PDA

View Full Version : NICENE CREED



Sealeaf
April 16th, 2017, 08:38 AM
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.

Truster
April 16th, 2017, 08:42 AM
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.

So you tell things to your son and then check to see if you were correct.

Put him up for adoption.

jamie
April 16th, 2017, 08:57 AM
Do any of you belong to a recognized denomination that does not affirm the Nicene creed?


The NT does not affirm the Nicene creed, so we have a choice as to whom to believe.

I go with the NT.

Sealeaf
April 16th, 2017, 08:59 AM
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

Sealeaf
April 16th, 2017, 09:02 AM
I'm sorry Jamie, I don't know what denomination "NT" is. Is there more to the name?
Or are you referring to the New testament? In which case you are quite correct and not answering the question.

Sealeaf
April 16th, 2017, 09:08 AM
Truster: My son is 43. Too late.

Truster
April 16th, 2017, 09:14 AM
Truster: My son is 43. Too late.

Never too late to lie to him...

Eagles Wings
April 16th, 2017, 09:19 AM
Truster: My son is 43. Too late.

lol

What a joy for multiple generations to attend church together.

Nick M
April 16th, 2017, 10:19 AM
The creed seems to change often. Some statements of faith are better than others.

Truster
April 16th, 2017, 02:17 PM
The creed seems to change often. Some statements of faith are better than others.

Excellent point. I would replace the word better with truer or more accurate, but that is such a small point...

Well said Nick!

Brother Ducky
April 16th, 2017, 03:10 PM
Never too late to lie to him...

Not sure one should call Sealeaf's statement to his son a "lie." He might be mistaken, but he would have to know that there are those who are Christian and reject the creed for it to be a lie.

But more to the point, and one he would not have made if he were lying, are there Christian groups who reject the teaching of the creed. I indicated "teaching" because one could certainly have a group that held to "No creed but the Bible" and yet would affirm the doctrines of the creed.

If I had to guess, and it is only a guess, if there were to be a sticking point in accepting any of the doctrines of the creed it would be the idea of the catholic church. One could see themselves as the only church.

Truster
April 16th, 2017, 03:38 PM
Not sure one should call Sealeaf's statement to his son a "lie." He might be mistaken, but he would have to know that there are those who are Christian and reject the creed for it to be a lie.

But more to the point, and one he would not have made if he were lying, are there Christian groups who reject the teaching of the creed. I indicated "teaching" because one could certainly have a group that held to "No creed but the Bible" and yet would affirm the doctrines of the creed.

If I had to guess, and it is only a guess, if there were to be a sticking point in accepting any of the doctrines of the creed it would be the idea of the catholic church. One could see themselves as the only church.

Anything that opposes truth is a lie. There are no white lies, just lies. If a man is not sure then he should shut up until he is sure or just admit he doesn't know. My statement stands as does truth, but you seem to prefer guessing and such nonsense.

" Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O Yah Veh, my strength, and my redeemer."

Sealeaf
April 16th, 2017, 03:56 PM
Please note that my son and I were discussing organized, named, denominations of Christians. Specifically, the various flavors of mainstream Protestantism. Not free thinking loners. If you are not a member of a denomination then you can of course believe whatever you wish. If you are a member of a denomination then you are expected to have beliefs in common with the other members. That is what "member" means. In the context of that, I expressed the opinion that I thought that they all affirmed the Nicene creed. Now I am called a liar, but no one has listed the denominations that do not affirm the creed.

Nick M
April 16th, 2017, 03:59 PM
The TOL statement of faith is more than good enough.

Truster
April 16th, 2017, 04:04 PM
Please note that my son and I were discussing organized, named, denominations of Christians. Specifically, the various flavors of mainstream Protestantism. Not free thinking loners. If you are not a member of a denomination then you can of course believe whatever you wish. If you are a member of a denomination then you are expected to have beliefs in common with the other members. That is what "member" means. In the context of that, I expressed the opinion that I thought that they all affirmed the Nicene creed. Now I am called a liar, but no one has listed the denominations that do not affirm the creed.

You said, "I asserted that they all accepted the Nicene creed as true. Was I correct?"

I asserted (state a fact or belief confidently and forcefully)

You then inquired if what you had said was correct? (free from error, in accordance with fact or truth)

These are the facts as you stated. You made a statement that was doubtful and that is lying.

Sealeaf
April 16th, 2017, 04:06 PM
This
Anything that opposes truth is a lie.is not true. There are many types of errors and omissions that are possible. For example: The new testament ignores the existence of bicycles, that does not make it a lie. Since Truster asserted an untrue statement he is by his own definition a liar, and by his own rule should be silent.

Sealeaf
April 16th, 2017, 04:09 PM
This is becoming an unpleasant conversation and no useful information seems to be forthcoming, I will seek the information I need from another source.

Sealeaf
April 16th, 2017, 04:24 PM
The Nicene Creed
Evangelical Lutheran Worship
The Nicene Creed is appropriate during Advent, Chri
stmas, Easter, and on festival days.
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
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,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the virgin M
ary
and became truly human.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilat
e;
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 a
nd 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,*
who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and g
lorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic chur
ch.
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.

Apparently the Lutheran Church affirms the Nicene Creed

Sealeaf
April 16th, 2017, 04:49 PM
The Methodist website affirms the Apostles creed but does not directly state that they affirm the Nicene creed, however their "confession of faith" seems to pretty much cover the same ground. I leave it to an actual Methodist to point out what the differences are.

Sealeaf
April 16th, 2017, 05:58 PM
Congregational sources deny that they have any creed except what the individual congregation agrees to under the "headship of Christ". This seems like a recipe for disaster to me but they seem to be doing ok with it so not for me to judge. Also it means that I can't tell if they affirm the Nicene creed or not. I would have to question every congregation. From what I have been able to find on the internet I would guess that they would insist on re writing any statement of belief in their own words. Most of what I could find was all about using democratic process to determine practice, but nothing about determining belief.
If any of the brothers or sisters on this forum is a member of a congregation that specifically rejects any portion of either the Apostles or the Nicene creed perhaps they could let us know ? I have personal difficulty with the idea that the truth is determined by a vote and that everyone is equal given that the inequality of talents and morality is so obvious.

