The Nicene Creed

[historia]

Here is the Creed that was affirmed at the Council of Nicaea, broken down into separate lines:

1. We believe in one God,
2. the Father almighty,
3. maker of all things visible and invisible;
4. And in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
5. the Son of God,
6. begotten from the Father uniquely --
7. that is, from the essence of the Father,
8. God from God,
9. Light from Light,
10. true God from true God,
11. begotten, not made,
12. of the same essence as the Father --
13. through whom all things came to be,
14. both the things in heaven and the things on earth,
15. who for us human beings and for our salvation
16. came down,
17. and was made flesh,
18. and became human,
19. and suffered,
20. and rose on the third day,
21. and ascended into the heavens,
22. and is coming to judge the living and the dead;
23. And in the Holy Spirit.

Question for debate:

Which lines, if any -- you can just refer to them by number -- do you disagree with? And why?

[historia]

Who told you that only the Bible is inspired? And who identified which books are part of the Bible? You?

There's evidence the Judeo Christian Bible was written by inspiration of Jehovah God. Some 2,000 accurately fulfilled prophecies found therein are proof of that.

Do you consider Philemon, 2 John, and 3 John to be part of the Bible? What "accurately fulfilled prophecies" are found in those books? Clearly, not every book of the Bible contains predictive prophecy, so your reply here doesn't begin to answer my question.

Again: Who told you only the Bible is inspired? Who identified which books are part of the Bible? You?

At no time did I state that all of the books within the Judeo-Christian Bible contain prophecies, historia. I was referring to the Judeo-Christian Bible as a whole. But since 2 John and 3 John are part of the same Bible, they automatically follow under the umbrella of being inspired by Almighty God Jehovah because they are part of the same book.

Says who? Did you personally decide that 2 & 3 John are part of the Bible? If not, then who did? That is the question I've been putting to you but you keep averting.

All Scripture is inspired of God

Okay, but that doesn't say that only Scripture is inspired of God. Nor does it tell me which texts are Scripture and which aren't. So this once again doesn't answer my questions. Here they are again, now for the third time:

Who told you only the Bible is inspired?

Who identified which books are part of the Bible?

If you can't answer those questions, just say so.

"Trying to dunk," you say; historia?

Yes, you are attempting to critique an ancient text that was written in Greek before the English language even existed. And your "sick burn" was that the authors of that text were attempting to "change the meaning of common English words."

That is such a nonsensical assertion that one of two things has to be true here: either (a) you mistakenly thought the Nicene Creed was written in English, or (b) you don't understand how language works. Either way, this was a fail right out the gate.

I succeeded when I provided the definition of the word begotten from a common English dictionary.

If for some reason you want to look at English dictionaries, let's look at the Oxford English Dictionary, the foremost dictionary in the English-speaking world. For beget it gives this definition:

2.b. Theology.

2.b.i. (c. 1350–) transitive. Of God the Father, as First Person of the Trinity: to generate (the Son, as Second Person). Cf. only-begotten adj.

If you don't understand how the English word beget or begotten can carry this kind of meaning, I refer you back to post #67.

Anyone who has studied the formation of Christendom's Trinity knows full well that the dogma was dreamed up by Roman Catholic bishops--get this--300 years after the Bible was written.

And using that same methodology, we would have to say that, for example, the formation of Jehovah's Witnesses' views on the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit was dreamed up by Adventist laymen -- get this -- 1,800 years after the Bible was written.

Look, we can either have a serious conversation here about the language of the Nicene Creed, the history of Christian theology, and other topics, or we can continue doing whatever it is you are doing above. But let me assure you, these are not serious points you are making. This is just empty rhetoric.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Here is the Creed that was affirmed at the Council of Nicaea, broken down into separate lines:

1. We believe in one God,
2. the Father almighty,
3. maker of all things visible and invisible;
4. And in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
5. the Son of God,

Agree (except that the name of the Son of God is Jah'eshua)

[*] begotten from the Father uniquely --

Yes - though I suspect there may be an issue with how those words (begotten and uniquely) are being defined and used.

