Can someone explain what a Nicene is?

All4Christ · Dec 12, 2016

Butch5 said:
How you define the word doesn't change the Creed. The Creed says the Son is one substance with the Father. The Father is Deity because of who He is. Likewise the Son is Deity because of who He is. He is of the very substance or essence as the Father, that makes Him Deity, or God.

If you listen to those two audios I posted you will see what the Nicene view of the Trinity is.

I agree with the Nicene Creed. I just disagree with your interpretation of the Creed. The audio is selective in its research and is not comprehensive of the early church. I'd rather read directly from the source (in context) instead of hearing a compilation of what someone else believes the early church promoted.

Butch5 · Dec 12, 2016

mkgal1 said:
....and I gave you a "simple 'yes' answer" (I even quoted it for you).

Then how do you also there is one God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

Butch5 · Dec 12, 2016

mkgal1 said:
I listened to this audio you linked. What I find interesting is that the guy states he grew up as a Jehovah's Witness (and he agrees they hold to a heretical view of the Trinity known as Arianism). He stated that he'd spent 10 years learning about the early church beliefs on the Trinity from people of the Eastern Orthodox and Anglican traditions (and the writings from the 1600's). However.....he then presumes to know more about what the early church believed and claims "most people--even those that profess to be of the Orthodox faith--don't really understand what the early church believed about the Trinity".

It takes a while to see things with a "new lens" after you've been raised with a different belief system. Ten years compared to generations of people being raised in the same tradition is hardly comparable (especially to make the claim to understand MORE....and that the group you're learning from is who is confused).

This is actually a new debate (it's been forming in the last 50 years or so). I've not seen ANY writing from the early church authors that conflate human gender relations (like marriage) with the Trinity. The use of the "body" as a metaphor is about unity, life, and teamwork (in the Anglican--and I believe the Orthodox faith tradition as well)....not "authority". The "plot" of the Gospel isn't "who is in charge"---it's about God's immense LOVE for His creation.

The quotes he provided show clearly what the pre-Nicene Church believed. IF you noticed in all of the quotes he provided there is nothing at all about a being called God who consists of three persons, nothing. In the Father and Son audio he goes into even more depth about the early church and thier understanding of the Trinity. What they believed fits the Nicene Creed nicely. However, it clashes drastically with the Athanasian Creed.

Here's another point to consider. The Athanasian is NOT the product of a Church council. The Nicene Creed came from a Church council, the Athanasian Creed, well, who knows. It's very Augustinian in it's theology. One has to wonder why Christians would so vehemently defend a Creed whose origin isn't even known. We know where the Nicene Creed came from.

Butch5 · Dec 12, 2016

mkgal1 said:
Jesus of Nazareth does have a point of origin (in His humanity). That is how authority is "given to Him" and he didn't "have it before". That point is reflected in the Athanasian creed where it says:

...and the Nicene creed, where it says:

That argument has been tried. I doesn't work. He didn't become the Son when Mary gave birth.

Butch5 · Dec 12, 2016

mkgal1 said:
No. "If you listen to those two audios you will see what one person's interpretation of the Nicene view of the Trinity is" (a man that--in my opinion--is still in the process of shedding his JW belief system still).

The quotes he gave show exactly what they believed. The man has studied the early Christians for over 25 years. He's quite familiar with what they believed. If you listened to both audios you also know that he said that he finds most Christians don't like what the early Christians believed because it upsets their apple cart. People make all kinds of excuses to reject the early Christians because the show that much of what is taught by Churches today is simply not Biblical. If one is searching for the truth the audios will help. However, many simply parrot what they have been taught and have no interest in finding truth.

Butch5 · Dec 12, 2016

All4Christ said:
I agree with the Nicene Creed. I just disagree with your interpretation of the Creed. The audio is selective in its research and is not comprehensive of the early church. I'd rather read directly from the source (in context) instead of hearing a compilation of what someone else believes the early church promoted.

That's why he gives you the quotes so you can look for yourself. He's not just saying believe me.

I'm confused as to how you agree with the Nicene Creed when you say there is a being called God who consists of three persons. There is nothing in the Nicene Creed like that.

Paul Yohannan · Dec 12, 2016

I never listen to audios or go off-site to posted links, because this is a forum and I expect people to use the forum for debating with me.

At any rate, what you describe is not Nicene, something attested to by the manner in which it contradicts St. Athanasius and other Nicene fathers.

All4Christ · Dec 12, 2016

Butch5 said:
That's why he gives you the quotes so you can look for yourself. He's not just saying believe me.

I'm confused as to how you agree with the Nicene Creed when you say there is a being called God who consists of three persons. There is nothing in the Nicene Creed like that.

And I am equally confused how you can believe there is one true God, when you believe there are more than one deities. None of your explanations or the video explain it sufficiently.

mkgal1 · Dec 12, 2016

Butch5 said:
That argument has been tried. I doesn't work. He didn't become the Son when Mary gave birth.

I didn't post that. I said He became God incarnate at that point....taking on human flesh. His time as a human was a limited time in history (otherwise He is infinite and without beginning).

katholischen_miliz · Dec 12, 2016

The Catholic Church has believed in one faith for almost 2,000 years. Seems pretty constant,

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

mkgal1 · Dec 12, 2016

Butch5 said:
Then how do you also there is one God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

From reading and reflecting the WHOLE Bible (not just a few verses). Likewise....I'm with the others that are stumped by your assertion of "one true God" but also agreeing that Jesus is also a deity just not the same being as the Father (as it's been said many times....that's making Jesus a demi-god or a false god--unless you believe in the Trinity).

