.

MerriestHouse said:
Christianity grew out of a Jewish context, with Jewish theology and Jewish concerns. I believe Scripture must be interpreted by its earliest teaching because of it's Jewish framework.

There are significant parallels in the OT and NT which allow for a remarkably clear interpretation that the Messiah is God, Himself.

nomadictheist · Feb 13, 2016

Unsurprisingly, this turned into a debate about the trinity doctrine...

I thought a prerequisite to posting on CT forum was affirmation of the Nicene Creed

The Nicene Creed

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Thank You Jesus!

Pray For Brussels!

Pray For Brussels!

Thank You Jesus!

Pray For Brussels!

Thank You Jesus!

Pray For Brussels!

Thank You Jesus!

in accordance with Christ

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Pray For Brussels!

Active Member

Pray For Brussels!

debtor to grace

Alive in Christ

Similar threads