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,

On Authority:

Not if you cut off those different beliefs as they arise

As the apostles themselves did, right?

I do not recall the apostles going around persecuting and executing so-called heretics. I do recall that they were the ones BEING persecuted and executed.

The same is true of the Early Church Fathers -- who followed the Catholic approach to establishing beliefs. For centuries, they, like the apostles, were the ones BEING persecuted and executed.

A - I do not recognize these people you are calling 'early church fathers'. (I don't even know who they are except that these would not be the apostles.)

"And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven." Matt 23:9

My Father is in heaven. My Teacher and Master is Christ.

B - What is this catholic approach to 'establishing beliefs'? If a person is a disciple of Christ, should one not be listening to Him - the One Teacher, the Master. The very one to whom God said to listen?

C - I feel like you might be bypassing the fact that the Catholic religion did persecute, imprison, and execute so-called 'heretics'.


**

As for dissenting beliefs - a cult has no dissenting beliefs. Dissenters are cast out, shunned, ex-communicated, executed (when the time and law permitted, or even despite the laws against it.)

So to say that the RCC methodology does not produce dissenting beliefs (official beliefs), this is not saying much.

Truth is not based upon or established by people agreeing.

Truth is Christ - His word, His teaching, He, Himself.

A billion people can agree on a falsehood.

Truth is truth - even if no human being were to believe it (or rather, believe Him.)

I could never trust the RCC (or any religion/sect/denomination)... because they ALL lie.

Jesus himself started a sect.

He did not start a new religion, and sect is defined as a breakaway religious body.

Correct, the earliest Christians were a small group of Jews who broke away from the religious groups of their day because of differences in beliefs and practice -- the very definition of a sect.

Let's remove the word sect since it is distracting from the point. Every religion and denomination out there lies. Purposefully or not. Every single one of them. None of them - not a single one of them - is the Truth.

To that point, however, not even the apostles were the Truth.

Christ Jaheshua is the Truth.

Hence, hold all things up to Him. If something contradicts Him, it cannot be true - not even if an apostle were to have taught it.

I hold all things up to Christ. Including anything I, myself, might think.

What, exactly, do you mean by "hold all things up to Christ"?

By 'all things' I mean all teachings, doctrines, examples that someone or something claims to be from Christ and/or His Father.

By hold these up to Christ - I mean test these things against Him: His word, His teaching, His example.

So for example: if there were a religion or person who promoted forced conversions, hold that up to Christ. Did He force anyone to convert? Of course not. Nor does that make sense for at least two reasons:

1 - He said Himself that 'no one comes to the Son unless the Father draws them.
2 - Conversion to what? A religion? Just because someone is part of a religion does not mean that they belong to Christ and His Father. It just means they belong to that religion.

Let's try another one. If someone teaches that Christ is the Archangel Michael, well - did Christ teach that? Or did He instead teach that He is the Son of God? It is exactly the same reasoning as with the trinity. Everyone seems to be trying to make Him out to be someone other than who HE said Himself.

I was very bothered by this particular question back when I was just learning, actively seeking to know what was true, to be where God wanted me to be. JW's taught the archangel thing, and most everyone else taught this trinity thing. I didn't know what was true. I could not find a definitive statement against either one of these teachings (by definitive I mean Christ stating directly in what is written "I am not the archangel Michael" or "there is no trinity")

It was not long after that my Lord taught me (Himself) that I am not to worry about what men and religion teach. I am just to remain in Him and His word. He did not have to directly speak against these things (or any number of false teachings that men came up with.) He DID teach who HE is - He said that DIRECTLY. I am the Son of God. I am God's Son.

I am to listen to Him.

Simple as that.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume "hold all things up to Christ" means checking whether a belief or practice is consistent with what Christ taught.

If so, then knowing whether Christ actually said the things recorded in the Gospel of Thomas, or not, would be an absolutely critical fact to determine before anything else. Otherwise, we don't know what teachings -- what standard -- we are comparing all things against, right?

Hold all things up to Christ does not mean 'go out and find every single thing that man has ever said or written about Christ or God.' That would be a never ending task.

