Nicene Creed

[Philip]

The Two diffrences in churchs(beliefs) both trace to Peters church
the main diffrece being
[Sunday worship]
[Sabbath worship]

Is there a "Sabbath keeping" church that can trace itself back to Peter? If so, please be kind enough to trace it for us.

Second He says "in thy name" which could just mean "christian" or follower of christ, which we all are and all true followers accept one another as such.

Given that the name Christian did not exist at the time of this prayer, your statement is not reasonable.

I would agree with you, If I saw any legitmecy in what the church in rome says on the teachings of christ.

Who said anything about Rome?

 

[Achichem]

Is there a "Sabbath keeping" church that can trace itself back to Peter? If so, please be kind enough to trace it for us.

You see a church as a physical church perhaps, I as theology.

I have reasons, to why I think that [Sabbath Worshipers] existed since Christ.

First Christ, Paul, Peter, James, and Jude were all Sabbath Worshipers, the movement and theology they followed was the theology of what I call the Sabbath Worshipers.

However they accept and so was introduced Sunday worshipers(no less of christians), and there is no debate that both existed before Constantine helped to unite the Christian movement.

Constantine when in the council decided that Sunday was going to be the worship day for Christians and on some other key doctrine.(this is not bad, however it was ruthless)

Those who were Sabbath Worshipers now by cannon law were called jewifyed, and hence treated and held as Jews. However they are not recorded by Jewish history either because they were never embraced in the Jew community either, however the movement was always in existence, either being call Jew by the catholic historians or Christians by the Jews.

When the bible began to be published in the protestant revolution. The Sabbath Worshipers embraced it and history records there presents again. However soon being persecuted as they had always been there numbers shrunk in till they settled in America where you can see another surge in their numbers is found.

Don't believe me, don't have to, Chirst will tell you all about it when he comes, that i assure you.

Given that the name Christian did not exist at the time of this prayer, your statement is not reasonable.

Does not the word Christian mean "follower of christ"?

Who said anything about Rome?

Then please enlighten me on which church is the true church of God.

 

[OldShepherd]

You see a church as a physical church perhaps, I as theology.

I have reasons, to why I think that [Sabbath Worshipers] existed since Christ.

First Christ, Paul, Peter, James, and Jude were all Sabbath Worshipers, the movement and theology they followed was the theology of what I call the Sabbath Worshipers.

[size=+1]None of this is clearly taught in the NT.[/size]

Constantine when in the council decided that Sunday was going to be the worship day for Christians and on some other key doctrine.(this is not bad, however it was ruthless)

[size=+1]I'm sorry this statement is not true and I believe that you know it. I have posted historical evidence in the "10 commandments" thread showing that the church worshipped on Sunday over 200 years before Constantine. Second, the day of worship was NOT a topic at the Nicaean council. Third, Constantine NEVER appointed any day for the church. He decreed a secular day of abstention from labor, and said NOTHING about the church.[/size]

• 
  Constantine's Edict , AD 321
  
  It is claimed that Constantine's edict of March 7, 321 changed the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday. Consantine's edict reads:
  On the venerable Day of the Sun [venerablili dei Solis] let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country, however, persons engaged in agriculture may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits.Codex Justinaianus, book 3 title 12,3 trans. In Schaff, History of the Christian Church 5th ed. (New York: Charles Scribner, 1902), vol. 3, P. 380, note1.

[size=+1]And please do not blow off my reply, with a knee-jerk response, "Well just because it is written in a book does not make it true." Unlike other so-called evidence posted in this thread, this book cites the primary source, "Codex Justinaianus, book 3 title 12,3." So if you want to refute this, refer to the primary source recorded at that point in history.[/size]

Those who were Sabbath Worshipers now by cannon law were called jewifyed, and hence treated and held as Jews. However they are not recorded by Jewish history either because they were never embraced in the Jew community either, however the movement was always in existence, either being call Jew by the catholic historians or Christians by the Jews.

[size=+1]Can you cite any historical sources to support this? By "historical" I mean written at or near the time this allegedly occurred, not something written in the 19th and 20th century, by Sabbatarians, without any historical evidence. For example, the histories of Lactantius and Eusebius, who lived contemporary with Constantine. They are available on the 'net.[/size]

Don't believe me, don't have to, Chirst will tell you all about it when he comes, that i assure you.

[size=+1]Don't believe me, don't have to, check it out in the authentic histories written during that era.[/size]

Does not the word Christian mean "follower of christ"?

