Nicene Creed, please clarify

[Oblio]

And I suppose that is one reason the Orthodox Jews do not understand how Jesus Christ can be their Messiah as Muslims and Christians believe.

`Scuse me

 

[Oblio]

Rather...

A God we can fully understand is not God at all.

Google to have used I have gotten you I see.

Velly good glasshopper.

 

[Oblio]

Paul said his whole purpose and desire was to know Christ. He counted all his other achievements - which were considerable and great by human standards - as to be equated to being dung.

To say we are not to understand God?

Is to say Christ is not God.

You have equivocated desire with the acheivement of that desire.

Fallacy of equivocation.

Further, he did not say He fully understood Christ

 

[GeratTzedek]

And I suppose that is one reason the Orthodox Jews do not understand how Jesus Christ can be their Messiah as Muslims and Christians believe.

No offense to you personally, but I'm very anal about boundaries. It is, for example, not appropriate to disparage the gentile Christian church(es) in the Messianic, and we finally got that on our wiki. In the same sense, I'm not at all comfortable with using the Theology forum to discuss Jews and Judaism.

Most Christians don't know the first thing about Jews and Judaism -- Orthodox, Messianic, or any other form -- and really have no clue why Jews in general have difficulty with Yeshua.

All in all, it's just better not to go there.

The "and Muslims" addition floored me. LOL Oh my goodness. You are under the impression that Musilms accept Jesus as "Messiah" ???? They only see him as a prophet.

 

[GeratTzedek]

My son has informed me that I am logging off. It is Sunday evening mother/son DVD time. It was a pleasure meeting you all. Maybe I'll pop in again.

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Oblio]

As it was here.

In XC,

Rdr. Chris

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

No offense to you personally, but I'm very anal about boundaries. It is, for example, not appropriate to disparage the gentile Christian church(es) in the Messianic, and we finally got that on our wiki. In the same sense, I'm not at all comfortable with using the Theology forum to discuss Jews and Judaism.

Most Christians don't know the first thing about Jews and Judaism -- Orthodox, Messianic, or any other form -- and really have no clue why Jews in general have difficulty with Yeshua.

All in all, it's just better not to go there.

The "and Muslims" addition floored me. LOL Oh my goodness. You are under the impression that Musilms accept Jesus as "Messiah" ???? They only see him as a prophet.

Actually the Muslims view Jesus as only the Jew's Messiah/Prophet, while Muhammad is claimed to be the one sent to the rest of Mankind.

http://foru.ms/t3006763-why-jews-cannot-accept-isa-pbuh-as-a-prophet.html
why-jews-cannot-accept-isa-pbuh-as-a-prophet.

http://foru.ms/t5615012-jesus-christ-was-he-sent-for-all-mankind.html
jesus-christ-was-he-sent-for-all-mankind

Hello.We muslims believe he was sent to the sons of Israel not for all mankind.This doesnt mean the one who follows Him in real does a wrong job but this is God's plan for He sent Muhammed-aleyhissalam-to all mankind.Which proofs do christians have to claim that Jesus was sent to entire humanity and not only to the israelites?

 

[GenemZ]

You have equivocated desire with the acheivement of that desire.

Fallacy of equivocation.

Further, he did not say He fully understood Christ

Now you shifted the "fully" understand emphasis?

Before, was to simply to understand. At least we have made some progress here.



I was the one who said we can not fully understand. You were the one who said 'understand.'

Problem with the way you present the Creed? It is a Catch 22.

Anyone who says they understand the Creed?

Is admitting he does not understand it.
​

What good is it, then? The way you describe it, anyway. How could it have been used to evaluate one's Christianity? When you can not even explain parts that were used to determine who is Christian?

Colossians 2:1-3 (New International Version)
"I want you to know how much I am struggling for you and for those at Laodicea, and for all who have not met me personally. My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."
​

In Christ, GeneZ
​

 

[GenemZ]

I always kind of thought that the line about "We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins" pretty much referred to Peter's words in Acts 2:38 "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins" combined with Ephesians 4:5 "One Lord, one faith, one baptism." I have no problem with Peter saying I should be baptised for the forgiveness of sins. Do you?

He said to be baptized into his name. Not water!

Acts 2:38
Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
​

As far as there being one baptism? It took Peter a little time to catch on, because of having been habitually water baptizing in the prior dispensation in the Gospels.