Even if I did ask, Historia, it does not mean that I would be given something to come back and share on this forum.

I don't understand. If the Gospel of Thomas really does contain Jesus' true teachings -- and Christ were to tell you himself that those are his true teaching -- you're saying you can't inform the rest of us? Why keep such critical information a secret?

I'm not saying that at all. I'm simply stating that asking does not have to mean I would be given something to share (or even that I would be given something any time soon. If I need to know something, He will teach me when the time is right.)

Did Jesus say we should listen to the apostles?

If you're uncertain on that question, why not just ask him directly?

I am not uncertain.

He did not say that we should listen to the apostles.

That is not even possible.

In a recent thread you noted this:

The story of the rich man and Lazarus is not about the judgment (at the end of the thousand years.) It cannot be about that since the 'rich man' asked for Abraham to send Lazarus to his family so they would repent. This means the man had family still living, with time still to be convinced (since Abraham also said they could listen to Moses and the prophets.)

How is that possible?

I think that meant by listening to what Moses and the Prophets had testified to Christ (and which was written as scripture.) Of course, Moses told them to listen to Christ - and most still did not recognize Him when standing right in front of Him.

And again, "No one comes to the Son unless the Father draws them."

I am asking you to produce your evidence for something you seem to believe.

A reasonable request. But what counts as evidence for what Jesus said?

A reasonable request and yet you have not done it.

I said from the start that you could post where you got it from.

I think the reason we're dancing around it (and I could be wrong) is because Christ does not say 'listen to the apostles.'

But if people - including people in Christ - disagree on a matter, then what should they do? Talk it over, bring it to Christ, speak from love, reason with one another, share what one has been given, test the inspired expression, hold everything up to Christ - and in the end, remain in Christ.

Perhaps you can demonstrate that: 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.

Onejack and I have talked things over. Evidence has been presented. Reasoning has been done as much as possible, to date.

During this time, Onejack has admitted openly that he is not listening to the Son of God. What more needs to be said than that?

What else do you think should be done, Historia?

I am going to do what my Lord has taught me: remain in Him and His word.

The author of the Gospel of John does not teach 'eternally begotten.'

Says who?

You, yourself, said 'eternally begotten' is implied or assumed in the creed, but not actually stated.

I meant this question quite literally: Who says the Gospel of John does not teach 'eternally begotten'?

Why does that matter?

Peace again to you.

[OneJack]

[Replying to tam in post #151]

Onejack and I have talked things over. Evidence has been presented. Reasoning has been done as much as possible, to date.

During this time, Onejack has admitted openly that he is not listening to the Son of God.

For the information of all, the real and forever living Christ Jesus is the only one to whom we [all of us today] can come and listen for the salvation of our souls, not to the Son of God, per se, who is long gone and can’t teach us anymore, since his (Son’s) role, as the physical [flesh] vessel of God, whose name is Jesus or Immanuel, is finished. How could mankind across all generations listen to someone who is not Eternal or forever living?

[OneJack]

[Replying to historia in post #148]

Perhaps you can demonstrate that: 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.

Tam claims to have been speaking with Christ, but when put to cross-examination for clarity, she can’t present verbatim utterances from the ‘still small voice in her mind,’ which she claims is Christ. She claims that the ‘still small voice’ denies that Jesus is the name of Christ, and that Christ is not God. She holds all things up against the ‘still small voice,’ instead of the real and forever living Christ Jesus, who is beside her/you/me/them all the time, but we do not see Him yet. The Lord Jesus Christ alone is the only one who decides who is right and who is not, not me, not Tam, not you, and not them.

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

[tam]

Peace to you,

On the Creed:

I am pointing out that the analogy does not work, not without making an assumption first.

Yeah, analogies always contain assumptions. That's how they work.

But I don't work that way. What good is a conclusion that is based on an assumption (an assumption that may be false)?

Conclusions are derived from arguments. Again, this is not an argument, it's an analogy.

Analogies merely illustrate an idea. The idea itself is not based on the analogy.

Then this analogy fails for me.

