The Nicene Creed

[crystalonyx]

Maybe you should start coming up with some thoughful insights in these discussions instead of constantly asking for proof of God. Or don't you know, faith plays an important part in Christianity?



...

You seem to miss the point, I was responding to a post that claimed the atheist's lifestyle was not only wrong, but dangerous, I'm saying that simply is not true, and and asking that person for some proof of these bold claims.

 

[sojourner]

Are you implying that "in the form of God" means "being God"? I think that may be a rather large leap to make all in one go.

Only if the next statement is not considered. If one implies that "finding himself in human form" means "being human," then "in the form of God" means "being God." Just what was Jesus? Was Jesus fully human? If so, according to Philippians 2, he was also fully God.

 

[sojourner]

If I find a person just as changed by Hinduism, Shamanism or some other faith, should I follow it instead of Christianity?

Only if it helps you to resonate more clearly with the Divine...

 

[sojourner]

By Phillippians 2 I think you mean verses 6 and 7. I just don't have any problem with that at all. I see Jesus Christ as a significant member of the Godhead, and the Jehovah of the Old Testament. No question he condescended to come to earth but he did so with a purpose. Now, how would you reconcile your belief with Christ's baptism when a voice spoke from heaven, or with his ascension into heaven when he clearly stated: "I ascent unto my Father..."?

Quite easily. Christ was both fully human (acknowledging God as Father, and being acknowledged by God as Son), and fully Divine. The Son has a Father, but they are one God. The Father has a Son, but they are both one God. I don't see that any reconciliation is indicated by either incident. Jesus interacted with humanity as a human. Therefore, he would have had a Father to call him "son." He would have ascended to his Father. But he also walked on water, raised the dead, changed water into wine, etc.

 

[Scuba Pete]

The crux of our discussion comes from us trying to describe spiritual concepts with merely human words. You aren't going to be able to understand this without the help of the Spirit.

To my friends who ascribe to the Nicene Creed and the Trinity: I am glad you have a single word that you can use to help understand these concepts. Remember that this doctrine is not essential for salvation nor is it needed to ascribe to the various concepts you put under this umbrella term.

To my friends who object to the use of the Nicene Creed and/or the Trinity. Neither of these will disqualify your salvation. Look beyond the terms to the underlying truths therein.

It is my humble opinion that God will bless those that seek him and how to do his will. All too often we want to insert legalism into the mix in our attempt to codify God. Consider these passages in John:

John 14:5 Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?" 6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."
8 Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us."
9 Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? 10 Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. 12 I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it. NIV

Here Jesus is pointing out just how interconnected he and the Father are. If you have seen Jesus, you HAVE seen the Father. This is not a quantum leap by any means and it gets down to phusis. BTW, though it's not germane to the current discussion, verse 12 is probably the STRONGEST promise in the scriptures.

So what is phusis? It's the Greek word for "nature". My phusis is to be a human being. My sweet snuggling kitty's phusis is to be a feline. Any item may have various attributes, but those attributes together define the phusis (nature) of an object.

It is also my humble opinion that God is pan-dimensional. God the Father is Spiritual. God the Son is Physical and God the Spirit is cerebral (in our conscience).

John 14:15 "If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 19 Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20 On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. 21 Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him." NIV

So the Spirit is now God living in ME. The Spirit's Phusis is God. Now we know from James that God is love. Now watch as we come full circle with that concept.

John 15:9 "As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. 10 If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love. 11 I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. 12 My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. 14 You are my friends if you do what I command. 15 I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. 16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit—fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. 17 This is my command: Love each other.NIV

Now, someone mentioned Philippians 2 which is a GREAT passage since it uses the word Phusis in it more than once. Again, we can see easily how they came up with the concept of the Trinity here:

Philippians 2:5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7 but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father. NIV

By phusis (nature) Jesus IS God. He did not have to grasp it, for he IS GODl So he also became by phusis (nature) MAN as well. Why? So he could become the PERFECT sacrifice for everyone.

 

[Muffled]

Quite easily. Christ was both fully human (acknowledging God as Father, and being acknowledged by God as Son), and fully Divine. The Son has a Father, but they are one God. The Father has a Son, but they are both one God. I don't see that any reconciliation is indicated by either incident. Jesus interacted with humanity as a human. Therefore, he would have had a Father to call him "son." He would have ascended to his Father. But he also walked on water, raised the dead, changed water into wine, etc.

This erroneous concept comes from the Athanasian creed. Even Phil. 2 shows that the human form was different in some way:

Php 2:7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men;

The fact that Jesus was conceived partially by creation (because it was a virgin conception) means that we have no way of knowing if God altered the genetic make-up in some way and even Paul recognizes that he is in the likeness of a man not necessarily fully human. He could have been fully human or God could have loaded the dice making changes that He would be more comfortable abiding in.

This is also an error from the Athanasian Creed. As Scott a Baha'i who posts here has pointed out, you can't get a God who inhabits the entire Universe into a body. However God is one and not divided so the God we see in Jesus is the same God that is everywhere else. "Fully" makes sense for many of God's attributes but not for the spatial attribute.

The reason that I say that God in Three Persons is erroneous is that it does not fit the Biblical record. Granted that there is an appearance of three persons but that is not indicative of the underlying reality. The church did consider Sabellius an heretic for saying that God was playing three roles but it is the church that is heretical not Sabellius. (Although I don't agree with him on some things).

 

[sojourner]

This erroneous concept comes from the Athanasian creed. Even Phil. 2 shows that the human form was different in some way:

Php 2:7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men;

The fact that Jesus was conceived partially by creation (because it was a virgin conception) means that we have no way of knowing if God altered the genetic make-up in some way and even Paul recognizes that he is in the likeness of a man not necessarily fully human. He could have been fully human or God could have loaded the dice making changes that He would be more comfortable abiding in.

This is also an error from the Athanasian Creed. As Scott a Baha'i who posts here has pointed out, you can't get a God who inhabits the entire Universe into a body. However God is one and not divided so the God we see in Jesus is the same God that is everywhere else. "Fully" makes sense for many of God's attributes but not for the spatial attribute.

The reason that I say that God in Three Persons is erroneous is that it does not fit the Biblical record. Granted that there is an appearance of three persons but that is not indicative of the underlying reality. The church did consider Sabellius an heretic for saying that God was playing three roles but it is the church that is heretical not Sabellius. (Although I don't agree with him on some things).

The great preponderance of Xy, Orthodox, Roman, Anglican, Celtic, etc. would disagree with you.

 

[Muffled]

The great preponderance of Xy, Orthodox, Roman, Anglican, Celtic, etc. would disagree with you.

A preponderance of error is still error and I am not going to believe the world is flat simply becasue a host of ancients believed it to be so.

 

[sojourner]

A preponderance of error is still error and I am not going to believe the world is flat simply becasue a host of ancients believed it to be so.

'K. What tradition of Xy led you to this conclusion?