[size=+1]No, actually I think the original meaning was "little Christs."[/size]

 

[OldShepherd]

This is an opinion, and not fact as OS implied, and an opinion which I believe scripture does not support.

As we are discussing in the preterist thread, Jesus promised to return to 1st century Sardis "as a thief" if they did not watch for His coming. (Revelation 3:3) Jesus could not lie.

[size=+1]Jesus made no such promise. The language was clearly conditional, just as the OT references cited below. What does[/size] “[size=+2]IF[/size][size=+1]” mean? Has any Preterist on this forum, or any Preterist site on the entire internet, ever posted any scriptural evidence, or historical evidence from the early church, that the church of Sardis did not watch, and that Jesus actually came to the church? How about John, the longest living disciple, or his two disciples, whose writings appear in the early church fathers, Polycarp and Ignatius?[/size]

• 
  Rev 3:3 Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.
  
  Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament
  Remember (mnhmoneue). "Keep in mind," as in Titus 2:5. Therefore (oun). Resumptive and coordinating as in Titus 1:19; Titus 2:5. Thou hast received (eilhpaß). Perfect active indicative of lambanw, "as a permanent deposit" (Vincent). Didst hear (hkousaß). First aorist active indicative, the act of hearing at the time. And keep it (kai threi). Present active imperative of threw, "hold on to what thou hast." And repent (kai metanohson). First aorist active imperative of metanoew, "Turn at once." If therefore thou shalt not watch (ean oun mh grhgorhshß). Condition of third class with ean mh and the first aorist (ingressive) active subjunctive of grhgorew, "if then thou do not wake up." I will come (hxw). Certainly future active here, though probably aorist subjunctive in Titus 2:25. As a thief (wß klepthß). As Jesus had already said (Matthew 24:43; Luke 12:39), as Paul had said (1 Thessalonians 5:2), as Peter had said (2 Peter 3:10), as Jesus will say again (Revelation 16:15).
  
  Strong’s 5792 Mood - Subjunctive
  
  The subjunctive mood is the mood of possibility and
  potentiality. The action described may or may not occur,
  depending upon circumstances. Conditional sentences of the
  third class ("ean" + the subjunctive) are all of this type, as
  well as many commands following conditional purpose clauses,

We know there is only one coming of Christ "as a thief" prophesied in scripture, and it is the coming of Christ that is simultainous with the "day of the Lord" in the NT.

This coming is taught to ocourr at an appointed time, and would overtake those not watching "as a thief". (Matt 24:42, 43, 25:13, Mark 13:33, 35, Luke 21:36, 1 Peter 4:7, Revelation 3:3)

[size=+1]And, of course, according to Preterist presumptions, Christ could only come as a thief in the first century. Christ could never, ever, come “ as a thief” at any other time in history.[/size]

Jesus could not have told those real air breathing, blood pumping 1st century Christians at the Church of Sardis that if they did not watch, He would come TO THEM "as a thief" if the day of the lord coming "as a thief" was not ordained to take place in their 1st century time.

[size=+1]This is puffed up with a lot of unnecessary adjectives to make it appear substantial. Jesus said, "If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief.", it was conditional, just as the OT warnings.[/size]

No scripturally honoring refutation of this fact has been, or I believe can be, provided.

[size=+1]See below, I have posted the reference to Jonah before, but since scripture itself contradicts Preterist assumptions, it was ignored.[/size]

Jesus came to Sardis, overtaking those not watching "as a thief", while a few were found worthy and were not overtaken "as a thief" at Christ's coming to them, in perfect harmony with all other teaching of how the "day of the lord coming as a thief" would effect those not watching as opposed to those who watched.

[size=+1]This is NOT recorded anywhere in scripture or church history. The conditional language of Jesus has been totally ignored and presumptions put forth as fact. What does "IF" mean?[/size]

The position put forth By Old Shepp and others that the "Day of the lord coming of Christ" could be postponed or delayed by the act of "watching for it", is taught nowhere in scripture.

[size=+1]Preterists frequently cite OT “apocalyptic language” as proof of their presuppositions and assumptions. Are there any OT apocalyptic references in the OT where God threatened to bring judgment on certain peoples/places unless they repented and upon their repentance God relented?

