Christian Creeds (Nicene, Apostles, etc)

[Pioneer]

Mar 26, 2009 15:34:20 GMT -8 youneverletgo said:

Mar 26, 2009 14:00:47 GMT -8 Mark said:

If all the Bible were written by Jewish guys who followed Judaism as their mode of worship and defined their faith in Hebraic terms, why is the Church so different?

Did Christians suddenly pick practices out of the air that differentiate them from Jewish practices? What I have tried to present to you is that they did not. When gentile "believers" abandoned the Jewish heritage that they shared in the Jewish Messiah, they had to replace it with someting else (either totally new or revert to something that their cultures embraced). What I suggest to you is the latter- that the gentile Church, refusing to allow Jewish participation, replaced the Hebraic context of the Bible with familiar practices which were pagan in origin.

The accussation that the Christians abandoned the Jewish perspective because the Jews disallowed them is erroneous. By Acts 7, the "Christian Church" was more than 7000 strong and was, at that point, entirely Jewish. In Acts 6:7 we are told that many of the priesthood accepted and followed in obedience to Messiah. It's not until Acts 19 that we have the first example of Christian fellowship occurring outside of the local Jewish synagogue.

Let me show you something in the book of Exodus, chapter 32. It's the story of the golden calf. While Moses was up on the mountain speaking with the "LORD" (all caps is important), Aaron and the people manufactured an idol and began to worship it. Aaron says something that I tink is really pertinent to our discussion. He says in verse 5, "Tomorrow is a feast to the LORD." Now the Yod-Hey-Vav-Hey, the Name of God, is consistently translated in many English Bibles as the all caps LORD. This is the case: the same name is attributed to Whom Moses was speaking on the mountain and what the people were dancing around at the base. Was Israel worshipping the LORD when they danced before the golden calf? Aaron said that they were!

In the same way, those who follow the Council of Nicea, embracing the Nicene Creed, are re-defining who God is according to their own terms. I really appreciated what Sanil stated last in the Oneness vs Trinity thread: that the doctrine of Trinity is designed to limit our scope of how we see God. Were the creed to declare that the One God is multifaceted and manifests Himself bodily as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, many Jewish believers could grab onto that. Yet, to declare that these three are conclusively the elemental forms in which God exists is to worship a god of our own creation- exactly the motive of the Counsel of Nicea: to bring everyone under the same definitive idea of Christianity as Constantine... then kill everybody else.

While the texts you earlier referenced support the deity of Messiah (with which I agree) they do not conclusively define Adonai as a three-headed god. Just a little on forun etiquette, you "shot-gun" several arguments in one post, it's not fair for you to accuse me of ignoring them as I attempt to respond to one statement at a time.

The Bible is Jewish- all of it. It is written from a Hebraic, Jewish perspective, promoting and embracing the Lord God of Israel. If it ain't Jewish, it ain't biblical... and consequently, pagan.

www.wordcentral.com/cgi-bin/student?pagan

Okay, I think I finally understand where you are coming from. I apologize for not understanding what you were trying to say on this thread earlier, but I couldn't grasp what you were saying because I had no context for it.

So, while you uphold Jesus' deity, you reject the concept of the Trinity because it only mentions three persons? Therefore, you are suggesting that we invented our own God, and you are calling us pagan for it.

While I don't agree with that, obviously, I think I can understand you better. I can also respect where you are coming from. Thank you for explaining.

I think we will have to agree to disagree, because we are not going to be able to come to an agreement.

Is this the only problem that you have with the Christian creeds?

I didn't say that I thought that the church abandoned the Jewish perspective. What I did say is that the church was defined out of Judaism by Jews because of the church's belief in Jesus. Thus, Christianity was identified as a new religion.

I know what LORD in all caps in the Old Testament means.

So are you suggesting that us Trinitarians are not really worshiping God because we believe in the Trinity, and do not believe that there are more persons in the Godhead?

Trinitarians do not think of God as being "some freakish looking three headed god" as the Jehovah's Witness literature states about us.

It seems to me you missed all the implcations Mark has outlined.