The claim is that we can illustrate how the Father can 'eternally generate' the Son - by looking at rays which are generated by the sun. But it does not appear that both the sun and its rays (the energy produced from the sun) came into existence at the same time. In every example we have of anything, doesn't the generator exist before the generated? Does not a father exist before his son? The sire before the sired? And is not THAT how both Christ and His Father describe their relationship?

Father and Son.

But we have actual descriptions about God.

Sure, the Creed is that too.

We have actual descriptions of God from His Son. Who knows Him. Who has seen Him.

The Creed takes all of that, and more, into account.

I do not understand this 'and more' part. What could be 'more' than the Son, and the image He has given us of His Father?

Note that you didn't disagree with the Creed's description of God the Father (lines 1-3), so your objections here seem misplaced.

Lines 1-3 are in line with what Christ teaches. That is why I do not object.

Christ teaches that God is His Father.
Christ teaches that His Father is the One whom the Jews claim as their God.
That One is also the creator.

I don't see anything that contradicts Christ in lines 1-3.

Beginning is a 'time based' word.

Indeed, so is 'before'.

He would exist before (or outside) 'the first moment in time.' Correct?

Since space and time are part of creation, we should certainly affirm that God exists outside of time.

And while that would entail God being logically prior to time, I don't think we can say that God is temporally "before" time, as you seem to be suggesting. 'Before' and 'after' only make sense for things in time, right?

You can use 'logically' prior if that is more accurate.

The point is - if Christ is in the beginning (which of course He is), there is still a 'prior' to time.

Now, unless you think God has no interaction with his creation whatsoever, we should also affirm that, while God is eternal, God is also present to each and every moment of time. In that way, if we (who are in time) could go back to the beginning -- the first moment of time (t = 0) -- we would find that God is present there, in that moment. Correct?

Yes of course, there is no argument here.

Cool. I think this serves as a common frame of reference for our continued discussion.

Okay.

But the one who is sired cannot come before the one who sired him. Just as the one who is begotten cannot come before the one who begot him.

Indeed, no one is saying that.

Lol, okay, let me rephrase.

The one who begets comes before the one who is begotten. The one who sires comes before the one who is sired.

He was not created (as in made) - that is correct.

You, me, and the Creed agree on that.

But John is saying something a little different here. The word that he uses in 1:3 is egeneto. It doesn't mean 'made'. It means 'to become', 'come to pass', or 'come into existence', which is why the translation of "come into being" (so NRSV, NASB) captures this well in English. John is saying that the Son is not in the category of things that have come into being.

So, if something always has existed and always will exist, and it did not itself come into being, then how else might we describe that thing other than that it is 'eternal'?

I do not understand that verse to be referring to Christ. It would be the same reasoning used this Colossians verse:

For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.

Clearly, 'all things were created' does not refer to God, even though it states all things in heaven, visible or invisible.

It seems to me these two verses say something quite similar: Colossians is ultimately describing a category of things that have been created. Likewise, John is describing a category of things that have come into being. It's not unreasonable to conclude that those are the same category. Agreed?

I agree that they are saying something similar - but I think we disagree on what that is.

When Paul states that all things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, were created through and for Christ - Paul is not including God (or Christ) in 'all things.' It is implied that Paul means all things other than God (or His Son.)

It seems the same with John 1:3.

John also uses a different word later in the text when he is describing someone who is born. It is a related word, but not the same one. Whereas the word being translated as 'was made' or 'came into being' often does refer to something being made, as opposed to someone being born, begotten.


Peace again to you.

[historia]

[Replying to tam in post #151]

I'm going to respond to the rest of your posts a little later. But I want to ask this question specifically, to help us move the conversation along a little faster:

I hold all things up to Christ. Including anything I, myself, might think.

What, exactly, do you mean by "hold all things up to Christ"?

By 'all things' I mean all teachings, doctrines, examples that someone or something claims to be from Christ and/or His Father.

By hold these up to Christ - I mean test these things against Him: His word, His teaching, His example.