The most obvious example is the book of Jonah. God sent Jonah to Nineveh to preach, after initially running away, he did just that and the result was, the Ninevites repented in sack cloth and ashes and, “God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.” And note the other instances in the OT when God relented of His judgment, because of the action of the people. Let God's word speak clearly, and all the Preterist presumptions, assumptions, and presuppostions fall by the wayside.[/size]

• 
  Jonah 3:10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.
  
  Ex 32:14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people
  
  Jer 26:19 Did Hezekiah king of Judah and all Judah put him at all to death? did he not fear the LORD, and besought the LORD, and the LORD repented him of the evil which

 

[Achichem]

I'm sorry this statement is not true and I believe that you know it. I have posted historical evidence in the "10 commandments" thread showing that the church worshipped on Sunday over 200 years before Constantine. Second, the day of worship was NOT a topic at the Nicaean council. Third, Constantine NEVER appointed any day for the church. He decreed a secular day of abstention from labor, some time after the Nicaean council.

I would love to prove to you somthing on this ponit, but I have not had any luck finding the online version of the cannons(at that time).If you could help me with that I would be glad to provide more evidence.

[size=+1][size=+1]Don't believe me, don't have to, check it out in the authentic histories written during that era.[/size]

And they had no bias, cause they wrote very accurate acconts of what happen with the jews

[size=+1]No, actually I think the original meaning was "little Christs."[/size]

Really i never knew that, thanks


Also, I was making the ponit here that there is more then one church of God, not that sunday or sabbath worship is right (both exsisted)(both are good)

If I am wrong, then please ponit me in the right direction and tell me where i can find this almighty one and only Church of God.

 

[OldShepherd]

I would love to prove to you somthing on this ponit, but I have not had any luck finding the online version of the cannons(at that time).If you could help me with that I would be glad to provide more evidence.

[size=+1]I think that may be the problem. It is not about proving anyone right or wrong. It is about seeking the truth, wherever it may be found. I have been a Christian for several decades. I have studied Theology at the post-grad level. I consider myself fairly knowledgeable. But like any other mortal man, I can and do make mistakes. If it can be shown that I am in error, I will gratefully acknowledge it. After a bit of searching, I revised my statement about Constantine and his Sunday edict, above. [/size]

And they had no bias, cause they wrote very accurate acconts of what happen with the jews.

[size=+1]The historians I cited lived at the time. Do you think you can get accurate “history” from writers in the 19th and 20th centuries, who did NOT live at the time, and do NOT cite any historical evidence, whatsoever?[/size]

Also, I was making the ponit here that there is more then one church of God, not that sunday or sabbath worship is right (both exsisted)(both are good)

[size=+1]The only group of early “Christians” who observed the Sabbath, as recorded by early church fathers, were the Ebionites or Nazarenes and they recognized only the gospel of Matthew and rejected the rest of the NT. Some 19th and 20th century writers may mention other groups, but there is no historical evidence of such, that I am aware of.[/size]

If I am wrong, then please ponit me in the right direction and tell me where i can find this almighty one and only Church of God.

[size=+1]I can point you to the Church of God, the church built by Jesus, upon the rock, against which the gates of hell cannot prevail, and I can do it without any unnecessary sarcasm.[/size]

• 
  [size=+1]Mt 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.[/size]

 

[Achichem]

[size=+1]The historians I cited lived at the time. Do you think you can get accurate ?history? from writers in the 19th and 20th centuries, who did NOT live at the time, and do NOT cite any historical evidence, whatsoever?[/size]

I not taking writers in the 19th and 20th centuries, Its my logic, and the book of acts, i simpley try and live the lives of my rolemodles: Jesus,Job,David. I was almost possitive everywhere I read about the first century talked about both sabbath worshipers and sunday worshiper, but I haven't look at it in a while so I don't know.

[size=+1]The only group of early ?Christians? who observed the Sabbath, as recorded by early church fathers, were the Ebionites or Nazarenes and they recognized only the gospel of Matthew and rejected the rest of the NT. Some 19th and 20th century writers may mention other groups, but there is no historical evidence of such, that I am aware of.[/size]

My logic just tells me that if Jesus did it and so did a lot of his direct disciples a few would follow.I mean even when I was still a catholic I saw the jews and their day and I always ask why our day was not the same.

[size=+1]I can point you to the Church of God, the church built by Jesus, upon the rock, against which the gates of hell cannot prevail, and I can do it without any unnecessary sarcasm.[/size]

• 
  [size=+1]Mt 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.[/size]

Sorry, about the sarcasm, it was not really you it was directed towards, i'm just very bother by people who think there is only One church of God.

