Questions about the Nicene Creed and some Christian forum rules about beliefs...?

[Neogaia777]

I believe that Jesus, both in his existence as a man, and as our God in the OT, may not have been completely equal to the Father God in every way, in his existence as a man and as a, or our God in the OT... (nearly, but not completely)...

I believe he was completely equal to the Father in every way, before creation began, and after he was crucified, but not the time in between...

For this belief, I do not know where I belong...? For this belief I have been hated and despised and rejected and have been called a heretic, and accused of great blasphemy, and of not even being a Christian or Christ follower because of this... (And of breaking Christian forum rules also)... Of "rejecting the full deity of Christ", and not thinking Jesus is God because of this...

I do not think that is fair... I do believe in Jesus as God and as our God, I just believe that there were, or used to be some "differences" between him (Jesus as man and as God, our God) and the true Father, or the Father Christ speaks of in the scriptures...

For this I have been despised and rejected, and accused of great blasphemy and labeled a heretic, and am told I am not even a Christian...

How is that fair...?

This belief is the truth, but many will deny it and reject it, cause it challenges nearly everything that, IMO, they have either falsely believed, or have not cared to think about or consider, for so very long...

But it's the truth, I swear... It is what the scriptures, especially the NT teaches... So, truth is not allowed within Christian circles then I guess... To controversial...

And, am I really going against the Nicene Creed, or against Christian beliefs because of this...? Cause I don't believe I am, and I think this is all very unfair and flat out wrong...

I'm not allowed to talk about this on here, or I could get banned, and I think that is very wrong, unjust and unfair...

God Bless!

 

[A_Thinker]

Many will say and admit that Jesus the man, was not completely equal to God the Father as a man, and while that is technically rejecting the full deity of Christ, it is accepted, and considered acceptable...

So, why is it such a stretch to say that he was not always completely equal to God the Father, as a God, as our God in the OT either...? That is not considered acceptable and will get you in trouble...? Why is that...?

God Bless!

Remember, He is still God, even while he is man. Becoming man did not make Him less God.

I am (by heritage) one part Acker (my mother) ... and one part Kent (my father). Being Acker and Kent ... does not make me less of either. I will always be my mother's son ... and my father's son. And I will always have equal human value to them.

A Son always has the nature of His Father ... AND of His mother ...

 

[A_Thinker]

I believe that Jesus, both in his existence as a man, and as our God in the OT, may not have been completely equal to the Father God in every way, in his existence as a man and as a, or our God in the OT... (nearly, but not completely)...

I believe he was completely equal to the Father in every way, before creation began, and after he was crucified, but not the time in between...

How can a Son ... be less than His Father ?

 

[Butch5]

Not sure what lot you belong to but the Nicene Creed is by all orthodox and traditional denominations.

I agree, and I hold to the Nicene Creed. My point was that I've seen things on this forum that are said and believed that are not in line with the Nicene Creed. One of the most prevalent is what most call the Trinity. I've seen arguments for the Trinity as it's presented in the Athanasian Creed rather than the Nicene Creed. If you look at the two creeds they present Christ differently. I would venture to say that the majority here hold the view of the Trinity as it's presented in the Athanasian Creed, not the Nicene Creed. Or, go into a thread and argue that baptism is necessary to be saved and people will jump all over you. Yet the Nicene Creed states plainly, "I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins." One can't be saved without the forgiveness of sins.

Also, if you look at the statement of faith it's actually the Creed of 381 not the original Nicene Creed. The creed of 381 was changed from the original and added to. The creed of 381 added to the original and the Athanasian creed added even more to that.

 

[Butch5]

If you express any beliefs that go against it, your going against the forum rules...

And if you express any belief that says or states that Christ was not always equal to God the Father in every way, then according to them your technically rejecting the "full deity of Christ" which is also against the rules...

God Bless!

Yeah! My point was that people say things on here all the time that don't agree with the Nicene Creed. If you read my post 24 I elaborated a little more.

 

[BryanJohnMaloney]

John 1:1-18

 

[Butch5]

Many will say and admit that Jesus the man, was not completely equal to God the Father as a man, and while that is technically rejecting the full deity of Christ, it is accepted, and considered acceptable...

So, why is it such a stretch to say that he was not always completely equal to God the Father, as a God, as our God in the OT either...? That is not considered acceptable and will get you in trouble...? Why is that...?

God Bless!