Jesus said that was all to change.

Acts 1:4-5 (New International Version)
On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: "Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit."
​

Peter, as had been his custom under the Jewish ritual of John the Baptist, continued in the new dispensation to water baptize. But? Down the road of the learning curve of the new age the Church entered him into? It finally hit him as he recalled the words of the Lord...

Acts 11:15-16 (New International Version)
"As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. Then I remembered what the Lord had said: 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit."
​

There is to be only one baptism in the Church age.

Ephesians 4:5
"One Lord, one faith, one baptism."
​

To say it is water? Is to say we do not receive the Holy Spirit.

1 Corinthians 12:13 (New International Version)
"For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink."
​

To think that simple ritual with water can bypass the importance of being placed in union with the Holy Spirit?

Well? I will let you figure it out for yourself which is to be the one baptism for this dispensation.


​

Grace and peace, GeneZ
​

 

[GeratTzedek]

It took Peter a little time to catch on, because of having been habitually water baptizing in the prior dispensation in the Gospels.

Wow! Peter, who knew Yeshua, who studied under him, who was prepared by him to teach, just ... didn't get it? Yeshua ascended into heaven knowing the apostles misunderstood baptism? Hmmmm Thinking..... NOT.

Well? I will let you figure it out for yourself which is to be the one baptism for this dispensation.

First, I don't accept dispensationalism. Please don't assume. Salvation in the way that Christians use the term has ALWAYS been G-d's grace and mercy, to which we respond with a working-faith, as Abraham did when he agreed to sacrifice Isaac.

Second, you ask me to choose between two that are the same thing -- one describing the inner event, the other describing the outer event. They go together. Always? No. Ideally? Yes. Your question sounds to me like someone asking, "Choose which LOVE is the real love, the husband who treats his wife well, or the one who feels love in his heart." In Jewish thought, which we Messianics share (and which Yeshua and all the apostles shared), there is not this strange division between faith and works, inside and outside... We have ONLY ONE word in Hebrew: EMUNAH. It means faith/faithfulness. Inner and outer as a single idea.

It does appear to me that you have a preconceived notion that you are reading into the text.

Shalom aleichem

 

[GenemZ]

Wow! Peter, who knew Yeshua, who studied under him, who was prepared by him to teach, just ... didn't get it? Yeshua ascended into heaven knowing the apostles misunderstood baptism? Hmmmm Thinking..... NOT.

Jesus knew they would eventually mature and understand the truth. They were bay Christians in the beginning. They were no longer living as Jews under law. Peter made mistakes along the way, but he was correctable. That is why Jesus knew he would make it.

Galatians 2:11-13 (New International Version)
"When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray."
​

​

Peter was not infallible. He was correctable. That is what allowed him to go on and become great in the faith. He made mistakes.

Water baptism was a mistake Peter in the beginning (and it was an understandable mistake).

Acts 1:4-5 (New International Version)
On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: "Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about.

For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit."
​

​

Have you read what that says? What did Jesus tell Peter would happen?

First, I don't accept dispensationalism. Please don't assume. Salvation in the way that Christians use the term has ALWAYS been G-d's grace and mercy, to which we respond with a working-faith, as Abraham did when he agreed to sacrifice Isaac.

Abraham did not gain salvation by offering Isaac. He offered Issac because he was already saved by grace and mercy. His offering revealed that he was serious about his faith. He was already saved.

Second, you ask me to choose between two that are the same thing -- one describing the inner event, the other describing the outer event. They go together. Always? No.

NO! Many assume that the word 'baptiszmo' automatically refers to water. It had a connotation of being immersed into becoming identified with something, not simply being immersed in water. One can be baptized into the Roman army discipline, for instance.

Here. Look how the word was used in that day...

1 Corinthians 10:2 (New International Version)
"They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea."
​

The Jews were baptized into Moses! Moses knew God and was their leader. They were yet learning from Moses about God and life. What Moses did, they were to do. They were baptized into Moses.
​

Ideally? Yes. Your question sounds to me like someone asking, "Choose which LOVE is the real love, the husband who treats his wife well, or the one who feels love in his heart." In Jewish thought, which we Messianics share (and which Yeshua and all the apostles shared), there is not this strange division between faith and works, inside and outside... We have ONLY ONE word in Hebrew: EMUNAH. It means faith/faithfulness. Inner and outer as a single idea.