Thank you, I forgot about that quote, thats my ponit in a nut shell.

 

[Jerome]

[size=+1]I think that may be the problem. It is not about proving anyone right or wrong. It is about seeking the truth, wherever it may be found. I have been a Christian for several decades. I have studied Theology at the post-grad level. I consider myself fairly knowledgeable. But like any other mortal man, I can and do make mistakes. If it can be shown that I am in error, I will gratefully acknowledge it. After a bit of searching, I revised my statement about Constantine and his Sunday edict, above. [/size]



[size=+1]The historians I cited lived at the time. Do you think you can get accurate “history” from writers in the 19th and 20th centuries, who did NOT live at the time, and do NOT cite any historical evidence, whatsoever?[/size]



[size=+1]The only group of early “Christians” who observed the Sabbath, as recorded by early church fathers, were the Ebionites or Nazarenes and they recognized only the gospel of Matthew and rejected the rest of the NT. Some 19th and 20th century writers may mention other groups, but there is no historical evidence of such, that I am aware of.[/size]



[size=+1]I can point you to the Church of God, the church built by Jesus, upon the rock, against which the gates of hell cannot prevail, and I can do it without any unnecessary sarcasm.[/size]

• 
  [size=+1]Mt 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.[/size]

While I certainly agree that the Apostles and early Christians continued to frequent the Temple and synagogues on the Sabbath, the Bible is quite clear that the early Christians also started to meet on the first day of the week. Thus, the Apostles are gathered together in the upper room on the first day of the week when the Holy Spirit descends on them. St. Paul tells the churches to make the collection on the first day of the week when they gather together. Early Christian writings are full of references to the early Christian practice of worshipping on Sunday instead of Saturday.

I can think of at least two reasons why the early Christians stopped observing Saturday as the Sabbath, or rather started observing Sunday as the Lord's Day. First, the Jewish leaders started to expell them from the Temple and synagogues so they could no longer worship there on the Sabbath with the other Jews. Second, the Apostles started to realize that Christ had freed them from the ceremonial requirements of the Old Testament. Circumcision was no longer required (Council of Jerusalem). Abstinence from pork was no longer required (Vision of St. Peter before Conversion of Cornelius).

Observance of a day set apart to God is required by the Commandments, but the Apostles realized that the selection of which day to worship God was a ceremonial matter that they could change. So the Sabbath was changed to Sunday, the day Jesus Christ rose from the dead.

Our Lord made a similar change Himself. The Commandments require everyone to honor his father and his mother, but the Jewish leaders had attached a specific ceremonial requirement to that commandment so that someone could offer what would have gone to the parents as a sacrifice in the Temple and be absolved from his obligation to the parents. When Christ condemned this practice, he didn't do away with the commandment to honor one's father and mother. He merely did away with the ceremonial requirement that was attached to the commandment. Similarly, when the Apostles started to observe Sunday rather than Saturday, they didn't do away with the Sabbath requirement. Rather, they did away with the ceremonial attachment of Sabbath worship to Saturday.

Incidentally, if the ceremonies that were prescribed in the Old Testament (e.g., passover, circumcision, abstinence from pork) were written as signs of what was to come in the New Testament, as St. Paul says, then isn't observance of the ceremonies of the Old Testament by certain Christians a tacit admission that they don't believe the signs or prophetic images of the Old Testament have come to pass in Christ Jesus?

 

[Oblio]

So the Sabbath was changed to Sunday, the day Jesus Christ rose from the dead.

The Sabbath was not replaced by Sunday, Saturday is still a day to commemorate the Sabbath of Christ, His day of rest prior to The Resurrection. On this day we commemorate all those who have fallen asleep and await the General Resurrection.

 

[Philip]

First Christ, Paul, Peter, James, and Jude were all Sabbath Worshipers, the movement and theology they followed was the theology of what I call the Sabbath Worshipers.

Scripture indicates that they gathered and worshipped on Sundays as well

Constantine when in the council decided that Sunday was going to be the worship day for Christians and on some other key doctrine.(this is not bad, however it was ruthless)

Constantine decided no doctrines.

Those who were Sabbath Worshipers now by cannon law were called jewifyed, and hence treated and held as Jews. However they are not recorded by Jewish history either because they were never embraced in the Jew community either, however the movement was always in existence, either being call Jew by the catholic historians or Christians by the Jews.