[*] that is, from the essence of the Father,
[*] God from God,
[*] Light from Light,
[*] true God from true God,
[*] begotten, not made,
[*] of the same essence as the Father --

This is meant to be the explanation of those words - but what do they mean by 'essence' when they use it here?

And when they say 'begotten, not made' do they mean BORN?

Because born is correct.

But I suspect they mean something else because the trinity is supposed to claim that Christ always was, rather than that the Father brought Him into being, rather than that He was truly born.

[*] through whom all things came to be,
[*] both the things in heaven and the things on earth,
[*] who for us human beings and for our salvation
[*] came down,
[*] and was made flesh,
[*] and became human,
[*] and suffered,
[*] and rose on the third day,
[*] and ascended into the heavens,

Yes.

[*] and is coming to judge the living and the dead;

Depends on what they mean by judge here.

He - the Son - has authority to judge. However, He also leaves judgment (Rev 20:11-15) to His Father.

**Going to continue with what Otseng added because it is part of the creed:

23. And we believe in the Holy Spirit,
24. the Lord, the giver of life.

If by the Holy Spirit they mean a third person, then I must disagree.

Holy Spirit can mean two things:

Holy Spirit can refer to Christ. He is the Spirit. He is the Holy One of God. Therefore, He is the Holy Spirit.

But holy spirit can also refer to the breath, blood, seed of JAH. Holy spirit in this instance is not a person. It is the breath, blood, seed of JAH. It is what Christ breathed upon the apostles (John 20:22), and also upon Cornelius and his household (Acts 10:44-47.) It is what we are anointed with to make us Christians (anointed ones), and that is the same anointing that John is referring to in one of his letters (1John 2:27.) It is the water that Christ (the Life) invites those thirsting to come and drink for free (Rev 22:17.) It is what Christ baptizes us with - baptism of holy spirit (Mark 1:8, Acts 1:5, 2:2-4, Matt 3:11.)

25. He proceeds from the Father and the Son,

Disagree with the 'he' pronoun.

It is holy spirit - the breath/blood/seed of JAH, the water of Life - that proceeds from the Father through the Son.

The Father gives this to the Son without end, the Son gives this to whomever he chooses.

26. and with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified.

Disagree. There are only 2 persons. The Father of Christ (JAHVEH) and the Son of God (Jah'eshua.)

27. He spoke through the prophets.

Again, not a 'he' - unless referring to times that Christ spoke through the prophets.

28. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church.

Don't know why they have to add words - but there is one Church, yes. The Body of Christ, the Bride - made of people, with Him as the Head.

29. We affirm one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

If they are talking about water baptism (like physical water), then that was for Israel for sins committed under the law.

I think that (water) baptism is more symbolic for anyone else (who was not under the law given to Israel through Moses) - but not required.

It is the baptism of holy spirit that Christ gives, that is for everyone (whomever He chooses), that we need.

30. We look forward to the resurrection of the dead,

Indeed, I look forward to that as well.

But there are two resurrections - the first resurrection is the one for Christians and it occurs at Christ's coming.

The second resurrection is the resurrection of the dead, and it is not for Christians because any Christian who had died was already resurrected in the first resurrection.

31. and to life in the world to come. Amen.

In the Kingdom to come, yes.


Peace again to you.

[NeutralZone]

At no time did I state that all of the books within the Judeo-Christian Bible contain prophecies, historia. I was referring to the Judeo-Christian Bible as a whole. But since 2 John and 3 John are part of the same Bible, they automatically follow under the umbrella of being inspired by Almighty God Jehovah because they are part of the same book.

Says who? Did you personally decide that 2 & 3 John are part of the Bible? If not, then who did? That is the question I've been putting to you but you keep averting.

