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?

[tam]

Peace to you,

From Christ Himself (the living Christ.)

If you believe Christ speaks directly to you, are those perceived communications themselves among the things you hold up to Christ for scrutiny? And if so, what standard do you use to determine whether they really come from Christ rather than from your own thoughts, intuitions, or interpretations?

My Lord's voice is not my voice. He has His own voice.

My question above, though, is asking how one might scrutinize whether such a "voice" is really from Christ. It could just be your subconscious, or something else entirely, which you are interpreting to be Christ -- that happens a fair bit, it seems.

What standard do you use to determine whether this really comes from Christ?

How did Philip or Ananais know it was Christ speaking to them, rather than their own subconscious?

A voice He said His sheep would hear, and listen to.

Or, rather, the author of the Gospel of John said Christ said this. Why should we think that Jesus himself said it?

You are free to think as you choose.

But He is a living being who has a voice. He does speak.

The spirit He has given us (if He has given it), that is within us, also bears witness to our spirit, if something is true and from Christ (or not.) Like a deep knowing, in the spirit, down to the bones.

Where did you get the idea that his Spirit can bear witness to our spirit?

Because it happens, I have experienced it. It is not a mere idea - it is a knowing, from experience.

Peace again to you.

[historia]

If you believe Christ speaks directly to you, are those perceived communications themselves among the things you hold up to Christ for scrutiny? And if so, what standard do you use to determine whether they really come from Christ rather than from your own thoughts, intuitions, or interpretations?

My Lord's voice is not my voice. He has His own voice.

My question above, though, is asking how one might scrutinize whether such a "voice" is really from Christ. It could just be your subconscious, or something else entirely, which you are interpreting to be Christ -- that happens a fair bit, it seems.

What standard do you use to determine whether this really comes from Christ?

How did Philip or Ananais know it was Christ speaking to them, rather than their own subconscious?

You'll have to ask them.

But the only reason to think Christ spoke to Philip and Ananais at all is because the author of Acts tells us so, right? Why do you believe the author of Acts?

A voice He said His sheep would hear, and listen to.

Or, rather, the author of the Gospel of John said Christ said this. Why should we think that Jesus himself said it?

You are free to think as you choose.

I appreciate you answering all of my questions, tam, and believe me when I say that I'm not trying to be dismissive. I'm probing here to get to the epistemological bedrock of your beliefs. To that end, these were not meant to be rhetorical questions.

Why should we think that Jesus himself said this? What justifies that belief?

The spirit He has given us (if He has given it), that is within us, also bears witness to our spirit, if something is true and from Christ (or not.) Like a deep knowing, in the spirit, down to the bones.

Where did you get the idea that his Spirit can bear witness to our spirit?

Because it happens, I have experienced it. It is not a mere idea - it is a knowing, from experience.

But experiences have to be interpreted. You could be misinterpreting whatever you felt in those moments.

Moreover, this expression, his "Spirit bears witness with our spirit," comes from Paul. Why should we believe Paul?

What I'm getting at here is that, at every turn, you keep trying to justify your beliefs by referring to the Bible. Why is that?

[tam]

Peace to you,

My Lord's voice is not my voice. He has His own voice.

My question above, though, is asking how one might scrutinize whether such a "voice" is really from Christ. It could just be your subconscious, or something else entirely, which you are interpreting to be Christ -- that happens a fair bit, it seems.

What standard do you use to determine whether this really comes from Christ?

How did Philip or Ananais know it was Christ speaking to them, rather than their own subconscious?

You'll have to ask them.

I don't need to ask them. Christ gives us the answer Himself.

First - No one comes to the Son unless the Father draws them.
Second - His sheep (because the Father gave them to Him) know His voice. They know HIS voice and follow Him, but they run from a stranger's voice.

His sheep know His voice.

Not to mention the fact that you know the difference between your voice and your mother's voice (for example.) It is the same here, except that Christ is the Spirit and speaks as such.

But the only reason to think Christ spoke to Philip and Ananais at all is because the author of Acts tells us so, right? Why do you believe the author of Acts?

Their testimony is corroborated by Christ Himself - not just in what is written, but by Him speaking (and not only to me of course.) If people bore witness to Christ speaking a couple thousand years ago, and He speaks also to someone(s) today, then it tends to add a little credence to that original testimony - especially when other witnesses wrote that He said His sheep would listen to His voice.

Not to mention the fact that Christ is alive. That He is the Word of God (the living Word of God.) Why would He not speak?

**

If a person has not recognized or heard His voice - then I can understand being concerned about how one would know the difference between His voice and their thoughts. When I stopped studying with the JW's after two years, I had some despair - I did not know how I was ever going to be able to believe anything, ever again. How could I trust myself or my own judgment ever again?

But it was not about trusting myself. I need only trust - have faith in - my Father in heaven and His dear Son, Jaheshua. Faith in God that He would lead me where He wanted me to be (which is what I asked - and He led me to His dear Son), and faith that my dear Lord had and has me. And even this faith was a gift, given to me.

And that issue of 'how can I trust myself'... it just disappeared. Because I wasn't trusting myself. I wasn't depending on myself. I was trusting, depending upon and listening to my Lord (and so also His Father, and vice versa.)

My Lord has never lied to me. He has never led me wrong. He has corrected me - and my thinking - on numerous occasions.

A voice He said His sheep would hear, and listen to.

Or, rather, the author of the Gospel of John said Christ said this. Why should we think that Jesus himself said it?

You are free to think as you choose.

