What would option 3 look like

[GenemZ]

Gene, you should be careful about how you draw lines. You don't hold the beliefs expressed in the Nicene Creed, and under the old system you would not be able to call yourself a Christian. I've been reading your explanation of how you were attacked by a clique. You weren't. You and the Nicene Creed just don't agree.

I see your case as one of the best arguments for the new system. I have found that relatively few Christians actually understand Trinitarian theology, and your beliefs are closer to the Creed than the practical views of a lot of people who are willing to repeat the phrases but who don't really understand what they mean. However, since most people don't delve into the kinds of issues that the Nicene Creed covers, their differences with the Creed never came out.

Still, make no mistake...if the old system were put back into place, you would be one of the people on the outside.

Alan

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txo/arianism.htm

1.) Orthodox theologians, led by Athanasius, used the term homoousios to express the doctrine that Christ, the Logos, was "of one substance" with the eternal Father.

2.) The Arian party held that Christ was a created being, in substance unlike the Father. The term for this view was anomoios.

3.) Semi-Arians, the third group, avoided either extreme and adopted the term homoiusios, which defined Christ as "of like substance" with the Father, but left vague the extent to which Christ differed from other created beings.


Those were the classic arguments used to evaluate my words? They are all missing something. Its like arguing we need to be sprinkled to be saved vs. we need to be fully immersed to be saved. Neither saves! But will argue on which is the correct way!

If that were the case? Those concepts? 1-2-3? All of them do not recognize that Christ Jesus is BOTH the same substance of the Father, and the same substance of humanity - in ONE person!

The same , and different! In One!

No wonder I do not agree with the Creed (as they see it). For they are only going by commentary which has limits. Not what we can learn. Truths that the Word tells us!

Jesus (Deity) is the same substance as the Father!

Yet?

How that substance is expressed?

Is through what the Father created, so we who are created, could relate to God by what was created!

John 1:18 (Young's Literal Translation)
"God no one hath ever seen; the only begotten Son, who is on the bosom of the Father -- he did declare."
​

The Greek indicates that the Son just not simply declares the Father to us. The Greek implies that Jesus exegetes the Father in a manner in which we can relate to!

Jesus, being both fully man, and fully God? ... 'Interprets' God to us by means of his humanity.

His humanity is the translation tool of God that takes what is of God, and makes it known to our humanity in a manner we can understand! For he - Jesus Christ - is BOTH humanity and God.

Now... To say Jesus who was born of Mary?

Was not born? But Eternally begotten of the Father, as stated in the Creed?

Yet? Was born of Mary? That is fuzzy theology! How could anyone know what it is saying?

If I am to be rejected under the old rules (if they return) for believing what I do? Then the heck with this place. Its not a place where the Word of God is esteemed above all things! The traditions of men will rule the day.

I have a feeling. That maybe the Creed was drawn up with the same type of reasoning that claims believers are drinking the literal blood of Jesus, and eating his literal flesh. Its the same church that gave us the Creed. That if we do not accept it? We can not call ourselves Christian here. Yet? Most Christian denominations do not follow that line of reasoning.


We need a Forum Statement of Faith that avoids such denominational specifics which would exclude many of us if it were to be used against us.

In Christ, GeneZ
​

​

 

[freespiritchurch]

Lots of people, including me, told you where and how you disagreed with the Nicene Creed. You either ignored the points we made or tried to argue that you didn't really disagree.

So when conformity to the Nicene Creed was a requirement for being in the "Christian only" forums, you claimed that you conformed to the Nicene Creed. Now that you don't have to conform to the Nicene Creed, you're saying something different:

And from what I can gather? Those who hold to what the Creed intended in specifics? And believes to be truth? I wonder if these ones would pass the scrutiny of what Scripture actually teaches. Sola Scriptura. I do not think they can.

You don't actually believe that the Nicene Creed teaches what Scripture says. You don't think the Nicene Creed is a good statement to use as the basis of Christian faith. That doesn't make you a bad person. It makes you a non-Nicene Christian. In other words, the staff in the old system were right.

Alan

 

[pete56]

Fascinated as I am by you r discussion of Genez beliefs MrC, I am not sure that this thread is actually the correct place to be having that discussion.

And as you are a Staff member here I would expect you to abide by the etiquette and at least start a new thread in a more relevant forum for you r discussion.

PP

 

[Debi1967]

Fascinated as I am by you r discussion of Genez beliefs MrC, I am not sure that this thread is actually the correct place to be having that discussion.

And as you are a Staff member here I would expect you to abide by the etiquette and at least start a new thread in a more relevant forum for you r discussion.

PP

This has been tried with genez and genez has not conformed or gone over to the other threads so they are trying to work this out with him here. Genez believes that this line of discussion is totally pertinent to this thread.

 

[stranger]

Jesus (Deity) is the same substance as the Father!

Herein the PROBLEM with the [unexplicitly acknowledged, but very well known] limitations of HUMAN thought ...

the SPIRIT is NOT a 'substance' at all , it created substance, it is not made out of ANYTHING , it is the source of all things, the creator and mover of all things, it is not a thing ...

