Nicene Creed - Believe it?

[Maximus]

Yod -



you got that backwards...





this is common knowledge among jews and messianics. Are you really surprised to hear this?

a quick google search of "nicean council jews" gives quite a few pages...but here is good summary for you
http://www.yashanet.com/library/antisem.htm

Have you ever actually read the proceedings of the Council of Nicea (A.D. 325), or do you depend for your information solely on secondary sources within your own group?

Are you aware that there is nothing in the records of the Council of Nicea about the Catholic Church breaking relations with the Church in Jerusalem?

Has it occurred to you that what you consider "common knowledge" might be so common as to be inaccurate?

Yod: It amazes me that a christian wouldn't know the Bible any better than that. Ya'acov (aka James) was Jesus' brother. The bible also mentions other brothers...seems like I remember sisters, too. (?)

Are you aware that our Lord and His disciples spoke Aramaic and that in Aramaic the words "brother" and "sister" also denote many other kinds of relatives, including cousins?

Are you aware that James is never called "son (or child) of Mary"?

Yod: yes

You answered "yes" in response to my question as to whether or not the Bible calls anyone other than Jesus a child of Mary.

Can you please supply biblical support for your answer in the form of at least one verse that actually comes out and calls someone other than Jesus a child of Mary?

I have read the Bible many many many times. I have never seen such a verse.

Yod: You are a product of jewish evangelism. Had all jews rejected Him, there would be no "church". Do you think that Peter coverted to another religion? Did Paul become Catholic?

The Church Fathers at Antioch began writing virulently anti-semetic sermons long before the Catholic Church came into being. That article explains it a little bit....

You should seek the truth and let it lead you where it may...

Did I say "all Jews rejected Him"?

St. Peter was part of the opening of the New Covenant. St. Paul did have to convert, however, since he was a part of the apostate Judaism that had rejected Christ and was persecuting the believers. Remember that St. Paul (as Saul) was standing by consenting to the stoning of St. Stephen and that he was an active persecutor of the Church. So, yes, Saul had to convert in order to become Paul the Catholic Christian.

I do not see what the Fathers at Antioch and elsewhere wrote as "virulently antisemitic." They wrote of apostate Judaism as persecuting the Church.

Are Jesus' words in Revelation 2:9 and 3:9, where He refers to the apostate Jews as "a synagogue of Satan," antisemitic?

I read the original, primary source works, Yod.

Has it occurred to you to seek the truth in some of them rather than merely in the polemics of your own sect?

 

[Maximus]

Sonworshipper: Seems you were deemed a Modalist in there, as I have been in this forum for my none beliefs in three gods.

SW -

This remark of yours to Heynanei puzzles me.

Can you explain it to me?

What do you mean by "three gods"?

Is that the way you see the Christian doctrine of the Trinity?

How do you understand it, then, and how do you view the relationship of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

 

[SonWorshipper]

I know I am not allowed to debate here.

I am simply curious about where MJs stand on the Nicene Creed.

Posts explaining your position are appreciated. I won't argue; I'll just read what you have to say and maybe ask some questions.

 

[Achichem]

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father,
who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.

As I have said many times, I do not see the Holy Spirit as personable, nor would I ever worship it. I accecpt it could be, but do not believe it likely.

I see the Holy Spirit as the hand of G-d.

However, like I said before, I am not that convinced and would be willing to hear a case if you could provide one.So, If anyone knows a place where i can find a good explaination against my belief or soild for the other case, I would much appreciate if you could send it to me, or if it sin a book, tell me it's title.

BTW

I voted:Yes,but is not inspired or infallible
because I would consiter myself netural in my doubtful area. I believe it uninspirted only because I see it without purpose; I understand it was to stand against hersy, but I just think that the wolves are already lay amongst the sheep.

God bless,
Datsar

 

[SonWorshipper]

No,what I meant was three persons- three gods.

I believe in ONE G-d, who manifests himself in basically two ways physically or visually you might say and spiritually. But still ONE G-d.

 

[Maximus]

No,what I meant was three persons- three gods.

I believe in ONE G-d, who manifests himself in basically two ways physically or visually you might say and spiritually. But still ONE G-d.

RE: Your last post.

In case you did not notice, I responded to Yod with more questions and with very few statements. What statements I made were explanatory, not primarily argumentative.