I will say this, to believe in the trinity does no harm to you or anyone else, but when you teach the concept then is where you run afoul of the bible, there is no penalty for beliving Y H V H as being a triune God, but[glow=red,2,300]if[/glow]you happen to be wrong there is many heavy penalties for teaching a false doctrine.

But alas, Christians are forgiven their past, present and future sins. so all's well.

Mark, I have enjoyed your skillfull and kind debate. Well done.

But, it seems as usual a convinced Christian is convinced and if Yeshua came down and explained it they would walk away shaking their heads just as youneverletgo has done here.

Just popped in to say how much I enjoyed the debate.

Shalom u'vrachot

[Sanil]

Mar 28, 2009 20:33:39 GMT -8 Pioneer said:

I will say this, to believe in the trinity does no harm to you or anyone else, but when you teach the concept then is where you run afoul of the bible, there is no penalty for beliving Y H V H as being a triune God, but[glow=red,2,300]if[/glow]you happen to be wrong there is many heavy penalties for teaching a false doctrine.

It is indeed a sin to lead people astray, however I don't believe that applies here. The same could be said of anyone saying that they do not believe in the Trinity and having someone rethink their views and abandon it too, if it turns out we are wrong and the Trinity is real. The only way to avoid this is to never voice our views and show how we interpret the Scriptures, in which case we can never help each other grow.

But, it seems as usual a convinced Christian is convinced and if Yeshua came down and explained it they would walk away shaking their heads just as youneverletgo has done here.

Just want to say that I find this to be offensive and incredibly unfair, especially given that in the post you quoted of hers, she not only showed that she is trying to understand our viewpoint, but APOLOGIZED for not being able to understand sooner, though that is clearly not her fault. She's here, she's listening and working to find truth, and she has been incredibly respectful. Please be respectful back. When Christians come to this forum to learn about our beliefs, we should present them with a loving attitude and welcome them so long as they are loving and respectful back. Or are we only willing to accept those who think exactly like us?

[Pioneer]

Mar 29, 2009 16:03:49 GMT -8 Sanil said:

Mar 28, 2009 20:33:39 GMT -8 Pioneer said:

I will say this, to believe in the trinity does no harm to you or anyone else, but when you teach the concept then is where you run afoul of the bible, there is no penalty for beliving Y H V H as being a triune God, but[glow=red,2,300]if[/glow]you happen to be wrong there is many heavy penalties for teaching a false doctrine.

It is indeed a sin to lead people astray, however I don't believe that applies here. The same could be said of anyone saying that they do not believe in the Trinity and having someone rethink their views and abandon it too, if it turns out we are wrong and the Trinity is real. The only way to avoid this is to never voice our views and show how we interpret the Scriptures, in which case we can never help each other grow.

But, it seems as usual a convinced Christian is convinced and if Yeshua came down and explained it they would walk away shaking their heads just as youneverletgo has done here.

Just want to say that I find this to be offensive and incredibly unfair, especially given that in the post you quoted of hers, she not only showed that she is trying to understand our viewpoint, but APOLOGIZED for not being able to understand sooner, though that is clearly not her fault. She's here, she's listening and working to find truth, and she has been incredibly respectful. Please be respectful back. When Christians come to this forum to learn about our beliefs, we should present them with a loving attitude and welcome them so long as they are loving and respectful back. Or are we only willing to accept those who think exactly like us?

I think you missed my point, about teaching trinity, it is as you say an interpretation of the scriptures, for no where in scripture is there a triune God, the Holy Spirit is the one who is to reveal all things Yeshua has said (word of God/).

Again it seems you missunderstood her comment, she did not understand the message, only where Mark was coming from.

My opinion about her being convinced she is right. is just that, my opinion. I suppose I could have sugar coated it. IMO it was not disrespectful, harsh maybe, but not disrespectful.
I respect her right to be convinced. I waited until the very end to comment, in no way did I disrupt or chide her in the debate.

I have no problem with what I said, it seems to me that is your problem.

But I am sorry you were offended. Most of the time I just read te posts, but this time felt compelled to commend Mark and express my dismay at youneverletgo's attitude toward the "word of God."

Then I needed to respond to you.
I now will go back to my reading and leave Mark to explaining the "word of God".