 

[stranger]

You don't actually believe that the Nicene Creed teaches what Scripture says. You don't think the Nicene Creed is a good statement to use as the basis of Christian faith. That doesn't make you a bad person. It makes you a non-Nicene Christian. In other words, the staff in the old system were right.

It's simply no use trying to convince people like this , so entreched in religious dogma that they cannot 'see the forest for the trees in the way' ...

Jesus is about LOVE , not creeds and dogma, so when you iuse you very dubious dogma as rhetoric to divide and separate, you are DISOBEYING Jesus' command...

LOOK to YOURSELF , see if you can rremove the plank from your eyes that causes you to use very shaky dogma as a weapon against other christians

Luke 17:1 Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!

 

[GenemZ]

Lots of people, including me, told you where and how you disagreed with the Nicene Creed. You either ignored the points we made or tried to argue that you didn't really disagree.

From the beginning I was not told directly how I disagree. I was not even shown the alleged offending posts of mine. I was simply asked and grilled about what I thought concerning different topics, but was never told anything directly. I was just told I was found to not agree with the Creed. Period.

I was always wondering why I was asked what I was. I was asked by one if I believed the Father died on the Cross. What? I never said that.

I thought the question was strange to ask. The Father can die? What do they think I believe?

When I asked why I was asked that? Oh.. "Some believe that is so. Just wanted to make sure you do not." It was as if they did not know what I thought, but wanted to find out.

Another said that we are not to analyze the Trinity. That it can not be understood with logic. That we should accept it by faith and not try and understand it. So? What was to be my answer??? Duh... I believe.

Another comment was that someone "felt" God had to die on the Cross. That for only the humanity to die? It made our salvation seem less significant.

You know where that left me? With what answer??? These were the ones evaluating that I should be banned?

Months later when I decided to renew my appeal, you tried asking me something new. About how Jesus was Eternally begotten, and if he was of the same substance as the Father. (shift in topic, again)

I explained that only his Deity could be of the same substance, not his humanity. Yet? I guess that does not agree with the Creed. Right? Yet? It agrees with God's Word!

The theme of why I was banned kept shifting. It seemed that nobody had a concise understanding of what I truly believed, but banned me on how they felt about what I said. Then, after the ban, fished for reasons they could pin on me to make their decision justified.

So when conformity to the Nicene Creed was a requirement for being in the "Christian only" forums, you claimed that you conformed to the Nicene Creed. Now that you don't have to conform to the Nicene Creed, you're saying something different:

How many here conform to the Nicene Creed as the RCC and EO churches view it? You believe God/Deity died on the Cross? They do.

Eternal immortal God, can die?

Either Jesus' humanity died, or we are not saved. There is no room to play games with words in regards to God dying. If God died? We would cease to exist.

You don't actually believe that the Nicene Creed teaches what Scripture says. You don't think the Nicene Creed is a good statement to use as the basis of Christian faith. That doesn't make you a bad person. It makes you a non-Nicene Christian. In other words, the staff in the old system were right.

Well.... I will give them that much credit.

They were right about being consistent with agreeing with what is wrong.

That comforts all of us, I'm sure. "They were just following orders."


Glad they did not have us needing to confess Mary gave birth to God to see if we believe. They could have, according to their interpretation of the Creed. Would you be here if they made you answer that one? God can be born? The one who created birth?

God the Father and the Deity of Christ are of the same substance. But to say all of what Jesus Christ is, is the same substance? All of him is the same substance? That's simply not true. Body and soul are not Spirit.

Like I said. I believe at first glance the Creed looked like a good idea to those starting this forum. When I entered the forum I knew I believed in the Deity of the Trinity, so I did not look at it too closely. I had no idea of the notions that existed at the time the Creed was written.

According to the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches I do not belong here. Most of us could be booted if interrogated by them. Its their Creed. Not ours.

"I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins."

That is in the Creed. We were told we did not have to agree. But? We are missing a major point.

That very wording reveals how limited they were in understanding Scripture!

If they could make that a part of the Creed? It reveals the poor level of their theological thinking. Being dunked in water saves us? Not the Cross of Christ? That's religion. Not Scriptural integrity.

The Creed should not be the standard. We need a basic Statement of Faith like found in most Bible believing Churches today.

This break is to reveal this past abuse. I believe that much is now being seen and out in the open. I am glad I was a victim. For many here could not have been able to defend themselves at this time. They would still be confused.

But, those ones who would be confused, the Creed was not used against. For they were no threat to the ecumenical desire to rule and control.

"Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."
​

In Christ, GeneZ
​

 

[pete56]

Is it not possible for a Support Moderator to stop this discussion of one member's faith issues in a thread that is clearly to discuss Site wide issues?

Are you all asleep here?

 

[GenemZ]

Is it not possible for a Support Moderator to stop this discussion of one member's faith issues in a thread that is clearly to discuss Site wide issues?

Are you all asleep here?

Sir? Who is asleep here?

This is the issue of the issue.

Believers in Christ were being banned from posting in the Christian section, for being.....

