toldailytopic: Can a person reject the divinity of Christ and still be a Christian?

[oatmeal]

No, of course not.

If they do not know Christ, they are following Satan.

]No, of course not.

Why not?

What scriptures do you base that on?

If they do not know Christ, they are following Satan.

Are you basing that on John 14:7?

Thomas did not know who Jesus christ was, at least according to that guy, you know, or maybe you don't know, Jesus Christ.

So you say that Thomas was a follower of Satan. I thought he was following Jesus Christ.

Good call.

I wonder why JC didn't say that?

How about John 14:9?

Philip, evidently did not know who Jesus Christ was.

Based on your opinion, Philip was a follower of Satan.

I thought Philip was following Jesus Christ?

You have a reason why JC didn't have that your insight on that?

Do you want to change your opinion yet?

oatmeal

 

[oatmeal]

No.

Why not?

What scriptures do you base that on?

Romans 10:9-10?

Does that passage say anything about divinity?

It does say, God raised Jesus Christ from the dead. It does not say to believe that Jesus Christ raised himself from the dead, now does it?

I know, it is such a small detail. I am sure that a jot or a tittle is far more important than that.

oatmeal

 

[oatmeal]

I dunno. I fell under the sway of some anti-trinitarian teachings in my late twenties, but God still heard my prayers (and ultimately revealed the truth). I have a hard time understanding that myself.

Keep praying to the Father.

 

[oatmeal]

excuse me but the real question should be
can you reject the Trinity and still be saved?
since you can be a Christian by anyone's definition and still not be saved
if you don't believe Jesus is God
how can he suffer and die for your sins?
and
if you don't accept that
how can you be saved?

Oh gosh, good question. You got me there.

Oh, how about Romans 10:9-10?

That is how to get saved, "confess with your mouth the God Jesus "

Oops, that is not what it says!

Sorry, I was trying to help you out.

"Confess with your mouth the lord Jesus"

and "believe in your heart that Jesus raised himself from the dead"

Sorry, I screwed up agin

It says, "and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead"

Get a Bible and read it!

oatmeal

"a natural laxative - good for the mind and body"

 

[Only1God]

Originally Posted by Only1God
The Nicene creed defines the church now the way the Scribes and Pharisees defined it in Jesus' time.

'splain that for me, 'cause I'm not seein' it.

The great thing about the Nicene creed is that it's totally supported by the Bible, so you are way, way off here.

Well, think about it. What was Jesus' problem with what and how the Scribes and Pharisees were teaching? He said they were "teaching as doctrines the precepts of men."Matt 15:9

What is the Nicene Creed but words of men, not from the Bible. Read it. Here it is:
We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Do you see a single verse of Scripture in there? Was this creed written by men from the Bible? Paul? Matthew? John? Jesus? No. It wasn't even written during the time of the Bible. It was written by men just like you and I hundreds of years after Jesus ascended to the Father. And yet you and many trinitarians give it the power of the Bible. Indeed, some on here are asserting that not accepting these words of men disqualifies someone as a Christian!

I, on the other hand, quote Scripture and point soley to Scripture for words to obey, for the definition of Christianity. I hold no other document or writing up but the Bible as the standard for all truth against which all things must be measured. And I am the heretic? Yours is 100% exactly the position the Scribes and the Pharisees took. They demanded adherence to their documents, not the actual words of Scripture. To their rules which they said were based on God's will. They held them up as the highest of rules, as something that trumped all else. Just like you and others are doing now with this extra-biblical creed. On whose authority do you do this?

Jesus in the Bible taught us to the Lord's prayer. He taught us to pray to the Father. That's Biblical. Jesus said in the Bible, the "The Father is greater than I." Paul said, in the Bible, that in the end the son himself will be subject to the Father. Peter said, "You are the Christ, the son of the living God." He didn't say Jesus was God, but rather the son OF God. My belief in the Father alone being God is in keeping with what the Jews believed the Scriptures taught for thousands of years. It's not from some extra-biblical creed, but the belief of the very people in Scripture based on what was written in Scripture. Jesus said that the Father "is the only one who is truly God." This isn't precepts of men. This is long established doctrine of the people of God long before Constantine and the people of Nicaea were even born.