Sealeaf
April 16th, 2017, 06:19 PM
Thanks everyone for your help. It would seem I was incorrect in stating that all mainstream christian churches would affirm the principles of the Nicene creed. This saddens me since it strikes so close to the root of the christian tree.

jsanford108
April 16th, 2017, 06:31 PM
Thanks everyone for your help. It would seem I was incorrect in stating that all mainstream christian churches would affirm the principles of the Nicene creed. This saddens me since it strikes so close to the root of the christian tree.

The part of the creed where Protestants diverge is "I believe in one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. And I look forward to the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come."

Various denominations hold multiple baptisms (with no deep meaning, conjectured as mere "symbolism"). And obviously disagree with "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church."

There are also denominations of "Christians" (who, by definition are not "Christian") who disagree with the creed entirely. Such sects as Mormon, SDA, mid-acts dispensationalists, Jehovah's Witness, etc.

Hope this helps a little. And never fear asking questions. People who usually insult and throw accusations (such as liar) are usually shallow intellectually and unable to even defend their own doctrines logically and substantially.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)

Sealeaf
April 16th, 2017, 07:31 PM
Thanks J, I was totally unaware of the multi baptism thing but should not have been since Catholics will do that too. Our belief being that you can only be baptized once since that one time gets you connected to Jesus and part of His church. You can however go through the motions any number of times. If the first time took then the others are meaningless but do no harm.
I can see that identifying the church as "Apostolic" is a stumbling block. Only the Orthodox, the Episcopals and the Catholics can get over that one easily. Lutherans can make it with a bit of word wiggling.
I think there should not be a problem with one holy and catholic, once we shift "catholic" to "universal" that reads as, " One ( There is just one Jesus, He instituted one church.) Holy (who wants to be part of an un holy church?) Universal ( well I guess there are those who want to place restrictions on membership based on Race, national origin, sexual orientation etc. but they are just wrong and it is a good thing that the creed says so)

beameup
April 16th, 2017, 07:57 PM
I'd say that the Creed is one good thing that came out of Constantine's 325 A.D. Nicene Council.

The "baptism" would of course be the baptism in the Holy Spirit, not "sprinkling" H2O

Ask Mr. Religion
April 16th, 2017, 08:12 PM
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?The Orthodox will not agree to the filoque clause, the double procession of the Holy Spirit by the Father and the Son, in the Nicene Creed.

AMR

Sealeaf
April 16th, 2017, 08:28 PM
AMR Understood. Though exactly what difference they think it makes I don't know. In any case, when we start talking about the sequence of events as experienced by an eternal and timeless being, we are talking out of our hats.

Nihilo
April 16th, 2017, 09:23 PM
The Orthodox will not agree to the filoque clause, the double procession of the Holy Spirit by the Father and the Son, in the Nicene Creed.True, but that's in large part because then they'd have to admit the papacy is right on the matter, and they have been wrong all along. 'A hard pill to swallow for anybody.

keypurr
April 16th, 2017, 09:47 PM
Nicene Creed is evil. It lies.

Nihilo
April 16th, 2017, 10:25 PM
Nicene Creed is evil. It lies.The Nicene Creed is what the Church mentioned in Matthew 16:18 (KJV) by the Lord Jesus Christ, decided in a council (for an account of the first Church council, read Mid-Acts) to publish, similarly to the epistle the first Church council decided to publish; recorded, for the Church, by the Church (and by the Holy Spirit), at Acts 15:23-29 (KJV). The first Church council, being recorded in the Scripture itself, was a pattern for the Church, and she followed that pattern in AD 325, almost exactly three centuries after her birth on Pentecost in AD 33 (which may be called today incorrectly "AD 30") in Jerusalem, which was destroyed in AD 70 (today correctly called "AD 70"). So in AD 325, which was possibly 295 years after the Church was born in AD 33 ("AD 30" ; 325 - 30 = 295), bishops whose grandparents' grandparents' grandparents' grandparents' grandparents' grandparents' grandparents may have been members of the earliest Catholic Church, followed the pattern in Mid-Acts and convened a second Church council.

God's Truth
April 16th, 2017, 11:18 PM
True, but that's in large part because then they'd have to admit the papacy is right on the matter, and they have been wrong all along. 'A hard pill to swallow for anybody.

Just you calling a brother in Christ 'papa' shows you are wrong.

Just the fact that a mere man allows himself to be called 'Holy Father' proves he is a sinner.

Nihilo
April 16th, 2017, 11:27 PM
Just you calling a brother in Christ 'papa' shows you are wrong.

Just the fact that a mere man allows himself to be called 'Holy Father' proves he is a sinner.We're all, sinners, you, pinhead.

God's Truth
April 16th, 2017, 11:31 PM
We're all, sinners, you, pinhead.

You are for calling your brothers in Christ 'father'.

Jesus says not to call your brother 'father'.

I obey by not calling any brother in Christ 'father'.

How do you obey?

Nihilo
April 16th, 2017, 11:38 PM
You are for calling your brothers in Christ 'father'.

Jesus says not to call your brother 'father'.

I obey by not calling any brother in Christ 'father'.

How do you obey?Sigh.

Another long sigh.

What an irrelevant question.

Truster
April 17th, 2017, 06:07 AM
We're all, sinners, you, pinhead.

I'm a redeemed, regenerate, repentant sinner.

Squeaky
April 17th, 2017, 07:59 AM
Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in the Nicene Creed. They believe in the Apostles Creed.

Apostles Creed

The Apostles' Creed
I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth;
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit
and born of the Virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.



THE APOSTLES CREED
I believe in God the Father Almighty. And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary; crucified under Pontius Pilate and buried; the third day he rose from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father, from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit; the holy Church; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the flesh.