I see. You can cite no evidence, but know that they were there. That is rather convienent.

When the bible began to be published in the protestant revolution.

The Bible was published long before the Reformation.

Does not the word Christian mean "follower of christ"?

The name "Christian" was not used until well after Christ's ascencion. Further, its first use was not in Jerusalem. See Acts 11:26 for the details.

 

[Achichem]

To those who clam there to be one Church authority, I really want to know what church is it?

 

[ArtistEd]

[size=+1]This is incorrect the Bible does not mandate this. Many of the "proof texts" cited by Preterists, to support their views, are misinterpreted. Also, when parts of the "proof texts" do not fit Preterist views, then they are said to be "metaphorical, symbolic, spiritual, figurative", etc. For example, the thousand years in Revelation chapter 20, what does it mean? No one has been able to answer that question yet.[/size]

Your forgetting the only futurist proof text, aren't you?

2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

The 1000 years is a reign with the Lord, is it not?

And, since you take Rev 20 to be literal, then tell everyone about your doctrine as to where people go when they die. ie some go to the sea, some go to death and some go to hell.
Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell(hades) delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. So tell us, who dies and goes to the sea? who dies and goes to death and who dies and goes to hell?

And we know you won't come up with a "metaphorical, symbolic, spiritual, figurative" answer, will you?

 

[BrianV]

parousia70 -- sorry for not posting, I've been on vacation.

Let me try to rephrase this a bit, because I think I may be coming off rather confusing.

Do I believe what I say in the creed? Of course. Will there be a time when Jesus will come again? Yes. So will there be a time when this event is in the 'past'? Yes. The point I was trying to make, though, is that while the Creed is correct now, after Jesus comes again and we're with him in Heaven (hopefully), are we really even going to need the creeds?

How about this analogy. If I'm hiking through the woods trying to find my base camp, I'm going to use a map. I'll keep using that map trying to find the camp. Once I find the camp, I won't need the map anymore.

As I've said before, it's not so much the words that are important, but rather the belief and the teachings. Those will live on forever.

Brian_V

 

[Jerome]

To those who clam there to be one Church authority, I really want to know what church is it?

Had Jesus Christ thought that a multitude of religions could lead men to salvation, he never would have established Christianity. Nor would He have prayed that His Church might be one or promised to abide with His Church until the end of the world.

Had the Apostles thought a multitude of Christian viewpoints about doctrinal and moral issues was approved by God, they never would have condemned heresies such as that of the Nicolaitans or warned their followers to flee from heretics.

From this it is apparent (1) that a multitude of religions or Christian denominations is not the will of God, and (2) that one Christian viewpoint must be the true Faith established by Christ.

To determine which Christian viewpoint is the true Faith, look to the churches that the Apostles founded -- Antioch, Alexanderia, Jerusalem, Rome. Many of these churches were destroyed over the ages or succumbed to various heresies, but early Christian writers testify to what they believed: way back when, before so called "errors" creeped in. Compare what they wrote to what the various Christian denominations today believe. The Catholic Church is the obvious successor of the Apostles' Faith.

Only one of the churches the Apostles established, and it was established by the greatest, Peter and Paul, remains in unbroken succession to this day. As Irenaeus observed over 1900 years ago, its doctrine remains pure, undefiled by heresy -- Rome.

When the Protestants gutted the Bible in the 1500s, only the Anglicans, the Greek Orthodox, and the Catholics refused to allow books and passages to be ripped from the Book that contained God's Sacred Word. Even then, only the Catholic Church denounced this violation of the Bible and ordered all faithful Christians to preserve the Bible unedited, with the books of Judith, Tobit, Sirach, 1 & 2 Machabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch, and portions of Daniel and Ester.

In our life times, Pope John Paul II has faced athiest Communism in Russia and denounced it to the world. In our life times, Pope John Paul II has faced the ridicule of the Chicago Sun, the Boston Globe, the New York Times, and a host of other media giants to denouce homosexual marriages even while the Episcopalians were ordaining an openly gay bishop.

Who cannot say, when all has been said, that we have heard many Christian voices in our life times -- voices with British accents, American accents, and yes, old, tired, Polish accents. But my dear friends in Christ, when Pope John Paul II stood up to the media powers of this world and defended the sanctity of marriage, when Pope John Paul II denounced atheist Russia and consecrated that nation to the Hearts of Jesus and Mary, when Pope John Paul II gave a voice to the countless thousands of unborn children who are killed each year by abortion and condemned that holocaust, I did not hear a Polish accent. I heard the Hebrew accent of a fisherman from Galilee -- Peter.

