The Nicene Creed

[rakovsky]

Because salvation comes through mere belief in Jesus, that's why. If you can't understand this, then that's how you come up with foolish analogies such as this. Obviously all doctrine is key, but belief in Jesus Christ is from whence all things stem from in growing in the Lord.

If you think "Jesus" is a Central Asian guru or ape-man, it doesn't do to say that all you need is faith in Jesus. You need to have his basic identity correct, don't you?
Muslims believe that Jesus was the Christ and call him that in their language. They don't think he was God though, and like one of the major early Christian sects (Docetism), Muslims don't think Jesus actually suffered the Passion. So are Muslims atoned for and joined to God too?

Please make more sense or at least take a break.

This is painful for me.
<SE>

 

[cgaviria]

If you think "Jesus" is a Central Asian guru or ape-man, it doesn't do to say that all you need is faith in Jesus. You need to have his basic identity correct, don't you?
Muslims believe that Jesus was the Christ and call him that in their language. They don't think he was God though, and like one of the major early Christian sects (Docetism), Muslims don't think Jesus actually suffered the Passion. So are Muslims atoned for and joined to God too?

Please make more sense or at least take a break.

This is painful for me. <se>

Are you really that devoid of understanding that a tree begins to grow with a seed?

If you think "Jesus" is a Central Asian guru or ape-man, it doesn't do to say that all you need is faith in Jesus. You need to have his basic identity correct, don't you?
Muslims believe that Jesus was the Christ and call him that in their language. They don't think he was God though, and like one of the major early Christian sects (Docetism), Muslims don't think Jesus actually suffered the Passion. So are Muslims atoned for and joined to God too?

Please make more sense or at least take a break.

This is painful for me.

His identity is not the Trinity, his identity is being the son of God. If you believe he is the son of God, salvation will come through this mere belief. It's very simple actually. But again, people like you have to try to fit the Trinity into every crevice possible. You people are no different than the Jehovah's Witnesses who say "Jehovah this" or "Jehovah that", but instead use the "Trinity" for this or that instead of using the name of Jesus Christ only. All have been subjected to Jesus Christ alone, therefore it is his name alone that saves, not Jehovah, not the Trinity, Jesus Christ only and in believing in him is one saved.

 

[rakovsky]

All have been subjected to Jesus Christ alone, therefore it is his name alone that saves, not Jehovah, not the Trinity, Jesus Christ only and in believing in him is one saved.

OK, thanks for an easier post to deal with. When things get really obviously wild, it helps dull the pain.

 

[Commander Xenophon]

Sure. I disagree with the Nicene Creed. It has doctrinal problems that deviate from scripture in a very subtle way. The first is this statement,

The Nicene Creed is entirely in accord with Scripture; it is a faithful summary of what is written.

Obviously you know where I stand on this matter, begotten means to be made.

So if I go to Ikea and buy some horrible Swedish particle board furniture kit and assemble it, I can now regard it as my offspring. Brilliant!

Next, Jesus Christ did not make all "things", he made all "beings". "Things" was not part of the original text of John 1. It should instead read, "All through him existed", meaning all living beings.

We have been over this before: panta, not panil zoen. Panta can be read as meaning "all things," and this is the correct reading.

Even the Genesis account agrees with this, because water already existed before Jesus Christ started speaking. Hence all "things" were not created by him, but all life certainly was.

John 1:3 doesn't say "all life."

Next this statement,


This statement gives allegiance to the catholic church, hence why even the catholic church claims this creed as their own,

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/

It gives allegiance to the Universal Church, which I believe is the Orthodox Church, and most Protestants regard as referring to some invisible body of the faithful. It does not say "Roman Catholic;" the Roman Pope was not even personally present at the ecumenical councils where the creed was adopted.

So, if you're going to base any doctrine, base it on scripture, not the Nicene Creed. You upholding the Nicene Creed would be the equivalent of me grabbing a Rick Warren book and saying, this is truth. Stick to scriptures and stop making a fuss about this document, especially when it clearly deviates from scripture, and has formulated its own teaching.

It takes real chutzpah for someone who wants to make the kind of sweeping changes to the New Testament you have proposed to then make this kind of Sola Scriptura argument.

 

[rakovsky]

<staff edit>

It's hard enough writing on the other two threads with a dozen Reformed + Albion arguing against me.

Maybe this is a masochistic side of me. I will have to retract myself.

 

[rakovsky]

It takes real chutzpah for someone who wants to make the kind of sweeping changes to the New Testament you have proposed to then make this kind of Sola Scriptura argument.

Welcome to post-"Reformed" Protestantism.

 

[Commander Xenophon]

Jesus Christ is the core of the belief, not the trinity. Believing in Jesus Christ is what saves, not believing in the trinity.

Not according to what you have written elsewhere. Tell me, if receiving the Holy Spirit simply requires belief in our Lord, and confers sinlessness, why have you not yet received the Spirit?

Because salvation comes through mere belief in Jesus, that's why. If you can't understand this, then that's how you come up with foolish analogies such as this. Obviously all doctrine is key, but belief in Jesus Christ is from whence all things stem from in growing in the Lord.

