NICENE CREED

[Truster]

Name calling when your point is demolished. Really shows your maturity level and ability to have intellectual discussions.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

I wasn't name calling I was and am stating a fact. Anyone outside Roman Catholicism was subjected to the inquisition for many years.

 

[S-word]

Greetings Sealeaf,I personally have difficulty accepting most of this paragraph after "the only Son of God". As far as the Council was concerned I had the impression that the meeting was very much divided in opinion, and that Constantine demanded that they reach an outcome, and the result was thus forced upon many of them. Also as far as Constantine was concerned he refused to be baptised until near his death, and even then he was baptised by an Arian.

Kind regards
Trevor

From the book, “Jesus The Evidence,” by Ian Wilson. P. 144.

The Middle Ages, for the Jews at least, began with the advent to power of Constantine the Great. He was the first Roman Emperor to issue laws which radically limited the rights of the Jews as citizens of the Roman Empire, a right conferred on them by Caracalla in 212 AD. As (The so-called Christianity of Constantine’s church) grew in power it influenced the emperors to limit further the civil and political rights of the Jews.

But if times were again difficult for the Jews, for the Christian Gnostics and other fringe groups they were impossible. The books of Arius and his sympathizers were ordered to be burnt, and a reign of terror proclaimed for all those who did not conform with the new official (So-called) Christian line.

"Understand now by this present statute, Novatians, Valentinians, Marcionites, Paulinians, you who sre called Cataphrygians. . . . with what a tissue of lies and vanities, with what destructive and venomous errors, your doctrines are inextricably woven! We give you warning . . . .Let none of you presume, from this time forward, to meet in congregations. To prevent this, we command that you be deprived of all the houses in which you have been accustomed to meet . . . . and that these house should be handed over immediately to the catholic/ i.e. universal church."

Within a generation, hardly leaving a trace of their existence for posterity, the great majority of these groups simply died away as successive Christian emperors reiterated the politics that Constantine had pursued.

During the Inquisition, the Roman Catholic institution killed millions. Why? Primarily to suppress any and all opposition to her heresies. Side "benefits" included taking the material wealth of its victims and showing the pope's power.*The Roman Catholic agents have tortured, crippled, burned, murdered, and imprisioned millions of people. Whatever happened to love your enemies (ref. Matthew 5:44)?*

Before we get to specific problems with Catholic doctrine, let's review how this bloodthirsty organization treated a man who simply wanted to get the Bible into the hands of the common people. In the late 1300s John Wycilf translated the scriptures from the Latin. About 44 years after his death, the Catholic institution dug up his bones and burned them calling him an arch-heretick. In the 1500's William Tyndale sought to translate the Bible into the language of the common people, English.*He could not gain approval from the Catholic institution, so he worked as an outlaw on the run in Europe, translating the Bible. He was eventually captured, condemned and executed in 1536. It is because of people like these men, Tyndale and Wycliffe, that we have the scriptures today.*If the Catholic religion had its way, we'd still be in ignorance about the Bible and enslaved to the pope.*

 

[eider]

Nicene Creed:
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
Maker of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial
of one Being with the Father.

Through him all things were made.

For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.

On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.

With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.

He has spoken through the Prophets.

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen

I went to Protestant boarding school from 1953-1965 and that Creed is exactly the same as that which we recited every Sunday evensong, including 'We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.'
True....

 

[eider]

.................. Now I am called a liar, but no one has listed the denominations that do not affirm the creed.

The insulting claim of 'Liar!' is so often a lie on these threads.

Next time you're called a liar wrongly, you can call the member 'liar!' back, methinks.

But I think that you have better manners than that.

 

[jsanford108]

I wasn't name calling I was and am stating a fact. Anyone outside Roman Catholicism was subjected to the inquisition for many years.

No, you were name calling. A liar, is a person who bears false witness or states falsehoods as fact. I have done neither of these. Therefore, calling me a "liar" falls under the category of "name calling." Furthermore, you have presented falsehoods, yet I have not called you a liar; rather, I give you the benefit of the doubt that you are arguing from an ignorant prejudice.