Bible believing Christians!

This is why we NEED an Option 3, 4, or 5!

Please, stop trying to suppress the reason for this issue as to why we are here in the first place discussing a new option. There were abuses against believers because of denominational bias and prejudice. Thank you.

In Christ, GeneZ
​

 

[pete56]

Sir!

I am happy to discuss site wide issues and fully support the idea that this should be a Christian Forum that allows non Christians to meet and discuss faith issues.

However, discussing whether your particular brand of Christianity and your understanding of what should be believed or not is not advancing that discussion at all!

If you wish to have a deep theological discussion kindly take it to the Theology Forums not the Announcement Forum.

You are distracting me and others from the true issue here!

Pete56

 

[Lisa0315]

Is it not possible for a Support Moderator to stop this discussion of one member's faith issues in a thread that is clearly to discuss Site wide issues?

Are you all asleep here?

Well, I am only a Mod Trainee and not in this forum. However, I will PM Sparklecat to clean up the thread per request. She may request that a report be made. If so, why don't you just report my post and that should take care of it. Just make sure you point out that you are only using my post to get a clean up.

Lisa

 

[Lisa0315]

I have PM'd Fatburger to clean up the thread.

Lisa

 

[pete56]

Praise the Lord!

Thank you Lisa!

Pete

 

[GenemZ]

Fascinated as I am by you r discussion of Genez beliefs MrC, I am not sure that this thread is actually the correct place to be having that discussion.

And as you are a Staff member here I would expect you to abide by the etiquette and at least start a new thread in a more relevant forum for you r discussion.

PP

OK.... Now may we move on without threats of deleting posts? I believe Erwin needs to find out what was going on here. For it will help determine the issue for why this thread exists.

And, if you back track? You will see I did not begin this current trend. But was rather it was in response to a post that I felt needed to be clarified when it stated I did not believe what the Creed says. That left me open for anything someone wanted to think. So? I clarified.

Now? Can we move on and have Erwin see what happened in my case? Which is an excellent reason why we should have more options and not go back to the old way of doing things?

Thank you.

In Christ, GeneZ
​

 

[pete56]

Genez

I guess you are going to expound your thoughts whether we think they are relevant or not.

But the point here is that this thread asks 'What would Option 3 look like?' And it was commenced (I believe) in an attempt to offer suggestions to Erwin should he wish to read them on how to restructure the site.

I am at a loss to understand what rehashing a previous misunderstanding over some ancient creed will do to help his understanding.

Still I guess if you want to write it all out in gory detail then the rest of us can just skim over it.

You carry on brother

Pete

 

[GenemZ]

Genez

I guess you are going to expound your thoughts whether we think they are relevant or not.

I will stop as soon as you stop making what I posted an issue. I already plan to stop after finishing this post. I told you I had reason. It was within the sphere of the issue that this thread is about. I know some will not want to see it.

But the point here is that this thread asks 'What would Option 3 look like?' And it was commenced (I believe) in an attempt to offer suggestions to Erwin should he wish to read them on how to restructure the site.

You ask? What would Option 3 look like?

It should look like something that would avoid the specifics I mentioned (that's why I gave them).

I am at a loss to understand what rehashing a previous misunderstanding over some ancient creed will do to help his understanding.

To show why we need an option 3.

That it should come under serious consideration. If I did not mention the specifics of what happened? Would you be aware of its abuse? It was behind the scenes. Few knew.

Still I guess if you want to write it all out in gory detail then the rest of us can just skim over it.

Feel free to do so. But, I have said my peace. I have no intention of expounding further upon what I have already said.

You carry on brother

Under the old system? You would not have called me "brother."

That's the problem to be avoided in the next phase.

We need an option 3, 4, or what ever it takes, until denominational bias can be worked out of the qualifications needed to be called Christian, without throwing out the baby with the bathwater... by not having anyone who wants to be, called "Christian."

Jehovah Witnesses can call themselves Christian if we become anti-doctrinal in the name of avoiding all bias by holding no standards at all.

A balance can be done. Right now, some should be heard out as to why it should be done. Some will be valid reasons. Some will not be. But, we should be heard out.

Now?

I am willing to drop this issue, if you are willing to stop taking issue with it. Fair enough?

In Christ, GeneZ
​

 

[pete56]

OK Brother (and believe me no irony was intended - any one that calls himself a Christ Follower is my brother!)

Lets drop it then!

P

 

[stranger]

Now we're gona get arbitrary censorship of this key discussion thread about site structure... this site is so corrupt ... we cannot even have an open discussion of aspects concerning the site structure without someone wants to shut people up ... and gets their way by abuse of the arbitraru rule structure here that does not demand that christian mods are loving in all their behaviour and submit to the rules of scripture of God...

 

[drstevej]

Still waiting for a vision here.

Erwin, when are you gonna communicate?

 

[Lisa0315]

Still waiting for a vision here.

Erwin, when are you gonna communicate?

I have to admit that I have seen many threads and wikis at a standstill since the latest announcement. We are not sure what direction to take at this point.

Lisa