I am not even sure why you got off on the faith and works issue. If we were to be water baptized today, it would not be an issue. Its not because water baptism is a work. Its because its a work that is not for today.

Mark 1:7-8 (New International Version)
"And this was his message: "After me will come one more powerful than I, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."
​

Read that? What did John the baptist prophetically tell the people?

Its not a denial of works issue with me. Its a matter of it not being a work required for the Church age.

John 1:33 (New International Version)
"I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me [John the Baptist] to baptize with water told me, 'The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.'
​

In Christ, GeneZ

​

 

[BigNorsk]

As far as the eternally begotten part of the Creed and the way it was to be understood. I've searched quite a bit on that question.

Some of it hinges on the original Greek word in the Creed. I believe it is a form of gennao (to begat or bear), and not genos (kind or class). So the translation as begotten seems to me to be correct.

Also if we study the errors that the Nicene was directed at, that gives us some clues as well. Of course it is specifically against the Arians. The Arians were teaching that Jesus was a created being. Begotten really in time, first of all creation.

Also the council was not just the Eastern Church but rather Eastern and Western. It seems that in the Western Church which seems much more willing to explain the Creed than the Eastern that they meant begotten, and they took their understanding from such verses as John 3:18. In short, it seems fairly sure that at least in the Western Church, the understanding of Jesus as eternally begotten hinges on their understanding of monogenes.

I haven't seen anything to conflict with that in the East, but they do seem to almost not want to talk about it. I suppose about the only thing that can happen when you try to dissect the Creed is someone stands up and calls you a heretic so mostly it's left alone.

The eternal relationship seems to be very much a matter of the mindset of especially the Eastern Church. That was after all their objection of the filoque clause in the Creed in the West. That even though the Bible clearly indicated that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Son, it did not indicate eternal proceeding and as such was considered wrong.

As such the Nicene Creed also ignored that basically Christ was begotten by the Spirit when Christ was made incarnate. Again that was not definitely an eternal relationship. But it seems that assuming that the words begotten and proceeds properly describes an eternal relationship with the father seems to be more based on assumption than scripture. Was it really a part of Apostolic teachings passed on through the ages. I can't find any such evidence. I'd sure be interested if there was a quote some place saying something like "As Peter explained to me...."

And so that leads us to the major difficulty. If you correct monogenes from the understanding of it as begotten to what studies have shown it to be more one of a kind or unique. Then anything that can be interpreted as being eternally begotten in the Bible, disappears. Begotten is used to describe Jesus' birth and his resurrection, but not his eternal relationship.

Of course I can't really see the Holy Spirit eternally proceeding from the Father in scripture either.

In any case, Eastern theologians have made a big point that they believe the Father is the sole fount of divinity within the Godhead. Effectively they have a hierarchy in the Trinity. There is the Father, and the Son is begotten from him and the Spirit proceeds from him, and there is no such relationship between the Son and the Spirit. Basically you could describe the Eastern Trinity using an inverted "V".

In the West, the Trinity would be more closely like a triangle.

A major difficulty I have encountered is that when reading the early fathers, I do so through a translator. Now I'm sure the translator knows Greek or Latin as the case may be much better than I do, but it creates the problem that the translation is done with the understanding of the language by the translator. So we again get into the problem with forms of the word genos in Greek being translated begotten. So reading the early fathers hasn't really gotten me what I have wanted which is actually knowing how they understood it. As far as I can tell, the monogenes error has at least been so long in the church that it has colored much of what was written and available one way or another. It clearly colors the explanations in the West, and I believe the East as well.

In the end, I don't believe the biblical position is that all three personas of the trinity are best described as I AM.

Marv

 

[Yeznik]

I do understand what you mean. But I'm glad you can see it is not true of me. Further, I think you will find that our new generation of Rabbis are men to be reckoned with -- most are not only studied in Judaism, but have classical theological training and education in Church history as well.

I hate to say this, but the average American believer in general, whatever church or congregation they attend, Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, Messianic... is not all that educated in these matters. Americans in general are not all that educated about history and religion and theology. It's just not valued in our culture. Sad.

Reason being the American culture separates church and state. The state runs the schools (public) and thats why, mainly, Americans don't have the in depth background in religions or philosophy until college.
Jewish culture integrates both religion and education as a society in general.

 

[Thekla]

It is interesting to note that one of the Orthodox criticisms of the filoque is that it produces a hierarchical (incorrect) understanding of the Trinity. The EO "sees" the Trinity as a "communion of love" (my oversimplification). The conciliar ordering of the EO Church reflects in part this understanding of Trinity. It is argued that the introduction of the filoque resulted, in part, in the hierarchical ordering of the western Church (ex., the 'new' understanding of the role of the Pope).

Also, the notion of genus as begotten does not necessarily exclude the notion of "class, type". If you will, a nation, ethnoi, is defined as a "class/type" based on who the father is.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

It is interesting to note that one of the Orthodox criticisms of the filoque is that it produces a hierarchical (incorrect) understanding of the Trinity. The EO "sees" the Trinity as a "communion of love" (my oversimplification). The conciliar ordering of the EO Church reflects in part this understanding of Trinity. It is argued that the introduction of the filoque resulted, in part, in the hierarchical ordering of the western Church (ex., the 'new' understanding of the role of the Pope).

Also, the notion of genus as begotten does not necessarily exclude the notion of "class, type". If you will, a nation, ethnoi, is defined as a "class/type" based on who the father is.

Nice post. JESUS is also our type of "Shepherd" [better Translations needed I think].

http://www.scripture4all.org/

John 21:16 He saith to him again, a second time, `Simon of Jonas, dost thou love/agapaV <25> Me?' he saith to him, `Yes, Lord; thou hast known that I dearly love/filw <5368> Thee;' He saith to him, `Be Shepherding/Tending/poimaine <4165> My Sheep/probata <4263> .'

1 Peter 5:4 and at the manifestation of the Chief-Shepherd/arci-poimenoV <750>,ye shall receive the unfading crown of glory.

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

(Rotherham) Revelation 12:5 And she brought forth a son, a manchild [male], who was about to shepherd/poimainein <4165> all the nations with a sceptre of iron; and her child was caught away unto God and unto his throne.

 

[GeratTzedek]

Hi Marv:

Allow me to offer a different perspective... Just something for you to munch on...

In the Hebrew Scriptures, HaShem is spoken of in three ways. We know of course of Avinu Melchenu, our Father our King, who is omnipresent, whose face none can see, whose name is so holy that Jews, messianic or otherwise, will not pronounce it aloud. We also know of G-d in our midst, which Jews call Shekinah: when HaShem comes to us in a localized, very earthly form of presence: within the holy of holies in the tabernacle, the burning bush, the cloud by day and pillar of fire by night, etc. And we know of Ruach HaKodesh, the holy spirit, who speaks through the prophets.

Are not all these three HaShem: Avinu Malchenu, Shekhinah, and Ruach HaKodesh...? Was it not Shekinah which spoke from the burning bush who said, "Say that I AM has sent you" ????

 

[GeratTzedek]

JThey were no longer living as Jews under law.

I would SO love to take you on, so love to open up scriptures with you and reveal to you all the passages such as where Ya'akov describes the Jewish believers in Yerushalayim as "zeolots for Torah." But this is just not the proper forum for it. Some other time an place.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Hi Marv:

Allow me to offer a different perspective... Just something for you to munch on...

In the Hebrew Scriptures, HaShem is spoken of in three ways. We know of course of Avinu Melchenu, our Father our King, who is omnipresent, whose face none can see, whose name is so holy that Jews, messianic or otherwise, will not pronounce it aloud. We also know of G-d in our midst, which Jews call Shekinah: when HaShem comes to us in a localized, very earthly form of presence: within the holy of holies in the tabernacle, the burning bush, the cloud by day and pillar of fire by night, etc. And we know of Ruach HaKodesh, the holy spirit, who speaks through the prophets.

Are not all these three HaShem: Avinu Malchenu, Shekhinah, and Ruach HaKodesh...? Was it not Shekinah which spoke from the burning bush who said, "Say that I AM has sent you" ????

The "I AM" in Exodus. Elohiym used instead of YHWH. What is your view of the Hebrew word "HAYAH"?

http://www.christianforums.com/t5925329-question-on-exouds-3-and-i-am-hayah.html

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Exodus 3:13 And Mosheh is saying unto 'Elohiym , `Lo, I am coming unto sons of Yisra'el, and I say to them, 'Elohiym of your fathers He sends me unto you, and they have said to me, What [is] His Name? what do I say unto them?'
14 And 'Elohiym saith unto Mosheh, "I-shall-be/01961 ha-yah who I-shall-be/01961 ha-yah". And-He saying `Thus dost thou say to the sons of Yisra'el, I-shall-be/01961 ha-yah He-sent-me unto-you.'
15 And 'Elohiym saith again unto Moses, `Thus dost thou say unto the sons of Yisra'el, YHWH, 'Elohiym of your fathers, 'Elohiym of Abraham, 'Elohiym of Yitschaq, and 'Elohiym of Ya`aqob, hath sent me unto you; this [is] My name--to the age, and this My memorial, to generation--generation.

Used 43 times in 40 verses as

I-shall-be I-am-becoming I-shall-become

01961 hayah {haw-yaw} a primitive root [compare 01933]; TWOT - 491; v
AV - was, come to pass, came, has been, were happened, become, pertained, better for thee; 75
1) to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out 1a) (Qal) 1a1) -----

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

I am not looking to debate the Nicene Creed. Nor, do I want others to debate the Creed. I am looking for those who grew up in churches who follow the Creed to explain what certain parts mean.

Not only what they mean (which is usually stated in the Creed directly) - but to explain how those who wrote the Creed concluded what they did. What were the theological rationales used to declare the conclusions. That would give us all understanding, rather than simply repeating something by rote.

Several points in the Creed I would like to spotlight. It may help some of us having difficulty in comprehending what is being said, so we can see what it is its asking us to agree with.

Again, this thread is not opened to debate the Creed. Its not for those who wish to disagree with its conclusions. I desire to better understand the reasoning which led to the conclusions.

I think that may help some of us better understand God, if some here know why the Creed says what it does.

Would you please, present the 'whys' for the conclusions the Creed asks for us to confess?

This is done in respect so that I can better understand certain parts of the Creed that make declarations.... give a chapter and verse.. but never tell why the Scripture agrees with the conclusion. Thank you...

Begotten of the Father before all ages. (John 1: 2)

How was he begotten? In what way? I know how Jesus was begotten in his humanity. But? What is that meaning? "Begotten before all ages."

Begotten, not made; (John 1: 18)

What is that saying? Is it in reference to his birth in the manger? Or, is this about being begotten before all ages?

If anyone is learned in this area I would appreciate to see why those things are said, and what exactly they are saying.

I am not asking for opinion.

"I think it means this..."

I am asking for the official Church doctrine. What was the exegesis involved to state what it does?

Please. No links.

... No recommended books.

Please clarify so we all can see and benefit here and now.

Thank you.

Grace and peace, GeneZ​

I'm not going to read all the posts... I'll just give you the answers.

Begotten of the Father before all ages.

Begotten means "born of"

How? We do not know.

"Before all ages" refers to Christ's existance before time began.

There are no deeper answers.

There ya go, hope it helps.

Basic Orthodox catechumenate.

Forgive me...

 

[GenemZ]

I'm not going to read all the posts... I'll just give you the answers.

Begotten of the Father before all ages.

Begotten means "born of"

How? We do not know.

Sorry... How it happened was not really what I was looking for.

Where in Scripture does it tell us that Christ was eternally begotten? How he was begotten is not my concern.

Was it based upon deduction from what we can know from Scriptures? That it was not stated directly? I would love to know what Scriptures was used to come to this conclusion. I am assuming that there is Scripture somewhere that implies the Son of God, who I know was eternally existing, was also begotten in eternity past.

"Before all ages" refers to Christ's existance before time began.

I understand that. Its only the incarnation of Christ that took place in time, but Christ himself (Deity and Soul) was existing eternally with the Father.

.

Psalm 11:5 (New American Standard Bible)
The LORD tests the righteous and the wicked, And the one who loves violence His soul hates.
​

That speaks of the pre-incarnate Christ! Deity and Soul, in union.

Isaiah 1:14 (New International Version)
"Your New Moon festivals and your appointed feasts
my soul hates.
They have become a burden to me;
I am weary of bearing them."
​

The essence of Deity is spirit, not soul. Soul is what humanity is. This soul mentioned in these passages speaks of the pre-incarnate state of the Lord Christ. Deity and Soul, as one being.


​

I just do not know where it says he was begotten eternally. I am not saying he was not. I just want to see what Scripture was used to justify the belief that he was actually begotten, and not simply existing eternally with the Father.



Thank you...

Grace and peace, GeneZ
​