Don't you know that Constantine supported the Arian view? The only influence Constantine had was to try to make the non-Christians (Arians) and the Christians to quit bickering bc he didn't comprehend that there is such a thing as Truth which must be upheld. And in spite of his interference, the bishops got the creed done and out into circulation.

Constantine was emperor. The doctrines you hold dear were enforced by his decree with a major threat attached for disobedience. That's a matter of historical record.

Arianism is a heresy. It's the reason that all those bishops got together to create the creed - to make it clear that Arianism is not Christianity because the Arians were leading many astray with their heresy.

Here is another thing. While I don't subscribe to some of Arianism, on whose authority is it deemed heresy? The church. That's whose. Not the universal church of God, but the human church in Christendom. So who cares? The church, the pope, some modern day preacher, whoever have zero authority from God to declare anything doctrine or not. They are not the judge of anyone, except in their own minds.

When you can show people where in Scripture the long held belief that the Father alone is God and the messiah a human descendant of David is brought up for discussion and explicitly changed by Jesus or the apostles, then you'll have authority to declare a change. But that authority will not be yours or Constantine's or the modern church's. It will be from the explicit declaration of Scripture.

But so long as all you have is a creed a bunch of non-anointed of God people in the 300s came up with, and your opinion that the trinity is alluded to (yet no where explicitly taught), then you've got nothing at all. You are usurping authority to change doctrine that was never changed by those with authority from God. And yet we're the heretics? Just remember who cruified Jesus, the very ones who falsely accused him of claiming to be God (John 10:33). Those are the people Jesus himself declared to be "vipers and whitewashed tombs." I guess heretics might be a good word for them. I'll accept Jesus definition of heretics from the Bible, not Constantine's or yours based on an extra-biblical creed. You're not in very good company.

 

[Todah]

I believe that Jesus who was called Yeshua in Hebrew when He walked this earth, is God. I think the strongest statement is in the first chapter of John. In the beginning was the Word, and the word was with God and the Word was God. The Word became flesh, and we called Him Yeshua, now known as Jesus, to English speaking people.

You have to really manipulate the Greek, or discredit the manuscripts, in order to have the first chapter of John say something other than God himself, became man, in the person of Jesus, as the Son of God.

That said, I certainly understand why many people can just not grasp that concept. For those people, the Bible says clearly that one must believe that God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever might believe in Him, might be saved.
Peter told 3 thousand JEWS at Pentecost, that God had made Yeshua, both Lord and Christ, the anointed one. Repent and be baptized in His name.

Paul declares in Romans that if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved.

There are several other passages. But it seems to me that if one truly believes that Yeshua is the Son of God, that He is your saviour, that He is your Lord, that He is the anointed one of God: That He was raised from the dead, for the forgiveness, and remission of sins, and-or one has been baptized in His name, that is the Biblical instructions for faith and salvation.

Such people are not commonly, nor traditionally considered Christians by the rest of us who know and believe that Yeshua is God.
However I can not think of a scripture that requires belief that Yeshua is God, as a prerequisite for forgiveness and salvation.

Therefore I do not agree with people who deny the divinity of Jesus, but I think that they are saved and Christians; if they truly believe in their heart, that He is at the very least the Son of God, their saviour and the Messiah and their Lord.

 

[oatmeal]

No, they cannot be a Christian and deny the divinity of Christ. They can call themselves "Christians" all they want, but the non-divine object of their faith is but an idol.

Christ's divine nature means His sacrificial offering possesses an eternal quality. In the heavenly tabernacle, our Lord continually presents His one completed sacrifice in continuing intercession for His people, wherein He saves them to the utmost.

No one who willingly denies the divinity of our Lord deserves to call themselves "Christian". Moreover, in my opinion, believing saints dishonor and deny our Lord Jesus Christ when we explicitly/implicitly permit this abominable behavior.

AMR

No, they cannot be a Christian and deny the divinity of Christ. They can call themselves "Christians" all they want, but the non-divine object of their faith is but an idol.

Oh gosh, good point. You got me there.

Oh, how about Romans 10:9-10?

That is how to get saved, "confess with your mouth the God Jesus "

Oops, that is not what it says!

Sorry, I was trying to help you out.

"Confess with your mouth the lord Jesus"

and "believe in your heart that Jesus raised himself from the dead"

Sorry, I screwed up agin, what a dumb redneck I am. Oops I used the I am phrase, well now I reckon I'm part of this here twinity God thang now. Gosh, ya all better pay tention now.