I saw no foolish analogies. <staff edit>

 

[Lulav]

Many posts have been removed for going
Off Topic and Flaming.

Please remember to address the post
and not the poster and remember our
vision at CF:
Members of Christian Forums are considerate, motivated by love and not hate, and they respect one another. Because our members are considerate, loving, and respectful, they do not make overly provocative posts, posts which seek to annoy or cause disruption, or posts which personally attack other members out of anger and frustration. Our members desire to contribute in a positive and loving manner so that Christian Forums will display the gracious love of God. Our rules were established for the benefit of both our membership and CF as a whole.

Thank you​

 

[Simon Crosby]

View attachment 169637
View attachment 169638
Many posts have been removed for going
Off Topic and Flaming.

Please remember to address the post
and not the poster and remember our
vision at CF:
Members of Christian Forums are considerate, motivated by love and not hate, and they respect one another. Because our members are considerate, loving, and respectful, they do not make overly provocative posts, posts which seek to annoy or cause disruption, or posts which personally attack other members out of anger and frustration. Our members desire to contribute in a positive and loving manner so that Christian Forums will display the gracious love of God. Our rules were established for the benefit of both our membership and CF as a whole.

Thank you​

Thank you!

 

[Tina W]

What if your belief about Christ's nature and identity is very wrong, like you think Jesus is a nondivine Hindu guru or a chimpanzee who got killed? What about an even lower life form?
It seems belief in Christ's nature and identity is at least at some level important.

Over and over and over in the NT, Jesus is called "The Lord". In the OT, the clear meaning of this is Adonai, a name for God. I don't think this is a coincidence.

LOL! Exactly! There are some groups, I forgot who, that believe Jesus was just an angel.

 

[MerriestHouse]

The creeds are an attempt to understand a thoroughly Jewish life lived 300 years earlier using the lens of fourth century Greek thought and philosophy. No wonder there is a disconnect.

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.

 

[MerriestHouse]

Neither Trinitarians, nor the Nicene Creed, say that He is.

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."

 

[MerriestHouse]

What if your belief about Christ's nature and identity is very wrong, like you think Jesus is a nondivine Hindu guru or a chimpanzee who got killed? What about an even lower life form?
It seems belief in Christ's nature and identity is at least at some level important.

Over and over and over in the NT, Jesus is called "The Lord". In the OT, the clear meaning of this is Adonai, a name for God. I don't think this is a coincidence.

Jesus said, eternal life for us is knowing the only true God. Jesus' purpose in coming to earth was to make believers in the only true God.

John 17:3 "And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent."

 

[JackRT]

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."

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.

 

[civilwarbuff]

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.

In Christianity, Sabellianism in the Eastern church or Patripassianism in the Western church (also known as modalism, modalistic monarchianism, or modal monarchism) is the nontrinitarian or anti-trinitarian belief that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son, and Holy Spirit are three different modes or aspects of one monadic God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons within the Godhead—that there are no real or substantial differences among the three, such that there is no substantial identity for the Spirit or the Son.[1]

The term Sabellianism comes from Sabellius, who was a theologian and priest from the 3rd century.
Modalism was soundly rejected by the early church.

I am guessing that UCoC is a trinitarian believing church otherwise they would not have attempted to unite with the Anglican Church. If that is correct, you might want to talk with your pastor about your beliefs so he can set you back on the right course of understanding the Trinity.

 

[JackRT]

In Christianity, Sabellianism in the Eastern church or Patripassianism in the Western church (also known as modalism, modalistic monarchianism, or modal monarchism) is the nontrinitarian or anti-trinitarian belief that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son, and Holy Spirit are three different modes or aspects of one monadic God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons within the Godhead—that there are no real or substantial differences among the three, such that there is no substantial identity for the Spirit or the Son.[1]

The term Sabellianism comes from Sabellius, who was a theologian and priest from the 3rd century.
Modalism was soundly rejected by the early church.

I am guessing that UCoC is a trinitarian believing church otherwise they would not have attempted to unite with the Anglican Church. If that is correct, you might want to talk with your pastor about your beliefs so he can set you back on the right course of understanding the Trinity.

I understand Trinity well enough to be a modalist heretic. But thanks for your concern. And BTW my connection with the UCoC is in the past.

 

[redleghunter]

I am guessing that UCoC is a trinitarian believing church otherwise they would not have attempted to unite with the Anglican Church. If that is correct, you might want to talk with your pastor about your beliefs so he can set you back on the right course of understanding the Trinity.

A bold assumption. The UCC currently has an atheist pastor.

 

[redleghunter]

I understand Trinity well enough to be a modalist heretic. But thanks for your concern. And BTW my connection with the UCoC is in the past.

The mods or admin folks can change your religion/Faith label.

That is if you are no longer UCC.

 

[civilwarbuff]

The mods or admin folks can change your religion/Faith label.

That is if you are no longer UCC.

Yes, they can....

 

[civilwarbuff]

A bold assumption. The UCC currently has an atheist pastor.

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