On the Inquisition, please elaborate on this point. Especially emphasizing how it demonstrates the Roman Catholic Church as a cult.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Ninth Commandment Guides All Manner of Discourse

Ninth Commandment Guides All Manner of Discourse

The insulting claim of 'Liar!' is so often a lie on these threads.

Would that we all think more about our obligations related to the ninth commandment:

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...nist-threads&p=4948483&viewfull=1#post4948483

AMR

 

[oatmeal]

Nicene Creed:
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
Maker of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial
of one Being with the Father.

Through him all things were made.

For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.

On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.

With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.

He has spoken through the Prophets.

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
Maker of all that is, seen and unseen.

Many people on this website will tell you that Jesus Christ created the heavens and the earth.

However, it was God the Father of the lord Jesus Christ that created the heavens and the earth,

see Genesis 1:1, " In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

and Ephesians 3:9 ASV "and to make all men see what is the dispensation of the mystery which for ages hath been hid in God who created all things"

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,

Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of God, but all Christians are sons of God by seed, that is , the new birth.

What does

eternally begotten of the Father,

mean?

What does "God from God" mean?

Well, looking at scripture and comparing the Nicene Creed against scripture, I would have some problems with it.

 

[jsanford108]

From the book, “Jesus The Evidence,” by Ian Wilson. P. 144.

The Middle Ages, for the Jews at least, began with the advent to power of Constantine the Great. He was the first Roman Emperor to issue laws which radically limited the rights of the Jews as citizens of the Roman Empire, a right conferred on them by Caracalla in 212 AD. As (The so-called Christianity of Constantine’s church) grew in power it influenced the emperors to limit further the civil and political rights of the Jews.

But if times were again difficult for the Jews, for the Christian Gnostics and other fringe groups they were impossible. The books of Arius and his sympathizers were ordered to be burnt, and a reign of terror proclaimed for all those who did not conform with the new official (So-called) Christian line.

"Understand now by this present statute, Novatians, Valentinians, Marcionites, Paulinians, you who sre called Cataphrygians. . . . with what a tissue of lies and vanities, with what destructive and venomous errors, your doctrines are inextricably woven! We give you warning . . . .Let none of you presume, from this time forward, to meet in congregations. To prevent this, we command that you be deprived of all the houses in which you have been accustomed to meet . . . . and that these house should be handed over immediately to the catholic/ i.e. universal church."

Within a generation, hardly leaving a trace of their existence for posterity, the great majority of these groups simply died away as successive Christian emperors reiterated the politics that Constantine had pursued.

During the Inquisition, the Roman Catholic institution killed millions. Why? Primarily to suppress any and all opposition to her heresies. Side "benefits" included taking the material wealth of its victims and showing the pope's power.*The Roman Catholic agents have tortured, crippled, burned, murdered, and imprisioned millions of people. Whatever happened to love your enemies (ref. Matthew 5:44)?*

*If the Catholic religion had its way, we'd still be in ignorance about the Bible and enslaved to the pope.*

This is rife with inaccuracies. I won't touch on the issues common in misconceptions and misapplications to Constantine and the Papacy (unless you wish for me to, I shall).

"Christian emperors reiterated the politics that Constantine had pursued:" False. The first Christian Emperor of Rome was 6 emperors later, 74 years, and 5 popes later, after Constantine.

"During the Inquisition, the Roman Catholic institution killed millions:" This is one of my favorite historical inaccuracies to discuss. And it is an excellent example of anti-Catholic revisionism.

During the Inquisition, which there were around 4 separate events, commonly grouped together by non-historian anti-catholics as "The Inquisition," most of the focus was on civil or political discord. The first "inquisition" occurred in 1184-1198 in France. The issue was Catharism and civil discord. (Catharism was the belief in two separate natures of Christ, being not one person, but two halves; a very non-trinitarian perspective, akin to the Mormon doctrine of today) The Roman "inquisition" was in 1542. It was the actions of several individual bishops. This is the one where Galileo was tried. It was also the least active of all the inquisitions. The most commonly known, and bloodiest, was in Spain, in 1478. The events were a result of political discord. The government sought to rid Spain of Jews and Moors.