THE NICENE CREED
I 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 His 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 Ghost 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 I believe in the Holy Ghost; the Lord and Giver of Life; Who proceedeth from the Father and the Son; Who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified; Who spake by the prophets. And I believe in one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And I look for the resurrection of the dead; and the life of the world to come. Amen.
The Arian Catholic Creed

I BELIEVE IN ONE GOD,
Creator of Heaven and earth,
And of all things visible and invisible.
And in his Spiritual Son, Jesus Christ,
Whom was born of Mary and Joseph,
Was not consubstantial nor co-eternal with God the Father almighty,
Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, died, and was buried.
On the third day His Spirit was resurrected.
He ascended into Heaven,
And sitteth at the right hand of God, the Father almighty.
Whence he shall come again to judge the living and the dead,
Of whose Kingdom there shall be no end.

And I believe in the Holy Spirit,
The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church,
The communion of saints,
The forgiveness of sins,
The resurrection of the Spirit,
And life everlasting.
Amen.

Nihilo
April 17th, 2017, 09:21 AM
I'm a redeemed, regenerate, repentant sinner.Good for you. And what I mean is, who cares? You're a sinner, I'm a sinner, we're all sinners, we all sin, and sins divide according to gravity, and the gravest sins are bigger deals than the less weighty sins, the venial sins, if you're redeemed. If you believe. Or trust, whatever it is you're on about . . . .

Besides, I thought you had me on ignore. What, do you manage the Ignore feature like how users are temporarily banned at TOL sometimes? Did I get a two-day ban from you, is that it? :)

Truster
April 17th, 2017, 09:23 AM
Good for you. And what I mean is, who cares? You're a sinner, I'm a sinner, we're all sinners, we all sin, and sins divide according to gravity, and the gravest sins are bigger deals than the less weighty sins, the venial sins, if you're redeemed. If you believe. Or trust, whatever it is you're on about . . . .

I care.

Hawkins
April 17th, 2017, 09:29 AM
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.

Nicene Creed sets the basic guideline for Christians to identify a church which has the power to save. Denominations not complying to the Creed are thus heresies instead of denomination variance.

All left is that individual Christians have the responsibility to best secure one's own salvation by joining a better identified apostle's church. That is to say, you are not recommended to join a church suspicious of not complying the Apostle's Creed. You should look for a church with a long time reputation of not being suspected of any possible heresies, such that your own salvation can be put to a most secured position responsibly.

Nihilo
April 17th, 2017, 09:33 AM
I care.You care like how a sinner cares, because that's what you are, and that's what you care about.

The Holy Spirit cares about what the Lord Jesus Christ cares about. Walk in the Spirit. Galatians 5:16 (KJV)

Truster
April 17th, 2017, 09:35 AM
You care like how a sinner cares, because that's what you are, and that's what you care about.

The Holy Spirit cares about what the Lord Jesus Christ cares about. Walk in the Spirit. Galatians 5:16 (KJV)

Wrong.

Nihilo
April 17th, 2017, 09:57 AM
Wrong."Weighty."-Saint John W

:chuckle:

Ask Mr. Religion
April 17th, 2017, 10:16 AM
True, but that's in large part because then they'd have to admit the papacy is right on the matter, and they have been wrong all along. 'A hard pill to swallow for anybody.
Rather, they disagree because they not interpret Scripture properly. Rome has no claim on the matter.

Think of the phrase, "In the unity of the Godhead."

Western theology begins at this point. One God possessing full Godhead.

The Father is unbegotten. As such God the Father is the ever-flowing fountain of the divine essence. He communicates this essence to the Son. He with the Son communicates this essence to the Spirit. The communication is eternal. It did not happen one time and then stop.

The first communication is called begetting; the second communication is called procession. Call the communication whatever one pleases, it is the communication itself which is important. So we say the Father begets the Son, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and the Son. The begetting is also often termed generation. The procession is also sometimes called spiration.
Berkhof writes:



This procession of the Holy Spirit, briefly called spiration, is his personal property. Much of what was said respecting the generation of the Son also applies to the spiration of the Holy Spirit, and need not be repeated. The following points of distinction between the two may be noted, however:
(1) Generation is the work of the Father only; spiration is the work of both the Father and the Son.
(2) By generation the Son is enabled to take part in the work of spiration, but the Holy Spirit acquires no such power.
(3) In logical order generation precedes spiration.
It should be remembered, however, that all this implies no essential subordination of the Holy Spirit to the Son.
In spiration as well as in generation there is a communication of the whole of the divine essence, so that the Holy Spirit is on an equality with the Father and the Son
The doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son is based on John 15:26, and on the fact that the Spirit is also called the Spirit of Christ and of the Son, Rom. 8:9; Gal. 4:6, and is sent by Christ into the world. Spiration may be defined as that eternal and necessary act of the first and second persons in the Trinity whereby they, within the divine Being, become the ground of the personal subsistence of the Holy Spirit, and put the third person in possession of the whole divine essence, without any division, alienation or change.
When one begins with the unity of God these personal properties are the means by which Godhead is understood to belong to a distinct mode of subsistence within the undivided substance.


Altering the personal properties so as to deny the filioque (fill-ee-oh-qwee) serves to create a new "stream" (using the above analogy of "fountain").

Once the filioque is denied, there is now no longer one stream
--> Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

A second stream has been created
--> Father, Son; Father, Holy Spirit.

There is no longer an unity of three but two unities of two.

Accordingly, the unity of God is maintained in the western theological tradition by what is called the communication of Godhead—begetting and procession. "Person" or "subsistence" depends on personal properties, i.e., properties which are unique to a person in relation to other persons. In the words of our Larger Catechism, there is something "proper" in these relations, that is, "divinely proper." To detract from any property of the Son in relation to the Holy Spirit is to make Him inferior to the Father.

The EO objection in relation to the Holy Spirit is removed by a simple acknowledgement that the unique person of the Holy Spirit also consists in a unique property, and that property is to proceed from the Father and the Son from all eternity.

If this were not accepted as the Holy Spirit's distinct property He would not be the third person of the Trinity but would be a second second person. This means He would be a second Son. His very name, Spirit, is suggestive of an altogether unique relation in union with Father and Son which nullifies the objection. The Holy Spirit is the person upon whom the communication of Godhead finally terminates. In this capacity the Spirit is Himself the bond of union and communion between Father and Son. Likewise, in the ad extra works (works outside the Goddhead) of the Trinity, this unique relation finds expression in His distinctive function in connection with the creation of, providence over, and redemption of, the world— He is the Spirit of life and communion.