Says the Bible itself, historia, which I previously quoted. Below is the quotation again.


2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness,

2 Timothy 3:17
so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.





NeutralZone


________________
". . . be swift about hearing, slow about speaking, slow about wrath. . . . " (James 1:19-20)

[NeutralZone]

All Scripture is inspired of God

Okay, but that doesn't say that only Scripture is inspired of God. Nor does it tell me which texts are Scripture and which aren't. So this once again doesn't answer my questions. Here they are again, now for the third time:

Who told you only the Bible is inspired?

Who identified which books are part of the Bible?

If you can't answer those questions, just say so.

Scripture from Jehovah God's inspired word condemns either making additions to, OR subtracting from, the Judeo-Christian Bible.


Revelation 22:18
“I am bearing witness to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll;

Revelation 22:19
and if anyone takes anything away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, God will take his portion away from the trees of life and out of the holy city, things that are written about in this scroll."




NeutralZone


________________
". . . be swift about hearing, slow about speaking, slow about wrath. . . . " (James 1:19-20)

[NeutralZone]

"Trying to dunk," you say; historia?

Yes, you are attempting to critique an ancient text that was written in Greek before the English language even existed. And your "sick burn" was that the authors of that text were attempting to "change the meaning of common English words."

I already informed you, historia, that I did not merely "try" to dunk the fabrications that were dreamed up by false religionists--which is referred to as The Nicene Creed. I succeeded in doing it when I provided the correct definition of the word "begotten" from a common English Dictionary.




NeutralZone


________________
". . . be swift about hearing, slow about speaking, slow about wrath. . . . " (James 1:19-20)

[NeutralZone]

I succeeded when I provided the definition of the word begotten from a common English dictionary.

If for some reason you want to look at English dictionaries, let's look at the Oxford English Dictionary, the foremost dictionary in the English-speaking world. For beget it gives this definition:

2.b. Theology.

2.b.i. (c. 1350–) transitive. Of God the Father, as First Person of the Trinity: to generate (the Son, as Second Person). Cf. only-begotten adj.

If you don't understand how the English word beget or begotten can carry this kind of meaning, I refer you back to post #67.

Oxford English Dictionary didn't provide any definition that says "begotten but not made," which is the tripe found within the Nicene Creed at line 11. In fact, that dictionary repeated the expression "only-begotten" (aka a created being) even when it made it clear that it was giving the definition from "Theology."

FYI: No definition from Theology can supersede the common definition of a given word. A theological definition is simply telling the reader that that's how Christendom defines a particular word. Below is the same Oxford English Distionary giving the common everyday definition of the word begotten.



Old English–
begotten, in beget, v.

Of a father or (now less commonly)… transitive…

Old English–
begotten, adj. & n.
That has been produced or generated; (esp. of a…

https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/? ... q=begotten


Look at definition #2. It says that it refers to something that "has been produced." Anything that "has been produced" had to have had a beginning. Got it, historia? Not convinced? Look below at more definitions of the word begotten from the same Oxford English Dictionary.


?a1425– only-begotten, adj.
Begotten as the only child. Now also in extended use.

Old English– begotten, adj. & n.
That has been produced or generated; (esp. of a…

c1350– first-begotten, adj. & n.
Designating a child who is the first to be…

https://www.oed.com/search/advanced/Ent ... =Frequency




NeutralZone


________________
". . . be swift about hearing, slow about speaking, slow about wrath. . . . " (James 1:19-20)

[NeutralZone]

Anyone who has studied the formation of Christendom's Trinity knows full well that the dogma was dreamed up by Roman Catholic bishops--get this--300 years after the Bible was written.

And using that same methodology, we would have to say that, for example, the formation of Jehovah's Witnesses' views on the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit was dreamed up by Adventist laymen -- get this -- 1,800 years after the Bible was written.