RE: What I quoted from you above.

I do not understand.

So you do not believe that Jesus and the Father are separate divine Persons, yet one in substance (traditional trinitarian doctrine)?

How do the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit differ from one another, then?

Are those just three titles born by the same one Person?

Or three manifestations of the same one Person?

I am not trying to belittle what you believe. I am merely trying to understand it.

Do Messianics vary widely in doctrine, or is there a general statement of faith to which you all adhere?

Is your view of the Godhead the common Messianic understanding?

 

[KelsayDL]

There is only one God, and Yeshua is his anointed one.

He is not co-equal with the father.


Throughout his life he made it clear the Father is greater than he, and that the Father is his God.

AFTER he died, he said;


Joh 20:17 -
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

...and AFTER he ascended to be with his father he said;

Re 3:12 -
Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.


The Father is the God of Yeshua.

 

[Shamash Of Yeshua]

RE: Your last post.

In case you did not notice, I responded to Yod with more questions and with very few statements. What statements I made were explanatory, not primarily argumentative.

RE: What I quoted from you above.

I do not understand.

So you do not believe that Jesus and the Father are separate divine Persons, yet one in substance (traditional trinitarian doctrine)?

How do the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit differ from one another, then?

Are those just three titles born by the same one Person?

Or three manifestations of the same one Person?

I am not trying to belittle what you believe. I am merely trying to understand it.

Do Messianics vary widely in doctrine, or is there a general statement of faith to which you all adhere?

Is your view of the Godhead the common Messianic understanding?

Shalom Maximus,
I would have to say common Messianic understanding comes from the fact of the missing link in Christianity. That being Judaism which our KING, Yeshua HaMashiach PRACTICED and TAUGHT FROM (when He WAS 12). When the perspective of Our Messiah KING of KINGS is borne from NON-JUDAIC understanding of Him then the Perspective is lost. That is what all Messianic Judaism has to say about a General Statement of FAITH: Judaism part is most important since "The Jew first then the Gentile". So if the Judaic perspective isn't important then tell me where your perspective comes from. And I'll tell you where you got your perspective. The Judaism of Jesus The Messiah(Yeshua HaMashiach) is very IMPORTANT, our LIVES COUNT ON HIM.
He, Yeshua HaMashiach, said we are to DO what the Pharisees and Scribes say, but not what they do. For a people who have been, The Choosen , the Bride of YHWH Himself for several thosand years in a lot of turmoil and have always been.

Shalom,
Tag

 

[SonWorshipper]

Are you aware that there is nothing in the records of the Council of Nicea about the Catholic Church breaking relations with the Church in Jerusalem?

I think if there were it could be labled "Self Incrimination"

 

[Maximus]

Maximus: Are you aware that there is nothing in the records of the Council of Nicea about the Catholic Church breaking relations with the Church in Jerusalem?

I think if there were it could be labled "Self Incrimination"

It would also be evidence for the claims Yod made, something he was unable to produce.

 

[Maximus]

Sonworshipper -

What about these questions I asked of you in a prior post?

Maximus: So you do not believe that Jesus and the Father are separate divine Persons, yet one in substance (traditional trinitarian doctrine)?

How do the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit differ from one another, then?

Are those just three titles born by the same one Person?

Or three manifestations of the same one Person?

I am not trying to belittle what you believe. I am merely trying to understand it.

Do Messianics vary widely in doctrine, or is there a general statement of faith to which you all adhere?

Is your view of the Godhead the common Messianic understanding?

 

[yod]

Have you ever actually read the proceedings of the Council of Nicea (A.D. 325), or do you depend for your information solely on secondary sources within your own group?
Are you aware that there is nothing in the records of the Council of Nicea about the Catholic Church breaking relations with the Church in Jerusalem?

I posted plenty of links if you really wanted to know the truth.

This was only the first step of many councils which made it practically impossible for a jew to believe in Yeshua and remain jewish. That is how they broke relations with the ORIGINAL church in Jerusalem, the jewish one. Not a problem for Rome though....they just installed their own Bishop o' Jerusalem and forbid jews to live there.

Has it occurred to you that what you consider "common knowledge" might be so common as to be inaccurate?

How much is 2 plus 2?

Are you aware that our Lord and His disciples spoke Aramaic and that in Aramaic the words "brother" and "sister" also denote many other kinds of relatives, including cousins?
Are you aware that James is never called "son (or child) of Mary"?