It says, "and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead"

Christ's divine nature means His sacrificial offering possesses an eternal quality. In the heavenly tabernacle, our Lord continually presents His one completed sacrifice in continuing intercession for His people, wherein He saves them to the utmost.

No one who willingly denies the divinity of our Lord deserves to call themselves "Christian". Moreover, in my opinion, believing saints dishonor and deny our Lord Jesus Christ when we explicitly/implicitly permit this abominable behavior.

You got any scriptural references for all that?

Didn't think so, or else you would have provided them already.

That is, if you actually intended to show what scripture teaches on the subject.

Get a Bible and read it!

oatmeal

"a natural laxative - good for the mind and body"

 

[oatmeal]

toldailytopic: Can a person reject the divinity of Christ and still be a Christian?​

No.​

Of course, you provided scripture references.

Have a look at Romans 10:9-10

any mention of

No.

I didn't think so.

Do you actually own a Bible?

oatmeal

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Why?

Based on what scriptures?

oatmeal

The Nicene Creed (with scriptural references)

We believe in (Romans 10:8-10; 1 John 4:15)
ONE God, (Deuteronomy 6:4, Ephesians 4:6)
the Father (Matthew 6:9)
Almighty, (Exodus 6:3)
Maker of Heaven and Earth, (Genesis 1:1)
and of all things visible and invisible. (Colossians 1:15-16)

And in ONE Lord Jesus Christ, (Acts 11:17)
the Son of God, (Matthew 14:33; 16:16)
the Only-Begotten, (John 1:18; 3:16)
Begotten of the Father before all ages. (John 1:2)
Light of Light; (Psalm 27:1; John 8:12; Matthew 17:2,5)
True God of True God; (John 17:1-5)
Begotten, not made; (John 1:18)
of one essence with the Father (John 10:30)
by whom all things were made; (Hebrews 1:1-2)
Who for us men and for our salvation (1 Timothy 2:4-5)
came down from Heaven, (John 6:33,35)
and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, (Luke 1:35)
and became man. (John 1:14)
And was crucified for us (Mark 15:25; 1 Corinthians 15:3)
under Pontius Pilate, (John 19:6)
and suffered, (Mark 8:31)
and was buried. (Luke 23:53; 1 Corinthians 15:4)
And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures. (Luke 24:1; 1 Corinthians 15:4)
And ascended into Heaven, (Luke 24:51; Acts 1:10)
and sits at the right hand of the Father. (Mark 16:19; Acts 7:55)
And He shall come again with glory (Matthew 24:27)
to judge the living and the dead; (Acts 10:42; 2 Timothy 4:1)
whose Kingdom shall have no end. (2 Peter 1:11)

And in the Holy Spirit, (John 14:26)
the Lord, (Acts 5:3-4)
the Giver of Life, (Genesis 1:2)
Who proceeds from the Father; (John 15:26)
Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; (Matthew 3:16-17)
Who spoke through the prophets. (1 Samuel 19:20; Ezekiel 11:5,13)

In one, (Matthew 16: 18)
holy, (1 Peter 2:5,9)
catholic*, (Mark 16:15)
and apostolic Church. (Acts 2:42; Ephesians 2:19-22)

I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins**. (Ephesians 4:5; Acts 2:38)
I look for the resurrection of the dead, (John 11:24; 1 Corinthians 15:12-49; Hebrews 6:2; Revelation 20:5)
and the life of the world to come. (Mark 10:29-30)
AMEN. (Psalm 106:48)


*The word "catholic" (literally, "complete," "universal," or "according to the whole") refers to the universal church of the Lord Jesus Christ and not necessarily or exclusively to any particular visible denomination, institution, or doctrine.

**May be interpreted as baptism is a matter of obedience and not a requirement for salvation or as a regenerating ordinance.

 

[Cruciform]

...I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins**. (Ephesians 4:5; Acts 2:38)... **May be interpreted as baptism is a matter of obedience and not a requirement for salvation or as a regenerating ordinance.

It's interesting that the very biblical reference cited in support of this creedal statement---Acts 2:38---actually flatly refutes the footnote which attempts to qualify it in a decidedly Baptistic manner. :think:



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[steko]

It's interesting that the very biblical reference cited in support of this creedal statement---Acts 2:38---actually flatly refutes the footnote which attempts to qualify it in a decidedly Baptistic manner. :think:



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Sounds like it might be new thread postential. :noid:


*edit- I meant 'potential', but you probably knew that.