I think a lot of the problem is that terms aren't defined. In what way is or was Jesus equal to the Father. Look at Abraham. Isaac and Jacob are not considered equal to Abraham In authority. However, they were equal to him a human beings. Two people, as humans are equal. However, that doesn't mean they are equal in every aspect of their humanity. A man and a woman are equal as humans, but not in their physical attributes. Man can't give birth or breast feed. Typically men are stronger than women, etc. So, if we look at the Father and Son this way and ask are they equal is essence or substance? The answer is yes. That is what the Nicene Creed states. Are they equal in authority? The answer is no. Paul explicitly states that when the Father gave all authority to the Son, the Father Himself was excepted. In other words, the Son never has authority over the Father, never. The Father is the ultimate authority.

If we don't define the terms then it's left up to each person to define what someone else means. I believe that one reason people get into issue with the moderators. If the terms aren't defined it's left up to the moderator to try to figure out what a statement means. And, just like everyone else the moderator is going to filter the statement through their own presuppositions. This can lead to the moderator misunderstanding what you've said. The problem I find is that many simply can't or won't define what they mean and it make communication difficult at best. In discussions I've had on the Trinity, I've asked people to define what they mean by the word God. Most of the time they either won't or can't. But, they'll continue to tell me I'm wrong when I say something about God. My question is, if you can't define your terms, how can you tell me I'm wrong? It's the same with trying to get people to recognize their presuppositions. You can't really have a meaningful discussion when people have different presuppositions. If we have different meanings for the same words, it's going to be very difficult to communicate.

 

[hedrick]

I've seen arguments for the Trinity as it's presented in the Athanasian Creed rather than the Nicene Creed.

The status of the Athanasian Creed is a bit gray. It wasn't approved by an ecumenical council. It does appear in collections of confessional documents in both the Lutheran and Reformed tradition, and has been used by Anglicans and Catholics. Aside from questions of the Trinity, from a Protestant viewpoint the description of the final judgement seems to need clarification. And a lot of people have problems with the statement that anyone who doesn't agree is damned. That's probably the biggest reason that its use in worship has declined.

"Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly." If you want to be true to the original intent, you'd probably need to capitalize Catholic.

I agree that the Nicene Creed is less explicit about how the Trinity is to be understood.

 

[Kaon]

A creed is both adding something unneeded or asked for to scripture
and repeating something over and over thinking that it justifies you.
But as long as you are seriously convinced it is important, then God
does not count it against you.

5One man regards a certain day above the others,
while someone else considers every day alike.
Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.

At the end of the day, every individual is responsible for his or her own soul, which is why every man should be convinced of whatever s/he does.

I am suspicious of the Nicean creed, or anything that is of man that *must* be taken in order to substantiate a spiritual connection. That is already ridiculous.

The Most High God is clear enough, and then He sent His son; if a creed had to be made after that - compiled by humans no less - then the generation(s) are already supremely lost.


I am still wondering about C.F. rules and the issue of Christ as one who asked for authority on behalf of the Father.

 

[A_Thinker]

I am still wondering about C.F. rules and the issue of Christ as one who asked for authority on behalf of the Father.

Can you give us a little more (i.e. scripture) on this ?

 

[Kaon]

Can you give us a little more (i.e. scripture) on this ?

When the Word of God needed the authority of the Most High God to do something?

 

[A_Thinker]

When the Word of God needed the authority of the Most High God to do something?

19 So Jesus replied, “Truly, truly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing by Himself, unless He sees the Father doing it. For whatever the Father does, the Son also does. 20 The Father loves the Son and shows Him all He does. And to your amazement, He will show Him even greater works than these.21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom He wishes.

22 Furthermore, the Father judges no one, but has assigned all judgment to the Son, 23 so that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him." John 5:19-23

Are you speaking of something more specific that such as this ?

I don't recall Jesus (the Son) asking God the Father for authority ...

 

[Kaon]

19 So Jesus replied, “Truly, truly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing by Himself, unless He sees the Father doing it. For whatever the Father does, the Son also does. 20 The Father loves the Son and shows Him all He does. And to your amazement, He will show Him even greater works than these.21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom He wishes.

22 Furthermore, the Father judges no one, but has assigned all judgment to the Son, 23 so that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him." John 5:19-23

Are you speaking of something more specific that such as this ?

I don't recall Jesus (the Son) asking God the Father for authority ...

For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment—what to say and what to speak. - John 12:49

But I do as the Father has commanded me, so that the world may know that I love the Father. Rise, let us go from here. - John 14:31

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. - Matthew 5:17 (The Word of God did not have the authority from the Most High God to change any of His previously set up Law. If He doesn't do this, then that means humans, like Paul or Peter, cannot abolish any part of the Law.)

Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son,... I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. - John 5:22

​

You are right, there is likely no where in the canonical texts that go into the details of the Word of God's position in relationship to the Most High God, but The Word of God is only as authoritative as the Most High God allows.


Humans get confused about deity simulteneity and similarity because it *can* be unfathomable. However, it can also be very simple.




Imagine I can make my words (even the ones I type now) a real-human just like me. Whatever my will is, I give to my words, and my words execute my will.

Which one of us is greater? My words, or the essence of me that has the will? Which one of us has the power to authorize? My words, or the essence of me that has the will to verbally and mechanically execute my will?



Christ is God in that He is Literally the Word of the Most High God. God gives the Word of God authority to act in the universe, but it rolls downhill. God even showed us a familiar relationship (Father and son who ultimately pleases Him.) This is a relationship we should know: that even if the son becomes ruler of everything in his father's kingdom, the son must still be given authority by the father - even if the son and father are literally one.

The Word of God saying the people see the Most High God when they see Him is a testament to His avatar - not His authority as God the Father. God the Father, and the Ancient of Days/The Word of God are uniquely different, but paradoxically the same.

 

[Butch5]

The status of the Athanasian Creed is a bit gray. It wasn't approved by an ecumenical council. It does appear in collections of confessional documents in both the Lutheran and Reformed tradition, and has been used by Anglicans and Catholics. Aside from questions of the Trinity, from a Protestant viewpoint the description of the final judgement seems to need clarification. And a lot of people have problems with the statement that anyone who doesn't agree is damned. That's probably the biggest reason that its use in worship has declined.

"Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly." If you want to be true to the original intent, you'd probably need to capitalize Catholic.

I agree that the Nicene Creed is less explicit about how the Trinity is to be understood.

I agree. That's why I said the OP shouldn't be to worried. One can hold to the Nicene Creed without holding the tenets of the Athanasian Creed. From what I've seen on forums many if not most Trinitarians hold to the Athanasian view and reject the Nicene view. Yet, according to the rules one is supposed to hold the Nicene view.

 

[Neogaia777]

Who is the Father Jesus spoke of...?

Was it YHWH...?

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

How can a Son ... be less than His Father ?

Easy, less mature, less developed, less experienced... Younger version of him...

When speaking of God the Father (the Father God that Jesus spoke of) and God the Son, it is a question of full 100% complete omniscience...

If you just use your head for a second and just "think" about what 100% full complete omniscience would mean for a God, or for a man even...

And you will have to conclude that YHWH and Christ (and YHWH who is Christ) was not 100% fully completely omniscient, not in the same manner as the Father he speaks of is anyway...

But he was darn "near it" he could see many, many things, and knew a lot, A LOT, much more than we can ever know, but there were some "few things" he could not see (past) or know for sure, things that, from his perspective, was dependent on us... But not from the Father he speaks of's perspective...

I would say that Christ/YHWH could see all "possibilities" that from his perspective, were "possibilities" (and could calculate many likely probabilities)... but not from the Father he speaks of's perspective, for he truly knew "all" from the "very beginning"... To him there is just "no such thing" as probability or possibility... For he knew, knows, and has always known "all" fully, from the very beginning...

When did he (Jesus) see the Father he speaks of doing those things, IDK, and don't know if I, or we or anyone will ever be able to truly answer that till we get to heaven, maybe then we'll know...?

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

If I get kicked off here, you guys will know why... Though I'm praying and hoping I don't though...

God Bless!

 

[A_Thinker]

Easy, less mature, less developed, less experienced... Younger version of him...

But from a purely intrinsic standpoint, having the same natural essence and being.

Just like all men are created equal, despite the fact that some may be princes ... and some may be paupers ...

 

[Kaon]

But from a purely intrinsic standpoint, having the same natural essence and being.

Just like all men are created equal, despite the fact that some may be princes ... and some may be paupers ...

"All men are created equal, but some are more equal than others..."


The Most High God literally begot The Word of God: He literally made His words a living, unique conscious and conscientious entity. The Most High God is the One who endows The Word of God.

Even The Word of God Himself recognizes the hierarchy of authority between Him, and His Father despite their unity.

 

[A_Thinker]

"All men are created equal, but some are more equal than others..."

Who said this ?

I don't that the Creed speaks to positional equality ...