Shalom

[Mark]

I think both of you have performed a valuable role in the discussion. I can't say that I don't often wonder if I am alone in the battle- sometimes a word of encouragement is like cool drops in a very very dry land. At the same time, the young lady who, so adamant in her psoition, also needs to know that there are those among us who will stand beside her even if the theology is not the same.

I was in a similar position with a Mormon bishop. After hours of debate between us and others, he turned to me privately and said, "At least you have respect for what I believe." I responded, "I have nothing but contempt for what you believe. I respect you as a person."

Often in the heat of debate we confuse the two: the respect for the individual versus softening of our position. I have to admit that it is very much harder to not confuse or be misinterpretted in that through a written forum. Tone of voice does a huge service and our body language is a powerful tool- completely missing at this level of discussion. I appreciate both of you for your comments and the manner you have extended compassion toward "youneverletgo" and myself.

[youneverletgo]

Mar 28, 2009 4:17:35 GMT -8 Mark said:

I am not saying that Christians are not saved because of the belief in the Trinity. Having a doctrinal position on the nature and character of God is not a qualifier for salvation. It is, however, a qualifier for "Christian fellowship" as needing to acknowledge the Nicene Creed (or other like statements of faith). I believe this to be adding to the conditions of fellowship required in the Bible: holding the traditions of men as higher than the Word of God.

Okay, thank you for the clarification.

But as a religion, Christians have used the trinity as one of the main criteria for determining whether or not a group is within Christian orthodoxy or not. The main issue is usually in regard to Jesus' deity, but in the case of the Oneness Pentecostals, it has to do with the personhood of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Christianity has, throughout the years, decided that it is NOT within Christian orthodoxy to deny Jesus' deity. Neither is it within Christianity to say that Jesus is the Father and Holy Spirit.

As far as I know, no one ever objected to limiting the Trinity to just three persons until now.

Please note that the Christian churches that I know of would not deny a non-Trinitarian the opportunity to come and worship in the church. However, what these churches would not invite a non-Trinitarian pastor or speaker to the church.

Each church has a right to follow its own statement of faith, and to define what doctrines it accepts and which doctrines it does not accept. If someone wants to join a church, then they should be in agreement with that particular church's statement of faith. This is especially true if the person is to serve in any type of ministry role. The beliefs of a church mean something.

Nowadays there are plenty of other churches out there that welcome in almost any viewpoint. Not all churches today view the Trinity as an essential Christian belief. (Of course the more theologically conservative Christians and churches would not view these churches as truly Christian).

I also believe that by our fruits we are known. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck, we can safely call the thing a duck. The faith that is taught and ardently defended in the Bible is a Jewish faith. The Council of Nicea had upon its agenda to remove all things Jewish from their practice. Now you can say that what their agenda was may be irrelevant; but to me that's kind of like saying Hitler was a pretty bad buy but Mien Kampf has some pretty interesting ideas.

One of my friends and I attempted to look this up -- to see whether we could find anything from the Council of Nicea in regard to banning Jewish things. We could not find this. We did see that setting the date for Easter was on the agenda. However, from what we saw, it seems that those at the council were trying to get rid of the confusion about when Easter was. It appears that people used different methods of calculating it, and that some Christians were trying to determine it using the same calculations that the Jews had used in Jesus' day. There were other Christians that were following how the Jews had calculated it in their time. Apparently there was a difference, and thus there was a lot of confusion. Also, some wanted it to always be on a Sunday. If this is accurate, then the motive doesn't appear to be because they hated everything Jewish. Rather, they simply wanted a uniform way of setting Easter, and a way that the Christian leaders could agree on.

I saw nothing in the agenda about hating Jews or wanting to get rid of Jewish practices. That does not mean that what you suggested did not happen. I would have to do more research. From what I've seen so far, banning all things Jewish did not seem to be part of the agenda of Nicea.

I'm not saying the agenda was irrelevant. What I am saying is that I'm not finding evidence for anti-Jewish rulings at Nicea. Also, the creed itself is a basic statement about the Trinity and also about the gospel. It affirms belief in Jesus' life, death, and bodily resurrection. It also affirms belief in His second coming and in the meaning of Jesus' death and resurrection. The actual content of the creed has nothing to do with hatred towards Jews.

