Is this heresy?

[Daniel Martinovich]

The scriptures seem to contradict the creed.

I find this whole discussion just plain strange. How does the fact that Jesus is a spirit contradict the trinity?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Has the creed ever been revised?

The first Creed of 325 (Council of Nicea) was redrawn at the Council of Constantinople in 381. The purpose of which was to to address the Macedonian heresy which denied that the Holy Spirit was God, as such the main addition to the Creed in 381 was to expand upon what the Creed said about the Holy Spirit. The original Creed of 325 merely said, "And in the Holy Spirit", however the Creed of 381 expanded that to say, "And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Life-Giver, who proceeds from the Father, and who with the Father and Son is worshiped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets."

When we speak of the Nicene Creed we are actually speaking of the Creed of 381, which is why it is more technically called the Niceno-Constantinoplian Creed. That, however, is a mouthful, so we just call it the Nicene Creed.

The only other issue is the Filioque controversy. In the middle ages some churches in the Latin-speaking West started to recite the Creed including the word Filioque, which is Latin for "and the Son", so that the statement about the Holy Spirit read, "who proceeds from the Father and the Son". Later on this addition to the text of the Creed was made official by the Pope who declared himself to have the authority, without a Church Council, to add the word to the Creed. This infuriated the Eastern churches, since they did not recognize the kind of authority the Pope claimed to have, and relations between East and West were already poor due to an earlier controversy. Ultimately this led to the Great Schism, where the Pope and Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated each other.

As such, Western churches recite the Creed with the Filioque (this includes Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, and other Protestant churches who recite the Creed), while the Eastern churches continue to use the original language of the Creed from 381.

With the exception of the Filioque issue, the Creed has remained the same since the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD. And for the Eastern churches, it remains identical to the Creed of 381.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

I find this whole discussion just plain strange. How does the fact that Jesus is a spirit contradict the trinity?

It wouldn't contradict the Trinity, but it does contradict basic orthodox teaching. Since basic orthodox teaching is that Jesus Christ, our Lord, is both God and human, of a "rational soul and body" (Definition of Chalcedon, 451 AD)

-CryptoLutheran

 

[W2L]

I find this whole discussion just plain strange. How does the fact that Jesus is a spirit contradict the trinity?

I dont know. Maybe im wrong about that?

 

[W2L]

1 Corinthians 15:44

σπείρεται σῶμα ψυχικόν ἐγείρεται σῶμα πνευματικόν ἔστιν σῶμα ψυχικόν καὶ ἔστιν σῶμα πνευματικόν

σῶμα ψυχικόν (soma psuchikon), literally "body soulish". The Greek word psuchikos is the adjective form of the word psuche ("soul"). It is unfortunate that it has been often translated as "natural" since that has given rise to a great deal of confusion, though one can likely get an idea of what the translators were trying to capture. English doesn't have a word that directly translates psuchikos. Saying this word means "soulish" isn't unique to me, it's the fairly standard way exegetes and biblical scholars attempt to render the more clear meaning of the text--unfortunately "soulish" isn't an actual word in English, it's a made up word to try and bring clarity to what the Greek word means.

σῶμα πνευματικόν (soma pneumatikon), literally "body spiritual".

Paul is not contrasting the physical with the spiritual; he is contrasting the "soulish" with the "spiritual". This isn't the first time Paul uses this contrast, elsewhere he speaks of "soulish" people, contrasting them with "spiritual" people--most translations render it as "natural" or "carnal". But when Paul says that we were formally "soulish" but now we are "spiritual", he is not talking about going from physical to spiritual, but from being a people ruled by our animal lusts and appetites to having received the Holy Spirit. For Paul what makes someone or something "spiritual" is the Holy Spirit. And the same is true here.

The body, presently, is mortal, corruptible (meaning it decays), and we are ruled by our "soul", by our animal appetites, the lusts of the flesh, etc. We are "soulish" creatures, sinful, acting according to our belly, the sort of life we have now is animal life. But Paul looks forward to the resurrection as when the body is raised up and transformed, no longer being subject to the mortality, corruptibility, and futility of sin and death, no longer driven by the baser animal desire--but instead quickened, made alive, by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Elsewhere the Apostle says, "If the Spirit of Him who raised Christ from the dead is also in you, then He who raised Christ from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies." (Romans 8:11).

It is the Spirit who quickens, the Spirit who makes alive. That's why in the Creed we call Him "Life-Giver"

It is precisely our glorification by the power of the Spirit in the resurrection that the Apostle is looking forward to, when we are raised up we are not merely returned to a state of mortal corruption laboring under sin and death again; when we are raised up we are raised up to immortality and incorruption, to the eternal, never-ending life that is to come. It is an entirely new way to be alive, it's the way Jesus is alive, fully alive in the body, but without decay; for Christ conquered death, and at the resurrection death shall be fully destroyed, since death shall be swallowed up in victory: "Where O Death is your sting? Where O Death is your victory?" At the resurrection Christ will transform our lowly bodies of humiliation to be like His glorified body (Philippians 3:21).

-CryptoLutheran

Could be i guess.

 

[W2L]

It wouldn't contradict the Trinity, but it does contradict basic orthodox teaching. Since basic orthodox teaching is that Jesus Christ, our Lord, is both God and human, of a "rational soul and body" (Definition of Chalcedon, 451 AD)

-CryptoLutheran

Those scriptures i posted contradict Orthodoxy? How so?