 

[JoeyArnold]

Rejecting the pluralistic singlurity of trinitarian monotheism of One God is like saying the sky is not blue when it is blue or it is like saying God is not love or it is like saying that things that we do not know or understand are automatically false or contradictory or something bad:

I believe that Jesus who was called Yeshua in Hebrew when He walked this earth, is God. I think the strongest statement is in the first chapter of John. In the beginning was the Word, and the word was with God and the Word was God. The Word became flesh, and we called Him Yeshua, now known as Jesus, to English speaking people.

You have to really manipulate the Greek, or discredit the manuscripts, in order to have the first chapter of John say something other than God himself, became man, in the person of Jesus, as the Son of God.

That said, I certainly understand why many people can just not grasp that concept. For those people, the Bible says clearly that one must believe that God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever might believe in Him, might be saved.
Peter told 3 thousand JEWS at Pentecost, that God had made Yeshua, both Lord and Christ, the anointed one. Repent and be baptized in His name.

Paul declares in Romans that if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved.

There are several other passages. But it seems to me that if one truly believes that Yeshua is the Son of God, that He is your saviour, that He is your Lord, that He is the anointed one of God: That He was raised from the dead, for the forgiveness, and remission of sins, and-or one has been baptized in His name, that is the Biblical instructions for faith and salvation.

Such people are not commonly, nor traditionally considered Christians by the rest of us who know and believe that Yeshua is God.
However I can not think of a scripture that requires belief that Yeshua is God, as a prerequisite for forgiveness and salvation.

Therefore I do not agree with people who deny the divinity of Jesus, but I think that they are saved and Christians; if they truly believe in their heart, that He is at the very least the Son of God, their saviour and the Messiah and their Lord.

 

[JoeyArnold]

Only1God forgets that Jesus was upset with the attitude of the Pharisees: if Jesus was against the pluralistic singularity to His nature then He'd be going against both scriptures and those thousands of years of traditions, as you call them:

Originally Posted by Only1God
The Nicene creed defines the church now the way the Scribes and Pharisees defined it in Jesus' time.


Well, think about it. What was Jesus' problem with what and how the Scribes and Pharisees were teaching? He said they were "teaching as doctrines the precepts of men."Matt 15:9

What is the Nicene Creed but words of men, not from the Bible. Read it. Here it is:
We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Do you see a single verse of Scripture in there? Was this creed written by men from the Bible? Paul? Matthew? John? Jesus? No. It wasn't even written during the time of the Bible. It was written by men just like you and I hundreds of years after Jesus ascended to the Father. And yet you and many trinitarians give it the power of the Bible. Indeed, some on here are asserting that not accepting these words of men disqualifies someone as a Christian!

I, on the other hand, quote Scripture and point soley to Scripture for words to obey, for the definition of Christianity. I hold no other document or writing up but the Bible as the standard for all truth against which all things must be measured. And I am the heretic? Yours is 100% exactly the position the Scribes and the Pharisees took. They demanded adherence to their documents, not the actual words of Scripture. To their rules which they said were based on God's will. They held them up as the highest of rules, as something that trumped all else. Just like you and others are doing now with this extra-biblical creed. On whose authority do you do this?

Jesus in the Bible taught us to the Lord's prayer. He taught us to pray to the Father. That's Biblical. Jesus said in the Bible, the "The Father is greater than I." Paul said, in the Bible, that in the end the son himself will be subject to the Father. Peter said, "You are the Christ, the son of the living God." He didn't say Jesus was God, but rather the son OF God. My belief in the Father alone being God is in keeping with what the Jews believed the Scriptures taught for thousands of years. It's not from some extra-biblical creed, but the belief of the very people in Scripture based on what was written in Scripture. Jesus said that the Father "is the only one who is truly God." This isn't precepts of men. This is long established doctrine of the people of God long before Constantine and the people of Nicaea were even born.



Constantine was emperor. The doctrines you hold dear were enforced by his decree with a major threat attached for disobedience. That's a matter of historical record.