You answered "yes" in response to my question as to whether or not the Bible calls anyone other than Jesus a child of Mary.

Can you please supply biblical support for your answer in the form of at least one verse that actually comes out and calls someone other than Jesus a child of Mary?

I have read the Bible many many many times. I have never seen such a verse.

try again...



Matthew 12:47
Matthew 13:55-57
Mark 6:3
Acts 1:14

Did I say "all Jews rejected Him"?

St. Peter was part of the opening of the New Covenant. St. Paul did have to convert, however, since he was a part of the apostate Judaism that had rejected Christ and was persecuting the believers. Remember that St. Paul (as Saul) was standing by consenting to the stoning of St. Stephen and that he was an active persecutor of the Church. So, yes, Saul had to convert in order to become Paul the Catholic Christian.

That is pure fiction

Paul described himself quite a few times as being a very zealous jew. Never once did he even call himself a christian....much less a Catholic. No one called themselves a Catholic for another 300 years.

I do not see what the Fathers at Antioch and elsewhere wrote as "virulently antisemitic." They wrote of apostate Judaism as persecuting the Church.

first of all the greatest persecutor of christians has always been the Catholic church. Secondly, you simply don't know your history if you think that the early church "fathers" were not vicously hateful towards the jews. Not just the ones who were apostate either.

Are Jesus' words in Revelation 2:9 and 3:9, where He refers to the apostate Jews as "a synagogue of Satan," antisemitic?

Of course not.....because He is talking about a single community...not an entire race.

Now read matthew 25 starting with verse 31 where Jesus will judge the gentiles according to how they treated his brothers, the jews.

Has it occurred to you to seek the truth in some of them rather than merely in the polemics of your own sect?

Yes...it has.



That is why I could no longer remain a Catholic!

 

[Valid Name]

Greetings Yod!

I apologize for my late reply. We we're back on page 3 or 4 when I last made a comment.

I do find it very interesting that the laws dealt with food. Often times when discussing a food law issue I will bring up Acts 15 just for that point. Traditional Christianity likes to say they observe the 10 commandments, when let's get real and remove the fourth one - they should say they observe 13 of them.

I am curious why you used to ignore verse 21. I am sure you did not do so on purpose - perhaps purpose at the time because you did not understand it.

Just being curious because I came to the Faith straight into seeing Torah. Granted I was Catholic when I was younger, but when I started reading the bible I did not start off with traditional christian thinking, although I can see where they get their ideas from - even though they are inevetably wrong.

When you say that some is only applicable to Israel, what exactly do you mean? Can you give me an example?

Peace!
Valid Name

 

[Maximus]

Yod: I posted plenty of links if you really wanted to know the truth.

Secondary and often tertiary sources, Yod. Interesting, but not very convincing.

Yod: This was only the first step of many councils which made it practically impossible for a jew to believe in Yeshua and remain jewish.

How does one stop being an ethnic Jew when he becomes a Christian?

But, yes, it is impossible to be a Christian and practice Judaism.

Yod: That is how they broke relations with the ORIGINAL church in Jerusalem, the jewish one. Not a problem for Rome though....they just installed their own Bishop o' Jerusalem and forbid jews to live there.

Are you aware that St. James was the first Bishop of Jerusalem?

Are you also aware that the Catholic Church never forbade Jews to live in Jerusalem?

Are you aware that Titus and his legions destroyed Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and that pagan Imperial Rome expelled the Jews from Palestine in A.D. 135, following an unsuccessful Jewish rebellion?

Are you aware that in A.D. 135 Christianity was still an illegal, underground religion that had nothing to do with the expulsion of the Jews?

Yod: How much is 2 plus 2?

You have not produced enough evidence to reduce the case to such a simple sum.

Yod: try again...



Matthew 12:47

"Then one said to Him, 'Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with you" (Matt. 12:47).

Okay. Where does that verse call anyone a child (or son) of Mary?

Are you aware that first-century Jews spoke Aramaic, and that the words for brothers and sisters included many other kinds of relatives, including cousins?

Is it possible that Joseph had children from a prior marriage that were not children of Mary?

Yod: Matthew 13:55-57

"Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where did this Man get all these things? So they were offended at Him. But Jesus said to them, 'A prophet is not without honor except in his own country and in his own house.' " (Matt. 13:55-57).