God is infinite....that allows for much mystery.

Butch5 · Dec 12, 2016

Paul Yohannan said:
I never listen to audios or go off-site to posted links, because this is a forum and I expect people to use the forum for debating with me.

At any rate, what you describe is not Nicene, something attested to by the manner in which it contradicts St. Athanasius and other Nicene fathers.

As I said, it's too much to put in a thread. What I've posted is Nicene theology. All you have to do is look at what the Ante-Nicene Christian 's believed. The Athanasius Creed is simply wrong and was pretty much rejected by Eastern Christians. Western Christians, however, have fallen for this error. It's Augustinian in nature and I suspect it's his teaching

Paul Yohannan · Dec 12, 2016

katholischen_miliz said:
The Catholic Church has believed in one faith for almost 2,000 years. Seems pretty constant,

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is why I very much wish you had not messed with the liturgy in the 1960s. Well, even in the 1950s; the changes made by Pius XII to the Pachal Triduum were spectacularly ill-advised.

mkgal1 · Dec 12, 2016

Butch5 said:
What I've posted is Nicene theology.

Nope. Just claiming that doesn't make it so.

katholischen_miliz · Dec 12, 2016

Paul Yohannan said:
This is why I very much wish you had not messed with the liturgy in the 1960s. Well, even in the 1950s; the changes made by Pius XII to the Pachal Triduum were spectacularly ill-advised.

There's nothing wrong with the liturgy. It's still the same faith, no matter what.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Paul Yohannan · Dec 12, 2016

Butch5 said:
As I said, it's too much to put in a thread. What I've posted is Nicene theology. All you have to do is look at what the Ante-Nicene Christian 's believed. The Athanasius Creed is simply wrong and was pretty much rejected by Eastern Christians. Western Christians, however, have fallen for this error. It's Augustinian in nature and I suspect it's his teaching

This is not true. We have a version of the Athanasian Creed in our Psalters and other prayer books. However, St. Athanasius did not write it. Rather, he wrote De Incarnatione, and several other works against Arius, which your position contradicts.

St. Athanasius was preeminent among those at Nicea; to attack him is to attack the council.

Butch5 · Dec 12, 2016

mkgal1 said:
Nope. Just claiming that doesn't make it so.

Paul Yohannan said:
This is not true. We have a version of the Athanasian Creed in our Psalters and other prayer books. However, St. Athanasius did not write it. Rather, he wrote De Incarnatione, and several other works against Arius, which your position contradicts.

St. Athanasius was preeminent among those at Nicea; to attack him is to attack the council.

No, my position doesn't contradict. My position has nothing to do with Arius. I don't think you've followed what I've said. The Athanasian Creed does not come from a church council. In fact Scholars aren't even sure where it came from. There are few suggestions, but, they are suggestions. With as much error that has entered into Christianity over the centuries it's no surprise that this Creed would appear. What is sad is that Christians have latched onto it and defend it so vehemently when it clearly contradicts the Scriptures and the Nicene Creed, which we do know the origin of. The first and last verse of the Creed should be a red flag for any Christian.

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;

44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

So, here's a creed that no one knows the source of and yet this creed claims that if you don't believe what it says you cannot be saved. Why should anyone believe this? No one even know who wrote it. Even if they did, who are they that they can say who can and cannot be saved?

Butch5 · Dec 12, 2016

mkgal1 said:
Nope. Just claiming that doesn't make it so.

And claiming I didn't doesn't make it so. I've already shown in this thread that the idea of a being called God who consists of three persons is, a logical contradiction, not found in Scripture, an inference of men, and not what was originally taught.

I've also shown what is Nicene.

All4Christ · Dec 12, 2016

Butch5 said:
And claiming I didn't doesn't make it so. I've already shown in this thread that the idea of a being called God who consists of three persons is, a logical contradiction, not found in Scripture, an inference of men, and not what was originally taught.

I've also shown what is Nicene.

You've shown that you believe is is a logical contradiction, and that you believe it is not found in Scripture, and that you don't believe it is what was originally taught. We have shown the opposite, which is the Nicene view.

mkgal1 · Dec 12, 2016

All4Christ said:
You've shown that you believe is is a logical contradiction, and that you believe it is not found in Scripture, and that you don't believe it is what was originally taught. We have shown the opposite, which is the Nicene view.

Right. I have zero problem with a person saying, "that just doesn't make sense to me....I can't believe that". That's certainly their right (faith is personal....correct?). We can't impose on to others what they are to believe.

What I DO take issue with is when someone says, "Yes....I adhere to those beliefs" and then goes on and claims their beliefs are exactly the opposite. What's even worse is making the claim that for over 1600 years....MOST people have misunderstood what they claim they believe (and what their foundation of faith was built on).

What this guy in the audio seems to be doing would be like me making the claim (just for comparison's sake) that all throughout the years people have been misunderstanding the original rules of baseball and have playing it all wrong from how the creator intended (and then saying something like, "it was never intended that points were to be gained by running across something called the "home" plate---that was never in the original rules). That seems to be taking an original idea and tampering with it. Why not just come up with a new name and the rules you like and claim that for yourself?

Can someone explain what a Nicene is?

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

Active Member

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

Newbie

Well-Known Member

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

Similar threads