So let us examine the "millions" being killed. Most scholastic historians estimate around 3,000 deaths over the three centuries commonly associated with the Inquisition. That is drastically less than 1 million, let alone "millions." Compare this number with the 800 executions per year during post-Reform England's era (not ever grouped with Inquisitions or their numbers). Or even better still, the witch burning in Europe. Britain alone had 30,000 witch executions. Protestant Germany had over 100,000. Either of those alone are far greater than the total number killed by Catholics in the inquisition.

So what happened to "love thy enemies?" Well, if they are Catholic, the response is to grossly exaggerate, no, not even exaggerate; straight up lie about the numbers killed by Catholics. Then attribute such atrocity to "showing the Pope's power." This is common in anti-catholic "facts." Just a plethora of falsehoods, with out base or evidence, utilized to portray the Catholic Church in a negative and evil light.

 

[jsanford108]

For the record, here are my sources on the Inquisition:
Fernand Hayward, The Inquisition. 1965
Kevin Long, The Spanish Inquisition: A Second Look. 1982
R. Trevor Davies, Golden Century of Spain.1937

 

[S-word]

For the record, here are my sources on the Inquisition:
Fernand Hayward, The Inquisition. 1965
Kevin Long, The Spanish Inquisition: A Second Look. 1982
R. Trevor Davies, Golden Century of Spain.1937

Do you, as do so many other members of the Roman church of Emperor Constantine, believe that the head of the Roman church is the Shepherd of God's people, whom he raised up in the land after he had been rejected by the Jews?

 

[Truster]

For the record, here are my sources on the Inquisition:
Fernand Hayward, The Inquisition. 1965
Kevin Long, The Spanish Inquisition: A Second Look. 1982
R. Trevor Davies, Golden Century of Spain.1937

Get an unabridged copy of Foxe's Book of Martyrs.

 

[jsanford108]

Get an unabridged copy of Foxe's Book of Martyrs.

This is an excellent example of Protestant revisionism. View the reviews of the book. Those who are anti-Catholic praise the book for being so accurate. However, secular and historical readings dismiss the book for numerous alterations, historical inaccuracies, and a bias towards the Church of England.

A simple reading of the book reveals this bias quite clearly. Rather than demonstrating King Hentry VIII's disdain towards Rome for not recognizing his bastards as legitimate children, and for not giving him an annulment and marriage dissolution every time he wanted to sleep with a different woman; it portrays Henry's actions as noble and a matter of faith, not promiscuity.

The book also negates information which portrays the Church of England in any negative light (such as the 800 executions per year). The persecution of Catholics as a result of the declaration of the Church of England being the state religion (granted, this persecution was limited).

Rather than being an honest product of research and work, Foxe's Book of Martyrs (Actes and Monuments of These Latter and Perillous Days....)it is a gross exaggeration of numbers (to the point of blatant lies) and a (successful) attempt at smearing the image of the Roman Catholic Church, despite actual evidence and facts opposing those presented.

 

[jsanford108]

Do you, as do so many other members of the Roman church of Emperor Constantine, believe that the head of the Roman church is the Shepherd of God's people, whom he raised up in the land after he had been rejected by the Jews?

So sly with the "Roman Church of Emperor Constantine." You surely know this is historically false and inaccurate, right?

I do not know how you have derived "he raised up in the land after he had been rejected by the Jews." What do you mean by this?

If you mean, do I believe, as demonstrated historically, that Peter was the first pope (post Resurrection), then yes. If you mean that the church rose up sometime before the Crucifixion, then no.

 

[chair]

...
For point of reference I am a Catholic of the Maronite Rite.

Lebanese?

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings jsanford,

So sly with the "Roman Church of Emperor Constantine." You surely know this is historically false and inaccurate, right?
If you mean, do I believe, as demonstrated historically, that Peter was the first pope (post Resurrection), then yes.

I believe that the advent of Constantine on the scene enabled the establishment of the Apostate Church as the official religion of the Roman Empire and this Church has sometimes persecuted the faithful whenever and wherever they were able to wield their power.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Truster]

Greetings jsanford,I believe that the advent of Constantine on the scene enabled the establishment of the Apostate Church as the official religion of the Roman Empire and this Church has sometimes persecuted the faithful whenever and wherever they were able to wield their power.