Here is another thing. While I don't subscribe to some of Arianism, on whose authority is it deemed heresy? The church. That's whose. Not the universal church of God, but the human church in Christendom. So who cares? The church, the pope, some modern day preacher, whoever have zero authority from God to declare anything doctrine or not. They are not the judge of anyone, except in their own minds.

When you can show people where in Scripture the long held belief that the Father alone is God and the messiah a human descendant of David is brought up for discussion and explicitly changed by Jesus or the apostles, then you'll have authority to declare a change. But that authority will not be yours or Constantine's or the modern church's. It will be from the explicit declaration of Scripture.

But so long as all you have is a creed a bunch of non-anointed of God people in the 300s came up with, and your opinion that the trinity is alluded to (yet no where explicitly taught), then you've got nothing at all. You are usurping authority to change doctrine that was never changed by those with authority from God. And yet we're the heretics? Just remember who cruified Jesus, the very ones who falsely accused him of claiming to be God (John 10:33). Those are the people Jesus himself declared to be "vipers and whitewashed tombs." I guess heretics might be a good word for them. I'll accept Jesus definition of heretics from the Bible, not Constantine's or yours based on an extra-biblical creed. You're not in very good company.

 

[Stripe]

toldailytopic: Can a person reject the divinity of Christ and still be a Christian?

:think:

I guess it's possible. But one would hope a genuine convert would quickly be disabused of the notion given even cursory investigation.

 

[Delmar]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for February 3rd, 2011 10:42 AM

toldailytopic: Can a person reject the divinity of Christ and still be a Christian?

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

I'm not real sure about what non trintarian's believe. If they believe that Christ was sinless, that He died for our sins and is risen from the dead my guess is they might be OK :idunno:

 

[agnostic_gnostic]

I believe that Christ was a human that became divine,* rather than a heavenly being that fell to earth. The first option requires us to follow Christ and become divine ourselves. The other option makes us so "other" that the best we can do is beg, kneel and worship. The first option reveals a spiritual path. The second option is a slave's idea of spirituality. No wonder that Constantine and the Nicene Creed endorse it.
* "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you."
Luke 17:21
"Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods?"
John 10:34
The original message of Christ was called heresy because it confronted the social elite. It had to be ruthlessly repressed by any means possible, torture, death , murder of children etc because it threatened the political establishment. When you realize that God is within you, you do not bow to a Pope or King.
To answer the question in the OP. NO! One must recognize that Christ realized his divine nature just as we should.

 

[godrulz]

Absolutely, not. :down:

Nang

You are correct.

 

[Psalmist]

Of course, you provided scripture references.

Have a look at Romans 10:9-10

Finish it. Better make that Romans 10:8-13, and do not forget John 3:16, 14:6.

About Christ's divinity and confessing it to others, Matthew 10:32.​

any mention of

No. < My one word reply.

I didn't think so.

oatmeal's answer to my one word "No" reply to the rejection of the divinity of Christ.​

Do you actually own a Bible?

Several.​

oatmeal

That you are.​

 

[nicholsmom]

I believe that Christ was a human that became divine,* rather than a heavenly being that fell to earth. The first option requires us to follow Christ and become divine ourselves. The other option makes us so "other" that the best we can do is beg, kneel and worship.

Yep. That is right.

The first option reveals a spiritual path. The second option is a slave's idea of spirituality.

Pretty much. Christians are "bond-servants" - like Paul: Rom 1:1 and Titus 1:1 as well as Gal 1:10, Col 1:7, Col 4:7, 2 Tim 2:24. Add to that James (James 1:1), Peter (2 Peter 1:1), and Jude (Jude 1:1).

So my question to you is this:
Is it better to believe in what makes you feel good, or is it better to believe what the Word of God says?

 

[nicholsmom]

Originally Posted by Only1God
The Nicene creed defines the church now the way the Scribes and Pharisees defined it in Jesus' time.


