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]

historia, the Nicene Creed was not written by inspiration of Jehovah God. That's why it's not in the Bible.

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

By the way, that nonsense at line #11 that says "begotten, not made" is a joke that the authors of the Nicene Creed came up with in their lame attempt at changing the meaning of common English words.

That's funny, since it wasn't written in English.

Can words in the Bible have a different meaning from what they would normally mean outside of a theological context?

[BruceLeiter]

[Replying to Richard Aberdeen in post #59]

I completely agree with you, @Ricard Aberdeen. Welcome to our forum; I don't remember you. Of course, at 83 years old, I forget a lot of things.

[NeutralZone]

historia, the Nicene Creed was not written by inspiration of Jehovah God. That's why it's not in the Bible.

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. No other writings outside the Bible can provide proof of divine inspiration. Or didn't you know that, historia?

NeutralZone


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

[NeutralZone]

By the way, that nonsense at line #11 that says "begotten, not made" is a joke that the authors of the Nicene Creed came up with in their lame attempt at changing the meaning of common English words.

That's funny, since it wasn't written in English.

Can words in the Bible have a different meaning from what they would normally mean outside of a theological context?

If that's your idea of an effective rebuttal, historia, try again. It matters not what language something was written in. The important thing is that when something is translated to another language, the same information / the same thought is transferred to the next language.


NeutralZone


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

[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?

By the way, that nonsense at line #11 that says "begotten, not made" is a joke that the authors of the Nicene Creed came up with in their lame attempt at changing the meaning of common English words.

That's funny, since it wasn't written in English.

Can words in the Bible have a different meaning from what they would normally mean outside of a theological context?

If that's your idea of an effective rebuttal, historia, try again. It matters not what language something was written in.

My guy, you came into this thread trying to dunk on the Council of Nicaea by saying the bishops "changed the meaning of common English words." There's nothing to "rebut" there, this is just me pointing out the silliness of that statement.

And, again, you didn't answer my question: Can words in the Bible have a different meaning from what they would normally mean outside of a theological context?

Are you not able to directly answer my questions?

[BruceLeiter]

[Replying to historia in post #65]

Yes, @historia, words in the Bible often have a different meaning from the ones in our culture, because God inspired them. Therefore, God gives them meanings in their contexts in Scripture. That is the reason we do word studies of several verses where a word is found to determine the Bible's meaning. For example, the word "heart" almost never means the pumping organ or only the seat of our emotions. Instead, it almost always the center of our thinking, feeling, and deciding in the human personality.

Deciding: Isa_32:6  For the fool speaks folly, and his heart is busy with iniquity, to practice ungodliness, to utter error concerning the LORD, to leave the craving of the hungry unsatisfied, and to deprive the thirsty of drink.

Feeling: Isa_35:4  Say to those who have an anxious heart, “Be strong; fear not! Behold, your God will come with vengeance, with the recompense of God. He will come and save you.”

Thinking: Gen_6:5  The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

All three: Isa 38:2  Then Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and prayed to the LORD, and said, “Please, O LORD, remember how I have walked before you in faithfulness and with a whole heart, and have done what is good in your sight.” And Hezekiah wept bitterly. 

[historia]

[Replying to BruceLeiter in post #66]

Okay, cool, so words carry meaning according to the context in which they are used, not just according to their "common" meaning.

So, if someone came along and said these verses you just cited are "a joke that the authors of these texts came up with in their lame attempt at changing the meaning of common English words," you'd have to agree that's a silly criticism, right?

[NeutralZone]

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.

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]

By the way, that nonsense at line #11 that says "begotten, not made" is a joke that the authors of the Nicene Creed came up with in their lame attempt at changing the meaning of common English words.

That's funny, since it wasn't written in English.

Can words in the Bible have a different meaning from what they would normally mean outside of a theological context?

If that's your idea of an effective rebuttal, historia, try again. It matters not what language something was written in.

My guy, you came into this thread trying to dunk on the Council of Nicaea by saying the bishops "changed the meaning of common English words." There's nothing to "rebut" there, this is just me pointing out the silliness of that statement.

And, again, you didn't answer my question: Can words in the Bible have a different meaning from what they would normally mean outside of a theological context?

Are you not able to directly answer my questions?