 

[W2L]

The first Creed of 325 (Council of Nicea) was redrawn at the Council of Constantinople in 381. The purpose of which was to to address the Macedonian heresy which denied that the Holy Spirit was God, as such the main addition to the Creed in 381 was to expand upon what the Creed said about the Holy Spirit. The original Creed of 325 merely said, "And in the Holy Spirit", however the Creed of 381 expanded that to say, "And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Life-Giver, who proceeds from the Father, and who with the Father and Son is worshiped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets."

When we speak of the Nicene Creed we are actually speaking of the Creed of 381, which is why it is more technically called the Niceno-Constantinoplian Creed. That, however, is a mouthful, so we just call it the Nicene Creed.

The only other issue is the Filioque controversy. In the middle ages some churches in the Latin-speaking West started to recite the Creed including the word Filioque, which is Latin for "and the Son", so that the statement about the Holy Spirit read, "who proceeds from the Father and the Son". Later on this addition to the text of the Creed was made official by the Pope who declared himself to have the authority, without a Church Council, to add the word to the Creed. This infuriated the Eastern churches, since they did not recognize the kind of authority the Pope claimed to have, and relations between East and West were already poor due to an earlier controversy. Ultimately this led to the Great Schism, where the Pope and Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated each other.

As such, Western churches recite the Creed with the Filioque (this includes Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, and other Protestant churches who recite the Creed), while the Eastern churches continue to use the original language of the Creed from 381.

With the exception of the Filioque issue, the Creed has remained the same since the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD. And for the Eastern churches, it remains identical to the Creed of 381.

-CryptoLutheran

Thanks.

 

[Marvin Knox]

I Never Stated my opinion. So the heresy charge was uncalled for i think. My opinion is that those scriptures i posted in the OP mean exactly what they say. The Lord is the Spirit, and the son will be called eternal father. Is that heresy?

I'm not going to visit the thread you speak of - unless of course you provide snippets of it for us.

But, with all due respect - I doubt very much that anyone said that those scriptures or the position you just laid out was heresy.

Why would they?

I'd bet my house that any charge of heresy had to do with either what you said about them or what you insinuated about them or what someone thought you were insinuating about them.

 

[W2L]

I'm not going to visit the thread you speak of. unless you provide snippets of it for us.

But, with all due respect - I doubt very much that anyone said that those scriptures or the position you just laid out was heresy.

Why would they?

I'd bet my house that any charge of heresy had to do with either what you said about them or what you insinuated about them or what someone thought you were insinuating about them.

I dont remember what was said at this point, they didnt say i was posting heresy, they just started talking about heresy. I was confused by what they were saying.

 

[Marvin Knox]

I dont remember what was said at this point, they didnt say i was posting heresy, they just started talking about heresy. I was confused by what they were saying.

Then you're probably confused here as well.

Perhaps the confusion comes in because of the way you wrote the OP and because of a few of your follow ups.
For instance:

THe bible says that the Lord is the Spirit. 2 Corinthians 3:17 Whats that mean?
Isaiah says that a child will be born, and His name will be called eternal Father and mighty God. Isaiah 9:6 WHo is that child and who is the eternal Father?

It is quite natural for people to think that:

1. You are insinuating that Jesus was not the "Lord" God - but something less.

2. You are pretending that you really don't know which child the Isaiah scripture is talking about and are thus being disingenuous.

3. The Son and the Father are not one and therefore the Trinitarian view of the Godhead is somehow in error.

Any of those points being valid could lead to a charge of heresy.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here that you really can't understand what the trouble is between you and some others.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Those scriptures i posted contradict Orthodoxy?

Nope.

How so?

They don't.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[W2L]

Then you're probably confused here as well.

Perhaps the confusion comes in because of the way you wrote the OP and because of a few of your follow ups.

Perhaps.

 

[W2L]

Nope.



They don't.

-CryptoLutheran

Can you explain what you were talking about?

 

[Marvin Knox]

Perhaps.

I think I may have added the last half of may post while you were considering what I first wrote.

One of the hazards of people camping out on the thread and answering in present time.

 

[W2L]

It is quite natural for people to think that:

1. You are insinuating that Jesus was not the "Lord" God - but something less.

2. You are pretending that you really don't know which child the Isaiah scripture is talking about.

3. The Son and the Father are not one and therefore the Trinitarian view of the Godhead is somehow in error.

1. I believe that Jesus is God, especially after reading these scriptures, however there is still the Father who is separate according to scripture. Im confused.

2. Im not pretending, i just wanted to see what others would say. So i asked.

3.Jesus is one with God, He says so Himself if im not mistaken.

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

It wouldn't contradict the Trinity, but it does contradict basic orthodox teaching. Since basic orthodox teaching is that Jesus Christ, our Lord, is both God and human, of a "rational soul and body" (Definition of Chalcedon, 451 AD)

-CryptoLutheran

I don’t see how it contadicts that creed either.

 

[JIMINZ]

1. I believe that Jesus is God, especially after reading these scriptures, however there is still the Father who is separate according to scripture. Im confused.

2. Im not pretending, i just wanted to see what others would say. So i asked.

3.Jesus is one with God, He says so Himself if im not mistaken.

.
Doesn't this settle it, and if not why not?

John 10:30
I and my Father are one.

Whats the hang up?

 

[W2L]

.
Doesn't this settle it, and if not why not?

John 10:30
I and my Father are one.

Whats the hang up?

modalism

 

[JIMINZ]

modalism

.
Can't argue with that, you have an answer for everything. Cary on.

 

[W2L]

.
Can't argue with that, you have an answer for everything. Cary on.

What do you mean?