Kind regards
Trevor

I'd say the apostasy was already established. Becoming the official religion of Rome was the manifestation that confirmed it.

 

[jsanford108]

Greetings jsanford,I believe that the advent of Constantine on the scene enabled the establishment of the Apostate Church as the official religion of the Roman Empire and this Church has sometimes persecuted the faithful whenever and wherever they were able to wield their power.

Kind regards
Trevor

While Constantine legalized Christianity, it wasn't until several decades later that it became the official religion of the empire.

I would say that when it became official, corrupt politicians used this to their advantage, claiming a "God-given" authority. It was at this time that the offices within the Church became positions of power and control. This is when corruption entered.

However, with the fall of the Roman Empire, and subsequently, the loss of power with such positions (pope, bishop, Cardinal, etc), positions within the church reverted back to their original natures. Granted, there were still those who used their church positions for corruption/sin/pride (which can still exist today in extremely small numbers). However, persecutions of non-Catholics, by the Catholic Church has been extinct for some time. Rather, the inverse is most evident.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[S-word]

So sly with the "Roman Church of Emperor Constantine." You surely know this is historically false and inaccurate, right?

I do not know how you have derived "he raised up in the land after he had been rejected by the Jews." What do you mean by this?

If you mean, do I believe, as demonstrated historically, that Peter was the first pope (post Resurrection), then yes. If you mean that the church rose up sometime before the Crucifixion, then no.

Peter was never in Rome my friend, and the Roman so-called Christian church, did not exist until after the Jews had rejected the Lord, who had filled the man Jesus with his spirit.

So let me ask you again; " Do you, as do so many other members of the Roman church of Emperor Constantine, believe that the head of the Roman church is the Shepherd of God's people, whom he raised up in the land after he had been rejected by the Jews?"

 

[TrevorL]

The following is a few extracts from a book “History of the Dogma of the Deity of Christ” by A Reville, a French Professor of the History of Religion, written in 1904 and translated into English in 1905. I thought this might be of interest showing the development from a belief that Jesus was a man, the Son of God to the belief that Jesus was God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity. These extracts also show some of the principal influences that enabled and caused this development. There are other more modern resources on this subject, but the following brief survey of some of the trends may be sufficient to give some insight to the gradual development of the wrong doctrines that ended up in the Nicene Creed:

Page 4: The maxim of Vincent de Leyrins, more boastful than true, ‘the Church, when it employs new terms, never says anything new’, influenced the entire history of Christianity; philosophers and submissive believers were equally satisfied with it.

After a brief summary of the doctrine of the Trinity he says:
Page 9: Such is the doctrine which, having been slowly elaborated, arrived at supremacy in the Christian Church towards the end of the fifth century, and which, after continuing undisputed, excepting in connection with some obscure heresies, for eleven centuries, has been gradually from the sixteenth century losing its prestige, although it is still the professed belief of the majority of Christians.

Page 10: the religious sentiment is not in the least alarmed at contradictions; on the contrary, there are times when it might be said that it seeks and delights in them. They seem to strengthen the impression of mystery, an attitude which belongs to every object of adoration.

Speaking of the developments in the second century:
Page 54: the celestial being increasingly supplanted the human being, except among the Jewish-Christians of the primitive type. These firmly maintained the opinion that Jesus was a man, fully inspired by God and they admitted his miraculous conception.

Page 59: The Platonists began to furnish brilliant recruits to the churches of Asia and Greece, and introduced among them their love of system and their idealism. To state the facts in a few words, Hellenism insensibly supplanted Judaism as the form of Christian thought, and to this is mainly owing the orthodox dogma of the deity of Jesus Christ.

Page 60: Hence the rapidity with which a philosophical doctrine of much earlier origin than Christianity, and at first foreign to the Church, was brought into it, and adapted itself so completely to the prevailing Christology as to become identical therewith, and to pass for the belief which had been professed by the disciples from the beginning.

Page 96: There were some Jewish-Christians who admitted without difficulty the miraculous birth of Jesus, but would not hear of his pre-existence.

