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.
Adding to, perverting, convoluting, whatever...the point is the Scribes and Pharisees were promoting
their words, not that of Scripture. Can you wrap your mind around that? The Catholics cite Matthew 16:18 and declare it made Peter the first pope (essentially), and that Jesus told Peter that he could declare whatever he wanted as doctrine and it would be bound in Heaven as doctrine. So the Catholics will say the exact thing about their "Pope doctrine" as you say about the Nicene creed, that it's just restating the "clear" truth in Scripture. Are they right? They say yes, the rest of Christendom says no. They say it's a "synopsis" of Mattew 16:18. But is it? Most would call it a perversion of Jesus' words and intents. Whatever, the Catholic's declaration on this is NOT Scripture and shouldn't be held up as if it were. Ditto the Nicene creed. They imitate, in principle, the error of the Pharisees by giving those things such credence and power.
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."
What CS Lewis views as "mere Christianity" (or in your words vanilla Christianity) is irrelevant and without authority. He's not God. He's not Jesus. He's not an apostle. He didn't even live contemporary with anyone in the Bible. Nice or not, he's just one more individual with an opinion, just like you and I. I don't define Truth that way. No self-respecting Christian should. Who gives you or him or me authority to define what is "mere Christianity" and to hold the world to that standard?
AMR's post shows the power of the Bible behind it, but this creed certainly will not substitute for the Scripture that it describes.
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.
That's right. The creed brought together some "thoughts" (not scripture itself) that in the drafters' opinion disqualified those with whom the disagreed with in order to banish them from official Christendom. You're right. That's exactly what its purpose was. Nothing even remotely Christlike. Even if their resultant creed was correct, their motivation was decidedly wicked. In the end, the creed was only partially in line with Scripture. AMR's post was a fleeting attempt to find Scripture that agreed with the creed. In fact, much of it had nothing at all to do with the particular part of the creed it purported to support. In fact it defied logic and common sense.
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?
This is laughable. Not even credible trinitarian scholars make this absurd assertion! There is not the tiniest question, nor has there ever been, what the Jews believed about who God was. The orthodox Jews continue that belief today. It's a matter of historical fact. The Father alone is God to them.
You evidently take a verse from Scripture, buy into the spin the post biblical trinitarian "scholars" put on it and in your mind that is "historical fact." Sorry, historical fact is not so defined. We know what the Jews believed as they still believe it. There is literally one God, the Father.
Here is a contextually consistent, biblically historically consistent explanation of John 8:58. Keep in mind, that the Jews did not refer to God as "I AM." That was a one time thing God said and Moses didn't even refer to God as "I AM" literally when he went and met the Jews. You're trying to project a post biblical term back into scripture as if the Jews referred to God by that name all the time. It's silly.
Here is the analysis. I had posted this elsewhere but I'll repost it for you:
As for John 8:58, trinitarians ignore the statement of Jesus and (as usual) prioritize the words of the continually falsely accusing Scribes and Pharisees.
What did Jesus say? That's what's important to me and should be to all Christians. Jesus said, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see MY DAY, and he saw it."
Jesus didn't say that he had seen Abraham's day many hundreds of years prior, but rather that Abraham had seen his [Jesus'] day. So that begs the question, when was Jesus' Day? Well, there are two possible answers for that. The first is "The Day of the Lord" or "the Lord's Day." Which is the second coming of Jesus. The second is Jesus ministry right then.
No self-respecting Christian should give two hoots what the Scribes and Pharisees falsely accused Jesus of saying. We should focus on what Jesus ACTUALLY said. Therein lies the truth!
So when Jesus said, "Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham came into being, I am," it was in context with his previous statement that Abraham saw HIS day (not vice versa).
Do you believe Abraham literally saw Jesus' day? If it were literal he would have said, "Abraham is seeing my day right now." Or (if referring to the second coming), "Abraham will see my day." But he didn't say that. Jesus said Abraham had already seen Jesus' day.
Jesus doesn't lie, so he spoke a truth. The only way Abraham could have seen either of Jesus' "days" was to see them afar off. In a vision. Abraham saw the future promise.
Okay, in that context, Jesus said, before Abraham even existed, I was prophecied to be born and have this ministry and have the "Day of the Lord." Jesus' work is primary in the entire PLAN of salvation prophecied right from the Garden of Eden. (Gen 3:15)
There is nothing about literal preexistance there. Jesus was not saying what the Scribes falsely accused him of.