Where do we get his teachings and example from?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume "hold all things up to Christ" means checking whether a belief or practice is consistent with what Christ taught.

If so, then knowing whether Christ actually said the things recorded in the Gospel of Thomas, or not, would be an absolutely critical fact to determine before anything else. Otherwise, we don't know what teachings -- what standard -- we are comparing all things against, right?

Hold all things up to Christ does not mean 'go out and find every single thing that man has ever said or written about Christ or God.' That would be a never ending task.

I'm not asking here about what others have said about Christ. I'm asking about what Christ himself said.

There are only a handful of sources that purport to contain the words of Christ himself, the Gospel of Thomas among them, so this is not a particularly onerous task.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #151]

I'm going to respond to the rest of your posts a little later. But I want to ask this question specifically, to help us move the conversation along a little faster:

I hold all things up to Christ. Including anything I, myself, might think.

What, exactly, do you mean by "hold all things up to Christ"?

By 'all things' I mean all teachings, doctrines, examples that someone or something claims to be from Christ and/or His Father.

By hold these up to Christ - I mean test these things against Him: His word, His teaching, His example.

Where do we get his teaching and examples from?

From Christ Himself (the living Christ.)

We can also read the testimonies from others in what is written (in the bible.) The bible is not perfect, but in keeping with the example I gave in the previous post, you're not going to find someone who can justify forced conversions by looking at the words and example of Christ in the bible.

Christ - the living person - can also confirm if something written is accurate (or not.)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume "hold all things up to Christ" means checking whether a belief or practice is consistent with what Christ taught.

If so, then knowing whether Christ actually said the things recorded in the Gospel of Thomas, or not, would be an absolutely critical fact to determine before anything else. Otherwise, we don't know what teachings -- what standard -- we are comparing all things against, right?

Hold all things up to Christ does not mean 'go out and find every single thing that man has ever said or written about Christ or God.' That would be a never ending task.

I'm not asking about what others have said about Christ. I'm asking about what Christ himself said. There are only a handful of sources that purport to contain the words of Christ himself, the Gospel of Thomas among them, so this is not a particularly onerous task.

Christ has not told me that I need to read the Gospel of Thomas. If there is something critical that His sheep need to know, He will tell us.

But we're supposed to come to Him (the living person Himself.) If we have learned to do this, why turn around and go back to searching written things to try and know what is true, instead of just continuing in Him?

Peace again to you.

[historia]

By hold these up to Christ - I mean test these things against Him: His word, His teaching, His example.

Where do we get his teaching and examples from?

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?

Otherwise, it seems possible for someone to say:

"I hold all things up to Christ. Including anything I, myself, might think."

. . . while their understanding of Christ is itself being supplied by those very thoughts, right?

Christ - the living person - can also confirm if something written is accurate (or not.)

But won't in the case of the Gospel of Thomas? That still doesn't make any sense to me.

[historia]

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.

[tam]

Peace to you,

By hold these up to Christ - I mean test these things against Him: His word, His teaching, His example.

Where do we get his teaching and examples from?

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?

Otherwise, it seems possible for someone to say:

"I hold all things up to Christ. Including anything I, myself, might think."

. . . while their understanding of Christ is itself being supplied by those very thoughts, right?

My Lord's voice is not my voice. He has His own voice. A voice He said His sheep would hear, and listen to.

Like Phillip did when the Spirit (Christ) told him to go to the Ethiopian. Or like Ananais did when Christ told him to go to Saul/Paul - there was even a little back and forth there.

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.

Also, my Lord corrects me, teaches me, disciplines me. So that would be a correcting of my thoughts - not my thoughts, themselves.

Christ - the living person - can also confirm if something written is accurate (or not.)

But won't in the case of the Gospel of Thomas? That still doesn't make any sense to me.

Or maybe I don't need anything from that book. If you do, if there is something specific in that letter that you have a question about, then perhaps you should take that to Him, yourself? Then listen to Him.


Peace again to you.

[historia]

By hold these up to Christ - I mean test these things against Him: His word, His teaching, His example.

Where do we get his teaching and examples from?

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?

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?

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?