AMR

Nihilo
April 17th, 2017, 10:41 AM
We agree on the Filioque. I see the East's rejection of it, and also of their necessarily resultant rejection of the primacy of the papacy in matters of faith, as residue from the Aryan controversy. Most of the Aryan bishops in AD 325 were from Eastern sees, and the Aryan position just couldn't have been squelched and completely unearthed from that soil so suddenly, so it must have gone underground, for lack of a better concept, and it reared its head in the Great East West Schism ultimately and remains today. It is the only thing that separates the Orthodox from full communion again with Rome, but they would have to admit that the popes are right now, and have always been right, and that's a tough pill for anybody to swallow.

Nick M
April 17th, 2017, 10:49 AM
We're all, sinners, you, pinhead.

One is either a slave to sin or a slave to righteousness. There is no middle ground.

Romans 6 is every bit as important as Romans .

15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not! 16 Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness? 17 But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. 18 And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. 19 I speak in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves of uncleanness, and of lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves of righteousness for holiness.

Nick M
April 17th, 2017, 10:52 AM
Wikipedia has multiple versions. No real surprise there.

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

I like that they correctly have catholic in lower case as it means "universal", which is Paul's church. Where my faith is accounted for righteousness.

Nihilo
April 17th, 2017, 11:07 AM
One is either a slave to sin or a slave to righteousness. There is no middle ground.

Romans 6 is every bit as important as Romans .

15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not! 16 Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness? 17 But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. 18 And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. 19 I speak in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves of uncleanness, and of lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves of righteousness for holiness.Agreed!

S-word
April 18th, 2017, 01:01 AM
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

Do you also 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
April 18th, 2017, 03:23 AM
It is the belief of the Roman Catholics that the is no salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church. That is why they used excommunication and the witholding of the "sacraments" to subject people in dread. A vile and despicable cult.

TrevorL
April 18th, 2017, 06:29 AM
Greetings Sealeaf,
Nicene Creed:
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. 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

jsanford108
April 18th, 2017, 08:32 AM
It is the belief of the Roman Catholics that the is no salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church. That is why they used excommunication and the witholding of the "sacraments" to subject people in dread. A vile and despicable cult.

Excellent point. Except that it is completely false.

Catholics do believe that Christians outside of the Catholic Church can, and have, received salvation. Often we refer to them as "our Protestant brothers and sisters." A clear denotation of unity in Christ and salvation.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)

Truster
April 18th, 2017, 08:50 AM
Excellent point. Except that it is completely false.

Catholics do believe that Christians outside of the Catholic Church can, and have, received salvation. Often we refer to them as "our Protestant brothers and sisters." A clear denotation of unity in Christ and salvation.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)

I quote:
Since the sacraments are the ordinary means through which Christ offers the grace necessary for salvation, and the Catholic Church that Christ established is the ordinary minister of those sacraments, it is appropriate to state that salvation comes through the Church. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Nick M
April 18th, 2017, 10:35 AM
Agreed!

Then you are not a sinner?

Nihilo
April 18th, 2017, 10:36 AM
I quote:
Since the sacraments are the ordinary means through which Christ offers the grace necessary for salvation, and the Catholic Church that Christ established is the ordinary minister of those sacraments, it is appropriate to state that salvation comes through the Church. Extra ecclesiam nulla salusThat's just a true statement.

Note though, that the initiation sacrament of Baptism is now officially distributed to anybody who performs a baptism seriously, and in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Church, through the power of her keys (Mt16:19KJV), has loosed Baptism to anybody, even an avowed atheist and Christ hater, so long as they perform the baptism, and not in a joking manner, with water, and in the name of the Trinity.

Nick M
April 18th, 2017, 10:36 AM
A vile and despicable cult.

A pot and kettle were walking down the street.....

Nihilo
April 18th, 2017, 10:47 AM
Then you are not a sinner?Oh I'm a sinner, just as surely as you are, and as everybody is, whether they believe the gospel of our salvation or not, everybody sins, in that everybody transgresses God's moral law. In the flesh, in this dead flesh, we sin. But I sin venially, and lightly, as do most Christians, and we do so only because we are under a lot of stress living in this world, trying to integrate our true and deep and extreme faith in the Lord Jesus, always working, towards a better future on this earth, while we await the new earth. Venial means forgiven, and they're forgiven because of 1st Corinthians 15:3 (KJV), and while I am a slave to righteousness, my flesh is not, and cannot be, this filthy body of mine. So filthy. But the Holy Spirit is working towards a better aim than I ever did when I was flagrantly moral and moralistic, which is the wrong way to do things. It results in communal fracture, and it is this intensive moral effort that causes the fracture, because we are all sinners, so there's never a valid reason for one group of Christians to break unity with another, over sin. The Holy Spirit convicts me of my sin every day, and I learn just how rotten and filthy I am, this body of death, this dead thing walking. And this emphasizes the point here, it emphasizes what the Lord did for me. It isn't sinning so that grace may abound, God forbid, but that the more keenly aware I am of my sin, the more keenly aware I am of His grace, and what it means, in my life, in this body, of death.

Nihilo
April 18th, 2017, 10:57 AM
I should add that such keen awareness of my own filth gives me a clarity in seeing others. "This is why the Lord had to die," is what I remind myself whenever confronted with somebody else's unsurprising filth. He had to die for my filthy body of death, and for everybody's. All of us are filthy and rotten to the core, these bodies of death. It is only Him, the Holy Spirit, that is any good in us, and whenever our flesh manages to pull off a truly good work, it is always because of the Spirit that we do so, we cannot claim any credit for the good that we do, and we cannot claim to not be sinners.

jsanford108
April 18th, 2017, 11:16 AM
I quote:
Since the sacraments are the ordinary means through which Christ offers the grace necessary for salvation, and the Catholic Church that Christ established is the ordinary minister of those sacraments, it is appropriate to state that salvation comes through the Church. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus

That doesn't render my statement false. It doesn't say "only the Church."