Well, think about it. What was Jesus' problem with what and how the Scribes and Pharisees were teaching? He said they were "teaching as doctrines the precepts of men."Matt 15:9

I get what you are saying, but you have misunderstood what those teachings were - they were additions to the law they took a simple thing like "Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy" and added to it all sorts of restrictions - how far you could walk, whether cooking could be done, whether an animal may be saved from the ditch (or a man healed of blindness). That is not what the Nicene Creed does at all :nono: The Nicene Creed is a synopsis of the Gospel and is, as AMR has so nicely illustrated, totally backed by scripture in every phrase. They could, I suppose, have just lined up the Scriptures in an order to make the thing clear, but it would have been unwieldy when the whole purpose of writing the thing was to clarify the beliefs of Biblical Christianity so that heresy could be readily identified by the layman.
Christ chastised the Scribes and Pharisees for adding burdens (extra laws) to the people that were impossible to bear and for pretending that they were able to live according to this fattened-up law. The Nicene Creed does the opposite - it takes the Christian beliefs to bare-bones, stripping it of doctrines that are unimportant to the purpose of salvation and Christian belief. It describes "plain vanilla" Christianity - or what CS Lewis called "Mere Christianity."

you and many trinitarians give it the power of the Bible.

AMR's post shows the power of the Bible behind it, but this creed certainly will not substitute for the Scripture that it describes.

Indeed, some on here are asserting that not accepting these words of men disqualifies someone as a Christian!

The Scriptures that were brought together to form the Nicene Creed are what disqualify Arians and other anti-trinitarians as Christians. They are heretics according to the Scriptures embedded in that creed.

I, on the other hand, quote Scripture and point soley to Scripture for words to obey, for the definition of Christianity.

Do you believe in the inerrancy of Scripture? Do you try to follow the Analogy of Faith which maintains the impossibility of God contradicting Himself? If so, then how will you reconcile the plain teachings of the divinity of Christ with your position? Perhaps you have neglected to study the history of the time or the grammar of that time. Perhaps you have not tried to ascertain the original meaning of the text by using these tools. Do you want to know what the Jews of the time understood when Jesus said "Before Abraham was, I AM" or do you want to ignore historical and grammatical facts so that you may interpret things as you like?

I hold no other document or writing up but the Bible as the standard for all truth against which all things must be measured. And I am the heretic? Yours is 100% exactly the position the Scribes and the Pharisees took.

You think that the Scribes and Pharisees took the position that Jesus is "the One Lord" and that He is "the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end. " ??? Is that what you're saying?

Jesus in the Bible taught us to the Lord's prayer. He taught us to pray to the Father.

Yep. Three persons.

Jesus said in the Bible, the "The Father is greater than I."

Yep. Are you interested in the original meaning of that claim, or do you only wish to squish it into today's grammar?

Peter said, "You are the Christ, the son of the living God." He didn't say Jesus was God, but rather the son OF God.

This is the last example I will cover here, because I think you should be able to get the point by now: Are you interested in the original meaning of this text by using the tools of historical grammar, and cultural meaning, or do you simply want to force this ancient text into modern grammar and strip it of cultural meaning so as to believe what you want to believe?

My belief in the Father alone being God is in keeping with what the Jews believed the Scriptures taught for thousands of years.

Yes. This is why the Jewish leaders tore their clothing when Jesus said "I AM" Jesus was claiming to be God. They believed that they'd heard Jesus speak blasphemy - the worst sort of blasphemy, and this is the very reason that they sought to put Jesus to death. It's all there in the Gospels. You seem to want to side with these Jewish leaders. Do you think that Jesus blasphemed when He claimed "I AM" or do you think He was revealing some deeper truth?

Constantine was emperor. The doctrines you hold dear were enforced by his decree with a major threat attached for disobedience. That's a matter of historical record.

The Biblical instruction to "not steal" is enforced by our government, and "Do not commit murder" is often backed up with the death penalty in most states in the Union. Does the governmental backing of these commandments take away their Biblical authority? The Nicene creed, in spite of Constantine, was written based on the Scriptures (as AMR has shown), with the intent of clarifying for the common man the basic precepts laid out in the Gospels since there were no printing presses at the time and most couldn't read Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, or Latin anyway.

Here is another thing. While I don't subscribe to some of Arianism, on whose authority is it deemed heresy?

On the Bible's. All you have to do is learn how to search for original meaning in this ancient document, and it will be as clear and obvious to you as it is to me.

...the messiah a human descendant of David

Do you also deny the immaculate conception? If I'd known that, then I would have realized that you don't believe even the Bible :mmph:

a creed a bunch of non-anointed of God people

Evidence of this?

Just remember who cruified Jesus, the very ones who falsely accused him of claiming to be God (John 10:33).

I see that you aren't in the least bit interested in understanding the cultural content nor the historical grammar of the time :mmph: