Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Without the Holy Spirit the rest arent understood as they are the truth the way and the life.I v#never said the rest weren't good... but withou HolYSpirit, they are pointless... worse even, dangerous and unhealthhy.
What exactly does that mean? The truth the way and the life? I understand what "the truth" means, but what exactly do you mean when you say "the way", and "the life"?ahab said:Hi Flandidlyanders,
Without the Holy Spirit the rest arent understood as they are the truth the way and the life.
peace
Well if Jesus is the truth the way and the life, and you understand the truth you also understand the way and the life because its also Jesus.What exactly does that mean? The truth the way and the life? I understand what "the truth" means, but what exactly do you mean when you say "the way", and "the life"?
AnarKiss said:Just interested in your views on the Nicene Creed - where it fits into your faith, and into Christianity generally?
[I've just been informed by CF moderators that I cannot display a Christian icon without ascribing to the Nicene Creed]
I look forward to your replies.
AnarKiss said:Thanks for all your replies. Guess I'll wait and see whether I get to remain a "Christian" here on CF.
AnarKiss said:Just interested in your views on the Nicene Creed - where it fits into your faith, and into Christianity generally?
[I've just been informed by CF moderators that I cannot display a Christian icon without ascribing to the Nicene Creed]
I look forward to your replies.
icbal said:Well, I've just now read the Nicene Creed.
I expected it to be longer I suppose.
It took 56 years to get that the way it is, you know.
Not a second longer.
I find it interesting that the original called Jesus the "only begotten Son of God" while the later version changed that to "Only Son of God". Which is wrong.
I find it interesting that the there is such deifying of Mary in the first creed, where it tells us Jesus was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary.
This was later changed to say "born of the Virgin Mary".
Why didn't it say that in the first place?
I also find it interesting that the original, in 325, tells us that Jesus was "crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried, and he rose on the third day according to the scriptures".
While in 381 that was changed to:
"For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day he rose again in fulfilment of the Scriptures".
I find it all very interesting because the first version is correct in saying that Jesus was the "only begotten" son of God, in that Jesus was the only son of God that was actually born, where Adam and the Angels were created directly. Where the later version claims Jesus was the ONLY Son of God, which according to Genesis and Luke, is untrue.
The Original claims an equality of Mary with the Holy Spirit, deifying her. Which we all know to be wrong. While the later corrects it and gives Mary a far more human role.
But the part I noticed most was the third real contradiction. In that, in the original, Jesus didn't die.
He didn't die.
I find this the most interesting because of Jesus' sign he chose to give to the pharasees. The sign of the Jonah.
Jesus said that he would spend three days and three nights in the belly of the earth, just as Jonah did in the belly of a fish.
Just as Jonah didn't, Jesus never said he would die.
And I find it very interesting that the original creed supports this.
I find it even more interesting that this was changed.
I dont think I need any more argument for why the Nicene Creed is meaningless.
I keep getting told that the Nicene Creed isn't a definition of belief, when it is.
And I keep getting told that its job is to answer the questions that people fight over, which it doesn't do.
It doesn't do it because the opinion of the council changed 5 times to my knowledge over a 56 year period, on three very important points of Christianity at least, and they STILL didn't get it right.
tel0004 said:I agree with everything in it, minus the part where it says about one united cathloic church. I agree they are united, but they are not the only church.
calebnostro said:I dont trust creeds made by fallible human beings, I trust the Bible and what it states directly - nothing more and nothing less.
ebia said:You presumably trust the Holy Spirit to have directed the people who wrote the bible, and you presumably trust the Holy Spirit to have directed the people who sorted out which books should make up the bible, so why is it so unreasonable to trust the Holy Spirit to have guided those who authored the "Nicene" Creed?
Not the whole TRUTH can be found from the manipulated Bible, and I don´t believe the Holy Ghost was present when they threw away and burnt precious
Holy Scriptures.
So nothing that can be deduced from what it does say, then?
PastorJason said:I see the Nicene Creed as I do most other creeds - nice, concise ways for some folks to declare a systematic theology. I do, however, feel the spirit of the Campbell-Stone tradition when I say (and this is quite contrary to CF policy, but bear with me) that the use of creeds as tests of fellowship or membership is sinful, and stands over against the open fellowship practiced by Jesus. I think if one can declare that they believe that Jesus is the Christ, that is the sole "test" of whether or not one is Christian.
While I agree with the spirit of the Nicene Creed, what I mean when I read the words may be (and probably is) quite different than what others may say about the same phrases.
However, I also use a Christian-based icon because I am indeed a disciple of the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth, and consider myself Christian - although I may not be seen that way by others on these forums. It's a self-declared faith stance, in my opinion.
FLANDIDLYANDERS said:The Nicene Creed doesn't mention Baptism by HolySpirit - God living in us is essential to being a Christian... even in the Gospels!!! It's why Jesus left US in charge after all..
So, there is a HUGE FLAW in the Creed.
PLUS, the PJ said, Creeds Suck. Divisive trash.
ebia said:I presumed it was a rhetorical question because:
a. I display a christian icon, which I am only allowed to do on this forum if I agree to the 'Nicene' creed.
b. I have said earlier in this thread that I agree with the 'Nicene' creed.
I believe what the church has 'always' taught - roughly summarised as one God in 3 persons.
So to restate my question in a different form, you might reject the creed on one of two bases:
1. You don't trust it's source. In which case my question is "what is different about it's source to the source of the biblical texts and the formation of the canon?"
or
2. You reject it because you believe it is incorrect.
flautist said:"I believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God."
Shouldn't that be all that's needed? Do we really need all the pomp and circumstance of a creed? And why the Nicene Creed? Why not the Apostolic, or any other of the number of creeds that are out there?
Uniting ALL Christians as one body. I didn't see a disclaimer there. Until I read the rules, that is.
ebia said:I presume that CF uses it because having a "Christians Only" section demands that one have a (practical, usable) definition of Christian. The Nicene Creed might not be perfect for such purposes, but it's the least contraversial definition. The least bad option, if you will. Any other definition would result in more disputes, not less.
ebia said:I presume that CF uses it because having a "Christians Only" section demands that one have a (practical, usable) definition of Christian. The Nicene Creed might not be perfect for such purposes, but it's the least contraversial definition. The least bad option, if you will. Any other definition would result in more disputes, not less.
ebia said:I presume that CF uses it because having a "Christians Only" section demands that one have a (practical, usable) definition of Christian. The Nicene Creed might not be perfect for such purposes, but it's the least contraversial definition. The least bad option, if you will. Any other definition would result in more disputes, not less.
MidnightBlue said:I prefer the UCC approach; they see creeds and statements of faith as "a testimony, and not a test." I'm personally most comfortable with the Nicene Creed in its Eastern version, but we've settled on the Apostles' Creed for our worship because although our community is small we have some diversity of belief, and the Nicene Creed is problematic for some. I can see that even the Apostles' Creed would be problematic for other people, and in that event I wouldn't personally have any problem with using the Beatitudes or some other passage from the teachings of Jesus in place of any creed at all. In fact, there are times I think that would be preferable, anyway.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?