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)

Truster
April 18th, 2017, 11:48 AM
That doesn't render my statement false. It doesn't say "only the Church."


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)


It makes you a conniving liar like the rest of the cult.

Nick M
April 18th, 2017, 12:01 PM
Oh I'm a sinner, just as surely as you are, and as everybody is,

18 And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.


1 Corinthians 6

11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

Present yourself not as a sinner, but as righteous. And not because of what you have done. You don't give people impossible standards to live up to. You tell people you do not sin because all things are lawful for you. Even though you do things that are immoral and contrary to the law, you do not break the law. You have been set free from the law, sin, and death. Embrace it.

jsanford108
April 18th, 2017, 12:25 PM
It makes you a conniving liar like the rest of the cult.

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


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)

Truster
April 18th, 2017, 12:44 PM
Name calling when your point is demolished. Really shows your maturity level and ability to have intellectual discussions.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)

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
April 18th, 2017, 02:48 PM
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
April 18th, 2017, 03:12 PM
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
April 18th, 2017, 03:18 PM
.................. 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.

:D

jsanford108
April 18th, 2017, 03:30 PM
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
April 18th, 2017, 03:36 PM
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/showthread.php?123584-A-tally-of-about-100-anti-Calvinist-threads&p=4948483&viewfull=1#post4948483

AMR

oatmeal
April 18th, 2017, 03:47 PM
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
April 18th, 2017, 04:08 PM
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
April 18th, 2017, 04:13 PM
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
April 19th, 2017, 02:53 AM
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
April 19th, 2017, 03:22 AM
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
April 19th, 2017, 08:54 AM
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
April 19th, 2017, 08:58 AM
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
April 19th, 2017, 11:49 AM
...
For point of reference I am a Catholic of the Maronite Rite.

Lebanese?

TrevorL
April 20th, 2017, 01:05 AM
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
April 20th, 2017, 01:37 AM
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
April 20th, 2017, 10:02 AM
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 (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)

S-word
April 20th, 2017, 09:31 PM
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
April 20th, 2017, 11:30 PM
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
April 21st, 2017, 11:21 AM
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).

jsanford108
April 21st, 2017, 02:00 PM
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?"

What evidence do you have Peter was never in Rome? If it is "the Bible never says he was," then a logical dissolution of that point is "it never says he wasn't."


Tertullian, ( as written in "The Demurrer Against the Heretics"; A.D. 200), noted of Rome, “How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s (referring to John the Baptist, both he and Paul being beheaded)." Biblical scholars all agree (even Protestants and Fundamentalists) Paul died in Rome, so the implication from Tertullian is that Peter also must have been there. It was commonly accepted, from the very first, that both Peter and Paul were martyred at Rome, probably in the Neronian persecution in the 60s A.D.

So allow me to prove again, it is not the Church of Constantine. It is the Church of Christ, founded upon Peter the Apostle.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)

S-word
April 21st, 2017, 09:12 PM
What evidence do you have Peter was never in Rome? If it is "the Bible never says he was," then a logical dissolution of that point is "it never says he wasn't."


Tertullian, ( as written in "The Demurrer Against the Heretics"; A.D. 200), noted of Rome, “How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s (referring to John the Baptist, both he and Paul being beheaded)." Biblical scholars all agree (even Protestants and Fundamentalists) Paul died in Rome, so the implication from Tertullian is that Peter also must have been there. It was commonly accepted, from the very first, that both Peter and Paul were martyred at Rome, probably in the Neronian persecution in the 60s A.D.

So allow me to prove again, it is not the Church of Constantine. It is the Church of Christ, founded upon Peter the Apostle.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)

The best evidence is that the Apostle Peter died in the Babylonian territory where also his first letter and likely his second were written from. 1 Peter 5:13 "The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son." Available evidence clearly shows that "Babylon" refers to the city on the Euphrates and not to Rome, as some have claimed.

Having been entrusted with "the good news for those who are circumcised," Peter could be expected to serve in a centre of Judaism, such as Babylon. Galatians 2:8-9 "(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision."

There was a large Jewish population in Babylon. The Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem, 1971, Vol. 15, col. 755), when discussing production of the Babylonian Talmud, refers to Judaism's "great academies of Babylon" during the Common Era. Since Peter wrote to "the temporary residents scattered about in [literal] Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia" (1Peter 1:1)

The first to claim that Peter was martyred at Rome is Dionysius, bishop of Corinth in the latter half of the second century. Earlier, Clement of Rome, though mentioning Paul and Peter together, makes Paul's preaching in both the East and the West a distinguishing feature of that apostle, implying that Peter was never in the West. As the vicious persecution of Christians by the Roman government (under Nero) had seemingly not yet begun, there would have been no reason for Peter to veil the identity of Rome by the use of another name.

When Paul wrote to the Romans, sending greetings by name to many in Rome, he omitted Peter. Had Peter been a leading overseer there, this would have been an unlikely omission. Also, Peter's name is not included among those sending greetings in Paul's letters written from Rome, "Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 2"Timothy, Philemon, Hebrews.

Someone sent the following to me some years ago; WHO? I can't remember, but I found it interesting enough to store in 'My Documents.'

From "The Chief Gods of Rome:”

"There were two gods of ancient Rome which were pre-eminently worshipped as PETER-gods. One was JU-PETER (Zeus-Peter). The other, says the Classical Manual, was JANUS, called PATER or PETER (see page 389). Sometimes these two gods are confused. But they are to be reckoned as distinct -- relative to Roman paganism of the First Century. The latter god, JANUS-PETER, had some interesting roles to play in the pagan religion at Rome. These roles answer the question: Who was the original Peter of Rome? Notice a brief history and some of the activities of this god.

Plutarch in his life of Numa, gives us the identity of JANUS. Originally, according to Plutarch, Janus was an ancient prince who reigned in the infancy of the world. He brought men from a rude and savage life to a mild and rational system. HE was the first to build cities and the first to establish government over men. After his death he was deified. There can be no mistaking who this JANUS was! This title was just another of the many names of Nimrod. This ancient prince who was violently killed, was later deified by the pagan religions. Because of his high authority, he was called a PATOR or PETER.