"Trying to dunk," you say; historia? I didn't merely try to do it. I succeeded when I provided the definition of the word begotten from a common English dictionary.

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. Trinity's pagan roots are confirmed by simply paying attention to who was involved with the formation of this false doctrine--two pagan Roman emperors, namely: Emperor Constantine (who got involved in 325 CE) and Emperor Theodosius (who got involved in 381 CE).

"Pagan Roots of the Trinity Doctrine

...The theologians that wrote the Catholic Encyclopedia admit that there is no Old Testament indication of a triune God, and very little in the New Testament that can be construed that way.

...

"Constantine, however, in the early fourth century saw a chance to help restore the former glory of the Empire by bringing about religious unity. In exchange for the cooperation of the Roman Christian Bishops he made Christianity the official state religion. However, this came at great cost to the true gospel of Jesus Christ. From this time forward Christianity became a mixture of the Christian faith and Paganism.

...

"One of the most common beliefs among Pagan cultures was in a trinity of gods. We find this among the Egyptians, Indians (of India), Japanese, Sumarians, Chaldeans, and of course, the Babylonians, to where historians trace the roots of trinitarism.

...

"The Trinity doctrine was by no means adopted unanimously by church leaders of the day. Bitter battles ensued, and three versions of the trinity debated, as well as the non-trinity belief, until the present one was adopted. It was a vote of men that established it, not revelation from God or scriptures. Christianity had rejected the God of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, and replaced Him with a Pagan invention. "
https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/artic ... rence-2002


NeutralZone


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

[Capbook]

By the way, that nonsense at line #11 that says "begotten, not made" is a joke that the authors of the Nicene Creed came up with in their lame attempt at changing the meaning of common English words.

That's funny, since it wasn't written in English.

Can words in the Bible have a different meaning from what they would normally mean outside of a theological context?

If that's your idea of an effective rebuttal, historia, try again. It matters not what language something was written in.

My guy, you came into this thread trying to dunk on the Council of Nicaea by saying the bishops "changed the meaning of common English words." There's nothing to "rebut" there, this is just me pointing out the silliness of that statement.

And, again, you didn't answer my question: Can words in the Bible have a different meaning from what they would normally mean outside of a theological context?

Are you not able to directly answer my questions?

"Trying to dunk," you say; historia? I didn't merely try to do it. I succeeded when I provided the definition of the word begotten from a common English dictionary.

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. Trinity's pagan roots are confirmed by simply paying attention to who was involved with the formation of this false doctrine--two pagan Roman emperors, namely: Emperor Constantine (who got involved in 325 CE) and Emperor Theodosius (who got involved in 381 CE).

"Pagan Roots of the Trinity Doctrine

...The theologians that wrote the Catholic Encyclopedia admit that there is no Old Testament indication of a triune God, and very little in the New Testament that can be construed that way.

...

"Constantine, however, in the early fourth century saw a chance to help restore the former glory of the Empire by bringing about religious unity. In exchange for the cooperation of the Roman Christian Bishops he made Christianity the official state religion. However, this came at great cost to the true gospel of Jesus Christ. From this time forward Christianity became a mixture of the Christian faith and Paganism.

...

"One of the most common beliefs among Pagan cultures was in a trinity of gods. We find this among the Egyptians, Indians (of India), Japanese, Sumarians, Chaldeans, and of course, the Babylonians, to where historians trace the roots of trinitarism.

...

"The Trinity doctrine was by no means adopted unanimously by church leaders of the day. Bitter battles ensued, and three versions of the trinity debated, as well as the non-trinity belief, until the present one was adopted. It was a vote of men that established it, not revelation from God or scriptures. Christianity had rejected the God of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, and replaced Him with a Pagan invention. "
https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/artic ... rence-2002


NeutralZone


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

NeutralZone, do you believe that we are made in the image of God?

If so, as one person, we can do the roles of the Trinity;
1. We have mind and heart,
2. We can utter word,
3. We can do work/action.
Yet we are one person/individual.

The Trinity;
1. The Father as the mind and heart, Whom sent Jesus, (John 3:16)
2. Jesus is the Word, (John 1:1)
3. The Holy Spirit is in sanctifying work here on earth. (1Pet 1:2)
Yes, One, the only difference with us, is each possessed emotion, will and thought perfectly defined as three distinct person in One God.

1Pe 1:2  according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.