 

[parousia70]

Jesus made no such promise. The language was clearly conditional, just as the OT references cited below. What does“IF” mean? Has any Preterist on this forum, or any Preterist site on the entire internet, ever posted any scriptural evidence, or historical evidence from the early church, that the church of Sardis did not watch, and that Jesus actually came to the church? How about John, the longest living disciple, or his two disciples, whose writings appear in the early church fathers, Polycarp and Ignatius?
Rev 3:3 Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.

Jesus indeed made such a promise, and His promise is equal to or better than any Historical record of the event coming to pass. If Jesus promised it, we can be sure it happened, regardless if history records it or not

Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament
Remember (mnhmoneue). "Keep in mind," as in Titus 2:5. Therefore (oun). Resumptive and coordinating as in Titus 1:19; Titus 2:5. Thou hast received (eilhpaß). Perfect active indicative of lambanw, "as a permanent deposit" (Vincent). Didst hear (hkousaß). First aorist active indicative, the act of hearing at the time. And keep it (kai threi). Present active imperative of threw, "hold on to what thou hast." And repent (kai metanohson). First aorist active imperative of metanoew, "Turn at once." If therefore thou shalt not watch (ean oun mh grhgorhshß). Condition of third class with ean mh and the first aorist (ingressive) active subjunctive of grhgorew, "if then thou do not wake up." I will come (hxw). Certainly future active here, though probably aorist subjunctive in Titus 2:25. As a thief (wß klepthß). As Jesus had already said (Matthew 24:43; Luke 12:39), as Paul had said (1 Thessalonians 5:2), as Peter had said (2 Peter 3:10), as Jesus will say again (Revelation 16:15).

I see Robertson agrees that Jesus' "coming as a thief" in Revelation 3 is the same "coming as a thief" prophesied throughout the NT.
Do you agree with Robertson on this, or do you believe there is more than one "Coming of Christ as a thief" prophesied in scripture?

Strong’s 5792 Mood - Subjunctive

The subjunctive mood is the mood of possibility and
potentiality. The action described may or may not occur, depending upon circumstances. Conditional sentences of the third class ("ean" + the subjunctive) are all of this type, as well as many commands following conditional purpose clauses,

I find nothing to disagree with here. Should I?

And, of course, according to Preterist presumptions, Christ could only come as a thief in the first century. Christ could never, ever, come “ as a thief” at any other time in history.

Not when Jesus promised to come as a thief on those not watching in the 1st century. I find no promise of Christ to "come as a thief" to any other people of any other time period.
He keeps His promises.

See below, I have posted the reference to Jonah before, but since scripture itself contradicts Preterist assumptions, it was ignored.

Perhaps it was ignored because it is Irrelevant, unless of course you can show from scripture that God only "postponed" those OT Judgements and brought them upon some other generation thousands of years removed, or unless you can show that the Coming of Christ "as a thief" will never ocourr because those at Sardis "watched" for it.

Do this, and those OT examples have merrit, otherwise they have been shown to have no bearing on our interpratation of Christ's promise in Revelation 3:3.

 

[parousia70]

The point I was trying to make, though, is that while the Creed is correct now, after Jesus comes again and we're with him in Heaven (hopefully), are we really even going to need the creeds?

Define "Need".

In what way do you "need" the creeds today, and in what way will the creeds become "needless" to you after the parousia of Christ?

Will the resurrected Christian no longer "need" to believe in:
One God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen?

Will the resurrected Christian no longer "need" to Believe in:
One Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made?

Will the resurrected Christian no longer "need" to Believe that:
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man?

Will the resurrected Christian no longer "need" to Believe that:
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father?

Will the resurrected Christian no longer "need" to believe in:
The Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son?

Will the resurrected Christian no longer "need" to believe that:
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified?

And that:
He has spoken through the Prophets?

Will the resurrected Christian no longer "need" to believe in:
One holy catholic and apostolic Church?

Will the resurrected Christian no longer "need" to:
acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins?

Seems to me that the only parts of the creed that the resurrected Christian will no longer "NEED" to believe is that:
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead.

And the resurrected Christian will no longer NEED to:
Look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come.

Everything else is eternal, unchangable, and NEEDED forever.