Here are some of the religious activities of which JANUS-PETER was in charge.

It was JANUS-PETER who was pre-eminent in interpreting the times -- especially prophecy. "The past and the future was always present in his mind" (Classical Manual, pages 388 and 389). He was pictured as being double-faced. Plutarch said this was a symbol of his endeavor to change men from barbarism to civilization -- that is, bring them to the civilization of NIMROD. One of JANUS' roles, after his deification as a god, was the continuation of his sacred task of "civilizing" men.

Janus-Peter Had "Keys": The PETER-god JANUS was to the ancient Romans the "KEEPER OF THE GATES OF HEAVEN AND EARTH." "HE IS REPRESENTED WITH A KEY IN ONE HAND . . . as emblematic of his presiding over GATES and highways." The pagan Romans were calling their JANUS a PETER hundreds of years before the birth of the Apostle Peter. It was this JANUS who was in charge of the "pearly gates"! The very word JANUS means "gates," that is, the one in charge of the GATES.

The Classical Manual continues: "Ovid speaks of him [Janus] in the first book of his Fasti; his face is double to denote his equal empire over the heavens and the earth -- [does not the Pope claim the same power today?] -- and that all things are open and shut to him AT HIS WILL -- [he was infallible and answered to no one for his actions, so the Pope] -- that he governs the universe [Catholicum], and alone possesses the power of making the world revolve on its axis; THAT HE PRESIDES OVER THE GATES OF HEAVEN."

Catholics Claim the "Keys":

The Catholic Church claims Peter gave to it the keys of the gates of heaven and that no one will enter into God's presence unless that church opens the gates. The very word "Cardinal" means "hinge." The Cardinals of the Roman Church are the HINGES upon which the GATE -- the Pope -- is able to turn.

The Classical Manual continues: "the successions of day and night are regulated by his influence; and that the east and the west is at one moment open to his view." It was JANUS-PETER who also controlled the calendar by his priests. The first month of the year was named after him to show his control over the years. So, today, we still have JANU-ary as the first month. The Catholic Church, like the priests of Janus, feels it has this same authority over the calendar today."

Petra was a counterpart of Hades in Greek mythology. Petra held the Key to the Pearly Gates of Celestial Aphrodite who deposited semen in rocks as gemstones. The "Petras" stones were very much like the phallic Asherah stone pillars. And that is why "Peter" is a nickname for penis, for Pete's sake.

Why do you avoid answering my question? " 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?"

Nick M
April 21st, 2017, 09:46 PM
Somebody likely from the 12 proselytized Romans to Israel. Paul's letter shows this. Peter, Simon bar Jonah is buried at the mount of Olives, exactly where he should be.

jsanford108
April 21st, 2017, 10:32 PM
The best evidence is that the Apostle Peter died in the Babylonian territory where also his first letter and likely his second were written from.

The first to claim that Peter was martyred at Rome is Dionysius, bishop of Corinth in the latter half of the second century. Earlier, Clement of Rome, though mentioning Paul and Peter together, makes Paul's preaching in both the East and the West a distinguishing feature of that apostle, implying that Peter was never in the West. As the vicious persecution of Christians by the Roman government (under Nero) had seemingly not yet begun, there would have been no reason for Peter to veil the identity of Rome by the use of another name.

When Paul wrote to the Romans, sending greetings by name to many in Rome, he omitted Peter. Had Peter been a leading overseer there, this would have been an unlikely omission. Also, Peter's name is not included among those sending greetings in Paul's letters written from Rome, "Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 2"Timothy, Philemon, Hebrews.

Someone sent the following to me some years ago; WHO? I can't remember, but I found it interesting enough to store in 'My Documents.'

Petra was a counterpart of Hades in Greek mythology. Petra held the Key to the Pearly Gates of Celestial Aphrodite who deposited semen in rocks as gemstones. The "Petras" stones were very much like the phallic Asherah stone pillars. And that is why "Peter" is a nickname for penis, for Pete's sake.

Why do you avoid answering my question? " 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?"

First, I will answer your question (again). Yes. I do hold to all that the Roman Catholic Church teaches and believes. (It is not "the Church of Constantine;" I can demonstrate this with historical evidence if need be)

Second, I like that you have at least educated yourself on theories put forth regarding "Babylon" as a code for Rome. I agree that it is most likely not a code word. I do find it interesting how many anti-Catholics dismiss the quotes of Peter saying "Babylon is not a code word," but then say that Babylon is a code for Rome in Revelation. (That is contradictory and hypocritical)

Third, Peter is said to have been martyred in Rome, as demonstrated by Tertullian, Dionysius, etc. Why would these early writers, who are within a single generation of Peter just make such a thing up? Would not those around correct them? This goes against logic and history.

Fourth, the reason you claim Peter did not die in Rome goes back to "it isn't in the Bible." Which is just as baseless as the argument of "well doesn't say he didn't."

Fifth, how do you defend the letters that speak of Peter "who went before me to Rome," by various early Christians (such as Polycarp), and found in some Epistles?

Sixth, (I am almost done) the whole connection between mythology and Peter is quite flimsy, at best. The arguments are set up (I hate the term, bust Straw man does apply) solely to make their own inferences make sense. The whole Petra and Aphrodite (who was a goddess, not a location) info is just so haphazardly connected and set up as illusory that it falters under the slightest scrutinies. Plus, the idea that "Peter" was applied in reference to a Roman figure/deity: come on. This is completely ignoring Aramic, Greek, and Latin languages and the ancient Scripture texts. Thus, losing all scholarly, academic, and historical credibility.

Finally, this theory provided, as the many others out there, trying to show Peter was never in Rome are all kind of pointless. Really, what did it matter? It is all a smoke and mirrors attempt to paint The RCC as a fake authority. But really, it doesn't event succeed in that due to gaps of logic and reason. Peter never had to be in Rome to be Pope. This is a misapplication that many Protestants utilize as a means of saying "see, the RCC is illegitimate." I could go on on that subject all day, but I have exhausted the subject enough now.