Once again, the church itself does not currently interpret these creeds as being against Jews. (Nor has it ever viewed the creeds in this way). Once again, if the things that you claimed happened at Nicea and were essential to the interpretation of the creed, then the church has misunderstood the creeds for over a thousand years. No church that I know of bans people with Jewish ancestry from being in the leadership of a church. No church that I know of bans Christians who do not have Jewish ancestry from marrying those that do have Jewish ancestry.

The Christian belief system (not all of it- and God is free to move anyone in His direction by any means He chooses) is designed after a Roman system of order and practice, not Jewish. The Bible is Jewish. My math isn't stellar by any means; but this sort of equation I can pretty easily figure out.

The Christian belief system is actually based on the Bible. Whether or not you agree that our beliefs are based on the Bible is going to depend on interpretation. There is a difference between belief and practice. Christian orthodoxy is supposed to have the basic Christian beliefs in common. Various churches and denominations have different practices, different traditions, etc.

Some churches are more "high church" while others are classified as "low church." (High church has more litergy/ritual than low church). There is so much in between. Some churches use contemporary worship music while others use hymns.

As far as Christian practice is concerned, about the only things that you can say are general across denominations:

1.) the services are supposed to be worship services to God
2.) there are songs sung praising God
3.) there is time for prayer
4.) there is a sermon

the following things vary from church to church:

5.) there is communion (though how often communion is given varies from church to church. Some churches have it every week while others have it once every month, and still others have it only 4 times a year, etc.)
6.) there are baptisms -- but some churches do not conduct baptisms as part of a normal worship service. Some do. Most churches have baptisms every once in a while
7.) most churches have confirmation -- most churches accept into their congregation new members to the church.

As for Christian holidays, about the only two that most all churches celebrate are Christmas and Easter.

If you want to argue against our beliefs (which are pretty much defined in the creeds), that is one thing. It is another to talk about the actual practices. Unless you have something against any of the above things, I think you are going to have to talk specifically about denominations when you talk about practices being founded on Roman principles.

Since the gospel message (salvation is by God's grace through faith by His merit and action, not out own) is so easy that an unlearned thief can get it, even while hanging in the most excruciating distraction, if it's so easy that an Ethiopian businessman (full of every sort of confused religion you can imagine) can grab hold of, there have to be those in the Christian Church who find Him. The way to God is that easy. Yet when folks deny the things written in the Bible (which the major seminaries and Bible Colleges of America do) and embrace the Anti-Semitic and para-biblical theses, I have to wonder.

I agree that many seminaries in the United States deny the things that are written in the Bible. A lot of them are much more theologically liberal for my taste. In fact, I'm currently a student at a seminary, and my beliefs really are not accepted. One of my friends and I have been told that we have bad theology because we believe that Jesus died on the cross for our sins. Even though, when talking to other people, I'm told that my school is only moderately liberal when compared with other seminaries, I also know that there are some seminaries that would probably teach things that I would agree with.

The things that I have been writing in the forums here would not be accepted by most of my professors and some of my fellow students. However, there are many Christian churches in every denomination that would be in agreement with what I've been saying here.

You cannot judge all Christianity based off of what the majority of seminaries are teaching. Just because seminaries teach more liberal theology does not necessarily mean that the people who graduate from these seminaries are in agreement with their professors. I know people at my school who will write what their professor wants to hear rather than what they actually believe, because they know that if they do not, they may not pass the class. They want a good grade. I personally can't do that. I will only write what I believe. And yes, this has cost me some grades in classes.

As for Anti-Semitic stuff --- I do not think that anti-Semitic acts are Christian in the least. I think that these go against the Christian faith.

[youneverletgo]

Mar 28, 2009 20:33:39 GMT -8 Pioneer said:

It seems to me you missed all the implcations Mark has outlined.

I will say this, to believe in the trinity does no harm to you or anyone else, but when you teach the concept then is where you run afoul of the bible, there is no penalty for beliving Y H V H as being a triune God, but[glow=red,2,300]if[/glow]you happen to be wrong there is many heavy penalties for teaching a false doctrine.

You are making an assumption here that the Trinity is wrong doctrine.

If we are wrong than Christians have been wrong for 2,000 years....and billions of people have gotten it wrong throughout history.