As I've said before, it's not so much the words that are important, but rather the belief and the teachings. Those will live on forever.

Except the belief and teaching that Christ will come again. Those are not Eternal Beliefs and teachings. Rather, they have a terminus, and since Scripture places the time of that terminus in our past, we can confidently assert that those sections of the Creed are OBSOLETE for our present time. And contrary to your apparant assertion, the rest of the creed remains true and "needed" for all eternity.

 

[OldShepherd]

Your forgetting the only futurist proof text, aren't you?

2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

The 1000 years is a reign with the Lord, is it not?

And, since you take Rev 20 to be literal, then tell everyone about your doctrine as to where people go when they die. ie some go to the sea, some go to death and some go to hell.
Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell(hades) delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. So tell us, who dies and goes to the sea? who dies and goes to death and who dies and goes to hell?

And we know you won't come up with a "metaphorical, symbolic, spiritual, figurative" answer, will you?

[size=+1]The verse you quoted does NOT say that the dead "go to the sea," when they die. They are already at sea. Since time immemorial men have gone down to the sea in ships. Many, have died there and there their bodies remain in the sea. For example, the 1000+ men who died on the USS Arizona, their bodies remain entombed in the ship. Recently one of the survivors died, he had asked that his ashes be placed in the ship with his dead ship mates. At some point the sea will give up the dead who are in it, as the graves will give up the dead who are in them.

There is an old rule in Bible interpretation, "If the plain sense makes good sense it is nonsense to look for any other sense." In other words Bible interpretation does NOT determine that a passage is metaphorical, spiritual, allegorcal, figurative, etc., just for convenience. Determining that a passage is metaphorical, spiritual, allegorcal, figurative, etc., is a last resort, not the first choice to make something fit assumptions and presuppositions.[/size]

 

[BrianV]

My goodness, how did this become such a touchy subject?

First, I didn't say we wouldn't need to believe in the creeds, I mean we wouldn't need the creeds. Really, we don't need the creeds now. There are other ways to express your beliefs other than the creeds. But it is a good summary of the faith.

Also, I beginning to lose track of what we're trying to prove here? So part of the creed will change. That doesn't change what I believe now. I'm still looking for him to come again, and when he does, I'll be happy.

If I may ask, are you just trying to correct me/prove me wrong, or do you have something against the Creed itself? If the prior, I've seen your point since the beginning. If the latter, I'm not sure if I can help.

Brian_V

 

[OldShepherd]

Jesus indeed made such a promise, and His promise is equal to or better than any Historical record of the event coming to pass. If Jesus promised it, we can be sure it happened, regardless if history records it or not

[size=+1]Jesus NEVER made a promise to the seven churches in Asia that He would return in the first century. They were NOT promises, they were warnings, "repent or else." In fact two of the churches Jesus said NOTHING about returning, period.[/size]

I see Robertson agrees that Jesus' "coming as a thief" in Revelation 3 is the same "coming as a thief" prophesied throughout the NT. Do you agree with Robertson on this, or do you believe there is more than one "Coming of Christ as a thief" prophesied in scripture?

[size=+1]Here is what Robertson said which you ignored, "as Jesus will say again (Revelation 16:15)." That was written prior to 1937, "Jesus will say again." future tense.[/size]

[size=+1]Strong’s 5792 Mood - Subjunctive

The subjunctive mood is the mood of possibility and potentiality. The action described may or may not occur, depending upon circumstances. Conditional sentences of the third class ("ean" + the subjunctive) are all of this type, as well as many commands following conditional purpose clauses,[/size]

P70:
I find nothing to disagree with here. Should I?

[size=+1]You most certainly have and are diasagreeing with the language resource I posted. Jesus statements to the seven churches were conditional NOT definite, just like God's prospective judgments on Nineveh, etc.[/size]

Not when Jesus promised to come as a thief on those not watching in the 1st century. I find no promise of Christ to "come as a thief" to any other people of any other time period. He keeps His promises.

[size=+1]Irrelevant. The warning, NOT promise, to one (1) church, Sardis, was conditional which you have tacitly acknowledged and I have posted historical evidence that the church at Sardis was still flourishing as late as 340 AD. Therefore that conditional warning has NOT been fulfilled yet.[/size]

Perhaps it was ignored because it is Irrelevant, unless of course you can show from scripture that God only "postponed" those OT Judgements and brought them upon some other generation thousands of years removed, or unless you can show that the Coming of Christ "as a thief" will never ocourr because those at Sardis "watched" for it.