If you don't mind, would you send me the document via PM? Or at least the source material from which you have quoted? I know you said you didn't recall who sent it (surely no one is so ridiculous as to care about such a trivial detail), but I would like the source (I couldn't find anything on "Chief Gods of Rome," or "Classical Manual"). I just enjoy growing in knowledge of all things, even those opposed to my faith or those who I obviously disagree with. It keeps one educated.

Thank you though for this post.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)

S-word
April 22nd, 2017, 04:49 PM
First, I will answer your question (again). Yes. I do hold to all that the Roman Catholic Church teaches and believes. (It is not "the Church of Constantine;" I can demonstrate this with historical evidence if need be)

Second, I like that you have at least educated yourself on theories put forth regarding "Babylon" as a code for Rome. I agree that it is most likely not a code word. I do find it interesting how many anti-Catholics dismiss the quotes of Peter saying "Babylon is not a code word," but then say that Babylon is a code for Rome in Revelation. (That is contradictory and hypocritical)

Third, Peter is said to have been martyred in Rome, as demonstrated by Tertullian, Dionysius, etc. Why would these early writers, who are within a single generation of Peter just make such a thing up? Would not those around correct them? This goes against logic and history.

Fourth, the reason you claim Peter did not die in Rome goes back to "it isn't in the Bible." Which is just as baseless as the argument of "well doesn't say he didn't."

Fifth, how do you defend the letters that speak of Peter "who went before me to Rome," by various early Christians (such as Polycarp), and found in some Epistles?

Sixth, (I am almost done) the whole connection between mythology and Peter is quite flimsy, at best. The arguments are set up (I hate the term, bust Straw man does apply) solely to make their own inferences make sense. The whole Petra and Aphrodite (who was a goddess, not a location) info is just so haphazardly connected and set up as illusory that it falters under the slightest scrutinies. Plus, the idea that "Peter" was applied in reference to a Roman figure/deity: come on. This is completely ignoring Aramic, Greek, and Latin languages and the ancient Scripture texts. Thus, losing all scholarly, academic, and historical credibility.

Finally, this theory provided, as the many others out there, trying to show Peter was never in Rome are all kind of pointless. Really, what did it matter? It is all a smoke and mirrors attempt to paint The RCC as a fake authority. But really, it doesn't event succeed in that due to gaps of logic and reason. Peter never had to be in Rome to be Pope. This is a misapplication that many Protestants utilize as a means of saying "see, the RCC is illegitimate." I could go on on that subject all day, but I have exhausted the subject enough now.

If you don't mind, would you send me the document via PM? Or at least the source material from which you have quoted? I know you said you didn't recall who sent it (surely no one is so ridiculous as to care about such a trivial detail), but I would like the source (I couldn't find anything on "Chief Gods of Rome," or "Classical Manual"). I just enjoy growing in knowledge of all things, even those opposed to my faith or those who I obviously disagree with. It keeps one educated.

Thank you though for this post.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)

Why do you avoid answering my question, are you afraid to do so? That question being; "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?"

Zeke
April 23rd, 2017, 05:27 AM
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
No all that is allegory and happens in man. The rulers of the roman corporation know that yet lie to the indoctrinated servants that it's secular history.

Sent from my A462C using TheologyOnline mobile app ('https://siteowners.tapatalk.com/byo/displayAndDownloadByoApp?rid=78367')

jsanford108
April 23rd, 2017, 05:35 PM
Why do you avoid answering my question, are you afraid to do so? That question being; "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?"

You realize that you literally provided a quote of mine (#84), in your response (#85) where the first thing I did was answer? Or do you just keep getting discouraged by my constant disproving of your misapplied falsehoods to Catholicism?

For the fourth time; I believe and hold true all that the Roman Catholic Church teaches and believes. It is not the Church of Constantine (by a continual stating of the RCC in such a manner, it demonstrates a gross lack of historical understanding and research; an ignorance or rejection of historical accuracy and evidence).


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)

S-word
April 24th, 2017, 01:12 AM
You realize that you literally provided a quote of mine (#84), in your response (#85) where the first thing I did was answer? Or do you just keep getting discouraged by my constant disproving of your misapplied falsehoods to Catholicism?

For the fourth time; I believe and hold true all that the Roman Catholic Church teaches and believes. It is not the Church of Constantine (by a continual stating of the RCC in such a manner, it demonstrates a gross lack of historical understanding and research; an ignorance or rejection of historical accuracy and evidence).


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)

No! You have never once answered my question directly, "Do you believe that the pope who is the head of the Roman church of Emperor Constantine, believe that he is the shepherd of God's people who was raised up after he was rejected by the Jews."

Nevertheless, you have agreed that you believe and hold true all that the Roman Catholic Church teaches and believes. And we all know that the Roman church teaches that the head of that church, claims to be the shepherd of God's people.

Do you believe the words of the Lord as spoken through his prophets?

If so, do you believe this prophecy given by the Lord through his prophet Zechariah 11: 12-17;

"Zechariah 11:12-17English Standard Version (ESV)

12 Then I said to them, “If it seems good to you, give me my wages; but if not, keep them.” And they weighed out as my wages thirty pieces of silver. 13 Then the Lord said to me, “Throw it to the potter”—the lordly price at which I was priced by them. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the Lord, to the potter. 14 Then I broke my second staff Union, annulling the brotherhood between Judah and Israel.

15 Then the Lord said to me, “Take once more the equipment of a foolish shepherd. 16 For behold, I am raising up in the land a shepherd who does not care for those being destroyed, or seek the young or heal the maimed or nourish the healthy, but devours the flesh of the fat ones, tearing off even their hoofs.

17
“Woe to my worthless shepherd,
who deserts the flock!
May the sword strike his arm
and his right eye!
Let his arm be wholly withered,
his right eye utterly blinded!”


The Catholic church, claims that their head is the new shepherd that God raised up to guide his people after the Jews had rejected him, is that worthless shepherd.