Page 105: It is curious to read the incredible subtleties by which Athanasius and the orthodox theologians strove to remove the stumbling-block from the history of a dogma which they desired to represent as having been invariable and complete since the earliest days.

Page 108-109: the minds of men either inclined to lay great stress upon the subordination of the Son, in order to keep as close as possible to the facts of Gospel history, or they dwelt strongly upon his divinity, in order to satisfy an ardent piety, which felt as if it could not exalt Christ too highly. From this sprang two doctrines, that of Arius and of Athanasius. In reality, though under other forms, it was a renewal of the struggle between rationalism and mysticism.

Page 115: In reality, Arius, whose character and doctrine have been unjustly vilified by orthodox historians, was stating the ecclesiastical doctrine that had been in common acceptance.

Speaking of the Nicene Creed:
Page 121: the majority of the council would have preferred a middle course, maintaining the traditional idea of the subordination of the Son to the Father, while ascribing to the Son as much divine attributes as they could without openly passing this limit.
Page 124: Arianism, which had been overcome by the imperial will more than by the free judgement of the bishops, retained its power in the churches.
Page 126: People did not believe at that period in the infallibility of councils. The West alone remained firm in adhesion to the faith of Nicea.

Page 136: The Arian party, representing as it did the opposition to ecclesiastical authority and dogmatising mysticism, was the party generally preferred by the freer minds. It was consequently the least united. For the same reason was it the most opposed to the ascetic, monkish, and superstitious customs which more and more pervaded the church.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Hawkins]

HAPPY EASTER EVERYONE!

Today, on the way to Church I was talking to my son about the different Christian Churches or denominations. I asserted that they all accepted the Nicene creed as true. Was I correct? Do any of you belong to a recognized denomination that does not affirm the Nicene creed?

For point of reference I am a Catholic of the Maronite Rite.

God exists or He doesn't. This is the first assumption which has to be made before such a discussion. All left are human speculations basing on one of this assumptions.

By the assumption that God doesn't exist, all kinds of human speculations become meaningless. What's the point of discussing Nicene Creed by the assumption that God doesn't exist?

By the assumption that God exists. Then it's reasonable to assume that He drives. Or else it's pointless to assume His existence, as the existence of a god who doesn't drive basically has nothing to do with humans.

So under the assumption that God exists and He drives behind the message of salvation, it can be speculated that the contents of our Bible don't change along with time. The OT remains the same OT all the times and the NT remains the same NT all the times, theologically speaking (i.e., after their canonization). This lies a difference between Christianity and any other religions. It follows the speculation that it is so because it is driven by God to convey the same salvation message yesterday, today and tomorrow.

This is cannot be done without the early Catholic Church with its effort in canonizing the Bible. Canonization has the effect of preventing adding or subtracting contents from the Bible. In order for a Canon to be authenticated, God has to assign a human authority to do the canonization. The Jews is the authority for the canonization of the OT Bible, because it's their witnessing and it's their history. However this authority (the Jews) no longer qualify when the New Covenant came. God thus re-assign this human authority from the hands of the Jews to the hands of the Catholics. As a result, the Catholics are the legitimate authority for the canonization of the NT Bible (but not the OT Bible).

At the point when the Catholics went corrupted (as the previous Jews did), this authority thus was shifted from the hands of the Catholics to the hands of the Protestants. As a result, today only the Protestants are keeping a set of correct NT and OT Canon. That is, the Jews have only the legitimate OT Canon, the Catholics have only the NT Canon. While only the Protestants have both the legitimate OT and NT Canons.

The problem now is that we can easily identify what the Jews are and what a Catholic church is. However, how can humans identify a legitimate Protestant church? As driven by God, a basic guideline is the Apostle's Creed. It tells whether an earthly church can have the power to save. So Apostle's Creed basically means "this church still has the power to save".

One can thus join a church complying to Apostle's Creed to be saved. However it by no means says that his salvation is best secured. It remains an individual Christian's own responsibility to seek for a church with long reputation and no controversy to join in order to best secure his own salvation. For example, a church reckoning His Trinity can be more secure than a church which does not, though both may uphold the Apostle's Creed.

Without such a Creed we are lost about which Protestant church can be regarded as the Apostle's Church (which still has the power to save).