Do this, and those OT examples have merrit, otherwise they have been shown to have no bearing on our interpratation of Christ's promise in Revelation 3:3.

[size=+1]Cop out. No you ignored it because it totally refutes Preterism's insistence that a warning to repent or else is not conditional on repentance. Now you are changing the rules on "Old Testament Apocalyptic Language" None, as in nada, of all the OT Preterist "proof texts," posted here match Matthew 24, word for word, situation for situation, there are only some similarities.

But it does not matter, I just wanted to point out the hypocrisy of Preterism. One question, what happened to Nineveh, where is it today, did it continue to flourish until recent times?

In the OT God sent Jonah to preach to Nineveh, after first rebelling, Jonah went to Nineveh, preached, and they repented, in sack cloth and ashes. "And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not."(Jon 3:10)

And the exact same situation existed in the seven churches, three of the seven churches in Revelation 2-3, Jesus warned them to repent "or else." And there is no record that Jesus returned and punished those chuches. In fact the evidence shows just the opposite. Again it was a warning NOT a promise and it was conditional on their repentance. The churches continued to flourish after the first century, thus proving the Preterist view false.[/size]

"that the Coming of Christ "as a thief" will never ocourr because those at Sardis "watched" for it." [size=+1]I have already produced historical evidence that it did NOT occur in the first century and had not occurred as late as the fourth century. You will not accept the evidence, still insisting that a conditional warning was an absolute promise and denying reality because it refutes your views. Not unlike people who will let loved ones die rather than seek medical treatment and will even pray at their side expecting God to raise them from the dead.[/size]

 

[Achichem]

Had Jesus Christ thought that a multitude of religions could lead men to salvation, he never would have established Christianity. Nor would He have prayed that His Church might be one or promised to abide with His Church until the end of the world.

Had the Apostles thought a multitude of Christian viewpoints about doctrinal and moral issues was approved by God, they never would have condemned heresies such as that of the Nicolaitans or warned their followers to flee from heretics.

From this it is apparent (1) that a multitude of religions or Christian denominations is not the will of God, and (2) that one Christian viewpoint must be the true Faith established by Christ.

To determine which Christian viewpoint is the true Faith, look to the churches that the Apostles founded -- Antioch, Alexanderia, Jerusalem, Rome. Many of these churches were destroyed over the ages or succumbed to various heresies, but early Christian writers testify to what they believed: way back when, before so called "errors" creeped in. Compare what they wrote to what the various Christian denominations today believe. The Catholic Church is the obvious successor of the Apostles' Faith.

Only one of the churches the Apostles established, and it was established by the greatest, Peter and Paul, remains in unbroken succession to this day. As Irenaeus observed over 1900 years ago, its doctrine remains pure, undefiled by heresy -- Rome.

When the Protestants gutted the Bible in the 1500s, only the Anglicans, the Greek Orthodox, and the Catholics refused to allow books and passages to be ripped from the Book that contained God's Sacred Word. Even then, only the Catholic Church denounced this violation of the Bible and ordered all faithful Christians to preserve the Bible unedited, with the books of Judith, Tobit, Sirach, 1 & 2 Machabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch, and portions of Daniel and Ester.

In our life times, Pope John Paul II has faced athiest Communism in Russia and denounced it to the world. In our life times, Pope John Paul II has faced the ridicule of the Chicago Sun, the Boston Globe, the New York Times, and a host of other media giants to denouce homosexual marriages even while the Episcopalians were ordaining an openly gay bishop.

Who cannot say, when all has been said, that we have heard many Christian voices in our life times -- voices with British accents, American accents, and yes, old, tired, Polish accents. But my dear friends in Christ, when Pope John Paul II stood up to the media powers of this world and defended the sanctity of marriage, when Pope John Paul II denounced atheist Russia and consecrated that nation to the Hearts of Jesus and Mary, when Pope John Paul II gave a voice to the countless thousands of unborn children who are killed each year by abortion and condemned that holocaust, I did not hear a Polish accent. I heard the Hebrew accent of a fisherman from Galilee -- Peter.

I have removed my comments as I feel they were rash and uncalled for, The catholics are followers in christ just with more snars in their own church then others,I am truly sadden by your blindness in seeing the reason the catholic church can not be the one church of God, and inso I hope you one day see the true church build into the hearts of every true follower in christ.

God bless,
DaTsar