I appreciate you answering all of my questions, tam, and believe me when I say that I'm not trying to be dismissive. I'm probing here to get to the epistemological bedrock of your beliefs. To that end, these were not meant to be rhetorical questions.

It was not meant to be a rhetorical or dismissive answer either.

I don't tell people what they should think.

Look to Christ for that (if that is your wish.)

As for the bedrock of my belief, my faith - that rock is Christ.

The spirit He has given us (if He has given it), that is within us, also bears witness to our spirit, if something is true and from Christ (or not.) Like a deep knowing, in the spirit, down to the bones.

Where did you get the idea that his Spirit can bear witness to our spirit?

Because it happens, I have experienced it. It is not a mere idea - it is a knowing, from experience.

But experiences have to be interpreted. You could be misinterpreting whatever you felt in those moments.

Moreover, this expression, his "Spirit bears witness with our spirit," comes from Paul. Why should we believe Paul?

What I'm getting at here is that, at every turn, you keep trying to justify your beliefs by referring to the Bible. Why is that?

I wasn't referring to the bible when I said that. I did remember that there was something about it in the bible when I was typing out my answer, but that is not the reason I believe it. I simply answered your question with something I know to be true.


Peace again to you.

[OneJack]

You and OneJack should get together, talk things over, and decide which of you is wrong. Because you both claim to go directly to Christ, yet have completely contradictory views on God.

. . .

Could you please tell us what contradictory view of God you see in my testimonies to the Lord Jesus Christ, @Historia?

I'm afraid you misunderstood. In the above comment, I'm saying that you and tam have completely different views on God -- her views contradict your views, and vice versa -- which you just confirmed.

Sorry for this misunderstanding. I asked you that on the belief that it's clear to you that the 'still small voice' that tam describes as Christ is not God, as she claims; therefore, tam's and my perception about Christ, per se, could not be concluded, in my view, as 'contradictory views on God,' since Christ, to tam, is not the Lord God, the Almighty.

[OneJack]

[Replying to tam in post #163]

I wasn't referring to the bible when I said that. I did remember that there was something about it in the bible when I was typing out my answer,

I find this to be a play of words, tam. Since there is nothing whatsoever that you can present as a direct utterance of the 'still small voice' in your mind that you claim speaks to you, where would you credit your response, per se, to have emanated from, if not from the bible?

[Mr E]

[Replying to historia in post #147]

Can you give me examples of people making such comments in relationship to the Creed? Say, a Catholic, Protestant, or Eastern Orthodox theologians commenting on the Creed.

I gave you twenty examples. Catholic dogma was the foundation for the creed rather than a result of it. The creed came out of Catholic dogma, not the other way around as if their dogma came from some original creed. The creed was written to counter Arianism, which holds that Jesus was a man, born human like any other human born rather than the catholic belief that he was God born. Of course Constantine made it a crime against the State to hold this view and the Arians were politically persecuted for countering the catholic trinity dogma. It was the equivalent of losing your 501c3 status- if you were a church who claimed any belief apart from his adopted position.

[tam]

Peace to you all,

[Replying to tam in post #163]

I wasn't referring to the bible when I said that. I did remember that there was something about it in the bible when I was typing out my answer,

I find this to be a play of words, tam. Since there is nothing whatsoever that you can present as a direct utterance of the 'still small voice' in your mind that you claim speaks to you, where would you credit your response, per se, to have emanated from, if not from the bible?

I already explained my response to Historia.

viewtopic.php?p=1191271#p1191271

If experiences that people described in the bible were true, and those experiences did not cease, then it stands to reason that people today would similarly describe the same experiences.

Why would holy spirit work differently on people today than on people two thousand years ago? Or three, four, five thousand years ago?

[Mr E]

[Replying to tam in post #167]

If experiences that people described in the bible were true, and those experiences did not cease, then it stands to reason that people today would similarly describe the same experiences.

Why would holy spirit work differently on people today than on people two thousand years ago? Or three, four, five thousand years ago?

tam,

I find your "if" unneccessary. I'd replace it with "Since...."

From the beginning, the spirit was sent to man, to even Adam, the first and only begotten- the son of God, that same spirit "born" of spirit was sent because God so loved the world he sent His son to save us. That breath of life was the gift from that realm above, and made available to all in this realm below.

[OneJack]

Peace to you all,

[Replying to tam in post #163]

I wasn't referring to the bible when I said that. I did remember that there was something about it in the bible when I was typing out my answer,

I find this to be a play of words, tam. Since there is nothing whatsoever that you can present as a direct utterance of the 'still small voice' in your mind that you claim speaks to you, where would you credit your response, per se, to have emanated from, if not from the bible?

I already explained my response to Historia.

viewtopic.php?p=1191271#p1191271

If experiences that people described in the bible were true, and those experiences did not cease, then it stands to reason that people today would similarly describe the same experiences.

Why would holy spirit work differently on people today than on people two thousand years ago? Or three, four, five thousand years ago?

Tammy dear, by your narratives in your previous posts, it's really the bible, which is the sole source where all your responses emanate from, nothing else. They are not coming from the 'still small voice' in your mind.

[Mr E]

[Replying to OneJack in post #169]

Tammy dear, by your narratives in your previous posts, it's really the bible, which is the sole source where all your responses emanate from, nothing else. They are not coming from the 'still small voice' in your mind.

This is a drippingly obnoxious way of saying @tam -You are a liar.

tam is likely too polite to call this out, but I'm not hindered by @OneJack's bullying.

If we say Jack dear--- are we then allowed to state definitively that he never actually hears from Jesus? Let's establish some fair boundaries.