Where does that passage call anyone but Jesus a child of Mary?

Note also that the people called Jesus "the carpenter's son." Is that what He was?

If Jesus had blood siblings, why did He entrust His mother to the care of St. John instead of to one of them (see John 19:25-27)?

Again, in Aramaic, all sorts of relatives are called brothers and sisters.

Yod: Mark 6:3

That verse is equivalent and parallel to Matthew 13:55-57, which I responded to above.

I would ask you the same questions about it that I asked above.

Yod:
Acts 1:14

"These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers" (Acts 1:4).

Well that verse certainly calls Mary the mother of Jesus, but it does not identify anyone else as her child.

Brothers can mean cousins, foster brothers, etc., in Aramaic.

Funny it does not read: "Mary the mother of Jesus and her other sons."

Ever wonder why?

Yod: That is pure fiction

Paul described himself quite a few times as being a very zealous jew.
Never once did he even call himself a christian....much less a Catholic. No one called themselves a Catholic for another 300 years.

He never referred to himself as a human being either, but he was one.

Are you aware that the word Catholic first appears in the writings of St. Ignatius, first and early second century Bishop of Antioch, who was martyred by the Romans in A.D. 107?

Yod: first of all the greatest persecutor of christians has always been the Catholic church.

Are you aware that it is customary to support such assertions with evidence?

Are you also aware that national, Jewish Israel and the Roman Empire were the great persecutors of the early Christians?

Are you also aware that the Communists and the Muslims have since been doing a splendid job taking up where the Romans and the Jews left off?

Yod: Secondly, you simply don't know your history if you think that the early church "fathers" were not vicously hateful towards the jews. Not just the ones who were apostate either.

Well, I have a degree in History and graduated with honors. I am also a member of Phi Alpha Theta, the international honor society for historians.

But it is true that I do not know everything.

Have you actually read the Fathers?

I don't see them as "viciously hateful towards the Jews."

Are you aware that Jews were persecutors of Christians?

Yod: Of course not.....because He is talking about a single community...not an entire race.

We disagree.

Are the Jews a "race?"

Yod: Now read matthew 25 starting with verse 31 where Jesus will judge the gentiles according to how they treated his brothers, the jews.

I have read that passage many many times.

It says nothing about the Gentiles' treatment of Jews. In fact, the words Jew and Gentile are not even mentioned - not once.

Are you saying that Gentiles are saved, not through faith in Christ, but based on how they treat Jews?

So, if an atheist is kind to Jews he will inherit eternal life?

Yod: Yes...it has.



That is why I could no longer remain a Catholic!

Too bad we cannot debate here.

Ever think about bringing your ideas over to IDD?

 

[yod]

I am curious why you used to ignore verse 21. I am sure you did not do so on purpose - perhaps purpose at the time because you did not understand it.

I agreed with what had already been said about it and saw no reason to elaborate.




When you say that some is only applicable to Israel, what exactly do you mean? Can you give me an example?



yes, I gave an example then also...

the gentiles would not have been welcomed into the Temple without circumcision.

 

[yod]

Maximus,

no, I'm not interested in talking circular logic with you.

the Catholic way of debate goes like this:

1. I'm right because "we" say so
2. Where there is disagreement, see Rule #1


I have given you what I know to be facts. If you are too lazy to research what I'm saying then it's your loss.

The obvious you simply deny. The rest you ignore.

 

[Maximus]

Okay, Yod.

I cannot debate here anyway.

Thanks for explaining your views, though.

 

[KennySe]

Do all members of this forum agree with Yod's view of the Catholic Church, pertaining to history?

 

[KelsayDL]

Do all members of this forum agree with Yod's view of the Catholic Church, pertaining to history

No.

My personal beliefs on the catholic church are far less congenial than Yods.

But thats another story that has nothing to do with the Nicene creed.

 

[simchat_torah]

You may accept the Catholic tradtion if you wish, but one must admit it is circular reasoning.

Catholocism is the one true church because Catholocism says so.

I wouldn't necessarily say it's the 'messianic' view, but rather the 'logical' view. Stating that it's cicular reasoning does not speak negatively of the proof itself. One must determine whether this 'circular' reasoning is correct or if it is flawed.
shalom,
-Yafet.