Look, we can either have a serious conversation here about the language of the Nicene Creed, the history of Christian theology, and other topics, or we can continue doing whatever it is you are doing above. But let me assure you, these are not serious points you are making. This is just empty rhetoric.

You are now pretending that I have not already given you the following information, historia:

I gave you the historical background for where Christendom's 3-in-1 god came from, including the interference by two pagan Roman Emperors and the fact that 3-in-1 gods were commonplace in paganism. I gave the weblink to an independent source that has no affiliation with Jehovah's Witnesses so that anyone who is sincerely searching for religious truths can go to that website and read the information. You are willing to throw all of that information out the window so that you can continue lying for Trinity. Suit yourself.


BTW: There are no scriptures in the Judeo-Christian Bible in support of Christendom's Trinity.



NeutralZone


________________
". . . be swift about hearing, slow about speaking, slow about wrath. . . . " (James 1:19-20)

[BruceLeiter]

[Replying to NeutralZone in post #76]

Bible lexicons define words based on their usages within the Bible, @NeutralZone, whereas secular dictionaries define words based on secular culture's and theologians' usages. Because God inspired the Bible, I prefer the former approach basing definitions on the ways God's Word uses them. That's exactly what a word study does; it looks at all the contexts of a word and draws a conclusion that honors God's involvement in showing the writers what to write.

[historia]

But since 2 John and 3 John are part of the same Bible, they automatically follow under the umbrella of being inspired by Almighty God Jehovah because they are part of the same book.

Says who? Did you personally decide that 2 & 3 John are part of the Bible? If not, then who did? That is the question I've been putting to you but you keep averting.

Says the Bible itself, historia, which I previously quoted. Below is the quotation again.

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is inspired of God

That verse doesn't tell me whether 2 & 3 John are part of the Bible or not. Just like it doesn't tell me whether The Gospel of Thomas or the Epistle of Barnabas are part of the Bible or not.

Scripture from Jehovah God's inspired word condemns either making additions to, OR subtracting from, the Judeo-Christian Bible.

Revelation 22:18
“I am bearing witness to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll;

Revelation 22:19
and if anyone takes anything away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, God will take his portion away from the trees of life and out of the holy city, things that are written about in this scroll."

Obviously, these verses only concern adding words to, or subtracting words from, the book of Revelation.

My question is: Who identified which books are part of the Bible and which books are not?

Is that a difficult question to understand? I've asked multiple times now, and you haven't even come close to answering it. At this point, frankly, I can only assume you are incapable of doing so.

[historia]

2.b. Theology.

2.b.i. (c. 1350–) transitive. Of God the Father, as First Person of the Trinity: to generate (the Son, as Second Person). Cf. only-begotten adj.

If you don't understand how the English word beget or begotten can carry this kind of meaning, I refer you back to post #67.

Oxford English Dictionary didn't provide any definition that says "begotten but not made,"

We're looking at the definition of 'begotten'. Obviously, the dictionary isn't going to define the word 'begotten' using the word 'begotten'.

No definition from Theology can supersede the common definition of a given word.

That is obviously false.

Again, words carry specific meanings based on the specific context in which they are used.

For example, you and I both used the word "dunk" above. The common definition of "dunk" is "to dip in water" or to "forcefully put a basketball through a hoop." But we're using it in a different way, in the slang sense to mean "publicly humiliate." That specific definition supersedes the common definition because that is the context in which we are using it.

Likewise, when the Psalmist quotes Yahweh saying, "you are my son, today I have begotten you" (Psalm 2:7), he's not using the word yalad ('begotten') to mean what it commonly means. This is an idiomatic usage that means 'to adopt'. That specific definition supersedes the common definition because that is the context in which the author is using it.

A theological definition is simply telling the reader that that's how Christendom defines a particular word.

Yes, that's how language works. Words carry specific meanings based on the specific context in which they are used.

Insisting that words can only have their "common" meaning is silly. Deploying that argument only against a text you dislike is just special pleading. This is not a serious argument.