Could we be wrong? Yes.

But at the same time, the doctrine of the Trinity has been reaffirmed by Christians throughout Christianity's history. Christians have consistently looked into Scripture and have drawn the same conclusion.

But alas, Christians are forgiven their past, present and future sins. so all's well.

Mark, I have enjoyed your skillfull and kind debate. Well done.

But, it seems as usual a convinced Christian is convinced and if Yeshua came down and explained it they would walk away shaking their heads just as youneverletgo has done here.

Yes, I am convinced of the Trinity, based on the evidence that I find in Scripture. You're not the first to tell me that my beliefs are wrong.

I have a right to believe in the Trinity, based on my understanding of Scripture......just as much as you have a right not to believe in it, based on your understanding of Scripture.

In this thread I have tried to state why I believe what I believe. But, unfortunately, there seems to have been a lot of misunderstanding in this whole conversation.

[youneverletgo]

Mar 29, 2009 21:10:37 GMT -8 Pioneer said:

Again it seems you missunderstood her comment, she did not understand the message, only where Mark was coming from.

Excuse me -- there is a difference between understanding what another person is saying (where they are coming from) and agreeing with them. In order to understand another person, you do not have to agree with them.

I think I can understand where Mark is coming from. But I do not agree with him. Does my not agreeing with him mean that I don't understand him? Not necessarily.

My opinion about her being convinced she is right. is just that, my opinion. I suppose I could have sugar coated it. IMO it was not disrespectful, harsh maybe, but not disrespectful.
I respect her right to be convinced. I waited until the very end to comment, in no way did I disrupt or chide her in the debate.

It seems to me that you specifically, Pioneer, are quite convinced that there is no Trinity.

In any sort of debate or discussion, you must allow of the other person to have a different viewpoint from your own. Otherwise you will never be able to understand THEIR perspective, and the debate/conversation will not go anywhere.

You must realize that just as much as you are convinced that God is not triune, I'm convinced that He is triune.

Actually, I too found your comments to be disrespectful to me and all other trinitarian Christians. You were attacking us for our solid belief in the Trinity, while you were voicing your own solid viewpoint that there is no Trinity. Then you said that we would not be able to understand the truth if Jesus came down and told us. In other words, you are right and we are wrong. This is your opinion, and you are entitled to it, of course. However, just because you hold to a particular viewpoint does not mean that you should say it in the way that you did. There are other ways you could have stated that.

But I am sorry you were offended. Most of the time I just read te posts, but this time felt compelled to commend Mark and express my dismay at youneverletgo's attitude toward the "word of God."

Then I needed to respond to you.
I now will go back to my reading and leave Mark to explaining the "word of God".

Shalom

I find this to be very offensive as well. You're assuming that you know how I feel about Scripture, and that I have contempt for it. This is completely incorrect.

[youneverletgo]

Mar 30, 2009 4:48:37 GMT -8 Mark said:

I think both of you have performed a valuable role in the discussion. I can't say that I don't often wonder if I am alone in the battle- sometimes a word of encouragement is like cool drops in a very very dry land. At the same time, the young lady who, so adamant in her psoition, also needs to know that there are those among us who will stand beside her even if the theology is not the same.

I was in a similar position with a Mormon bishop. After hours of debate between us and others, he turned to me privately and said, "At least you have respect for what I believe." I responded, "I have nothing but contempt for what you believe. I respect you as a person."

Often in the heat of debate we confuse the two: the respect for the individual versus softening of our position. I have to admit that it is very much harder to not confuse or be misinterpretted in that through a written forum. Tone of voice does a huge service and our body language is a powerful tool- completely missing at this level of discussion. I appreciate both of you for your comments and the manner you have extended compassion toward "youneverletgo" and myself.

Agreed -- respect for other people is a key to any discussion, whether you agree with them or not.

We all need to show respect to those that we do not agree with. We have to remember that we are dealing with real people with real feelings and real opinions.

[Mark]

Things look like they have the potential of going very south very quickly. I think all the people in this discussion feel as though thier perspective has been heard; but so that it doesn't turn into something less than edifying, I'm going to lock it down. If you have something you would like to add, give me a PM and I can unlock it for you; but all I see from this point on is potential for attacks.