Oh! You shepherd of the darkness who claim God sent you out
And even though we know that's true that fact I wouldn't flout
For God commanded Zechariah, "Throw my wages cross the floor
Those thirty bits of silver, for I'll guide this flock no more.
A useless shepherd now I'll raise to guide that stubborn flock
And he will be a worthless one of him I'll take no stock
For he'll not feed my little ones, nor search for them that's lost
But he eats the meat of the fattest sheep, and their hoofs? He tears them off.
That worthless shepherd he is doomed for abandoning my flock
His power will I destroy by war, his arm will wither dry then drop
And his right eye will I turn blind, that's why he's never seen
The passage where I speak of him, Zechariah eleven: twelve to seventeen.

The church of Rome claims that she is the bride of Christ, when the Lord tells us that it not Rome, but Jerusalem, who is the bride of Christ.

From the catholic Study Edition of the bible: 1st letter of John 4:1-3; "My dear friends, do not believe all who claim to have the spirit/teaching, (My words are spirit said the Lord through his servant Jesus) but test them to find out if the spirit/teaching they have comes from God. For many false prophets have gone out everywhere. This is how you will be able to know if it is Gods spirit/word: anyone who acknowledges that Jesus came as a human being has the spirit/teaching, who comes from God. But anyone who denies this about Jesus does not have the spirit from God. The spirit that he has is from the enemy of the anointed one, the Anti-christ etc."

2nd letter of John verses 7-10;."Many deceivers have gone out all over the world, people who do not acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being. Such a person is a deceiver and an enemy of Christ."

If you would care to open your eyes, I'm sure that you will have little difficulty in finding the teaching of the anti-christ, which does not deny that Jesus had come, but which refused to acknowledge that Jesus was a true human being born of the seed of Adam, and descended through the genetic line of David, which lie has been spread throughout the entire WORLD.

Rome who denies that Jesus came as a human being is the bride of the Anti-Christ, who has been brought down by Christ, and yet she claims that she is no widow and will never see the grave.

Come out of her my people, do not share in her sins
You must not share her punishment, her judgement day has come.
Her sins are piled to heaven and God recalls her evil ways
She says "I am no widow and I'll never see the grave,"
Because of that in just one day disease will strike her down
Plagues and famine she'll receive, til finally she'll be burned.
You must pay her back two fold for all that she has done
Fill her cup as she filled yours, but make it twice as strong
For all the glory she has claimed and all her luxury
Must be repaid this very day, with pain and misery.

Over the centuries the false teaching of the anti-christ continued to evolve. But as the followers of the anti-christ became more enlightened and harder to deceive. In Alexandria, by the second century, Docetism, the concept that Jesus had existed as a spirit rather than a human being, had all but theoretically been stamped out.

But still, there persisted the belief that their false Jesus, although seen as a sort of human being, did not have our normal bodily needs, such as eating, drinking and having to go to the toilet, and Clement the bishop of Alexandria, wrote: "It would be ridiculous to imagine that the redeemer, in order to exist, had the usual needs of man. He only took food and ate it in order that we should not teach about him in a Docetic fashion." Satan must have been some sort of an idiot believing that this false Jesus of theirs, who had no need of food such as we human beings do, was starving hungry after a mere 40 days without food, who then tried to tempt him into turning stones into bread.

Their Jesus was not the Jesus as taught by the apostles, but that other Jesus, taught by the Anti-Christ, who unlike we mere HUMAN BEINGS, did not need to eat, drink, or go to the toilet, as was taught by one of the great teachers that the members of the universal church, loved to use as one of their authorities when trying to defend one of their false doctrines.

Saint Clement of Alexandria, who was a saint in the Martyrology of the Roman universal church of Emperor Constantine, in support of the great lie, speaks of the time that some imaginary midwife, (Which is not supported by scripture) who was supposed to be at the birth of Jesus, told some woman by the name Salome, that the mother was still a virgin after the birth and that her hymen was still intact, (Which is not supported by scripture) and that this supposed Salome, stuck her finger into the mother's vagina to check, and her hand immediately withered up, but the baby Jesus reached out and touched her hand and healed it.(What utter unadulterated crap)

Down to the 17th century Clement was venerated as a saint. His name was to be found in the Martyrologies, and his feast fell on December 4. But when the Roman Martyrology was revised by Clement VIII (Pope from 1592 to 1605), his name was dropped from the calendar on the advice of his confessor, Cardinal Baronius. Pope Benedict XIV in 1748 maintained his predecessor's decision on the grounds that Clement's life was little-known; that he had never obtained public cultus in the Church; and that some of his doctrines were, if not erroneous, at least highly suspect.

Erroneous and highly suspect, you can say that again, but by then the great lie had become so entrenched in the minds of the gullible that their heads were so mixed up and set as hard as concrete, one would need a sledge hammer to shatter that conglomerat and allow the light of truth to shine in.

Truster
April 24th, 2017, 01:23 AM
No! You have never once answered my question directly, "Do you believe that the pope who is the head of the Roman church of Emperor Constantine, believe that he is the shepherd of God's people who was raised up after he was rejected by the Jews."

Nevertheless, you have agreed that you believe and hold true all that the Roman Catholic Church teaches and believes. And we all know that the Roman church teaches that the head of that church, claims to be the shepherd of God's people.

Do you believe the words of the Lord as spoken through his prophets?

If so, do you believe this prophecy given by the Lord through his prophet Zechariah 11: 12-17;

"Zechariah 11:12-17English Standard Version (ESV)

12 Then I said to them, “If it seems good to you, give me my wages; but if not, keep them.” And they weighed out as my wages thirty pieces of silver. 13 Then the Lord said to me, “Throw it to the potter”—the lordly price at which I was priced by them. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the Lord, to the potter. 14 Then I broke my second staff Union, annulling the brotherhood between Judah and Israel.

15 Then the Lord said to me, “Take once more the equipment of a foolish shepherd. 16 For behold, I am raising up in the land a shepherd who does not care for those being destroyed, or seek the young or heal the maimed or nourish the healthy, but devours the flesh of the fat ones, tearing off even their hoofs.

17
“Woe to my worthless shepherd,
who deserts the flock!
May the sword strike his arm
and his right eye!
Let his arm be wholly withered,
his right eye utterly blinded!”


The Catholic church, claims that their head is the new shepherd that God raised up to guide his people after the Jews had rejected him, is that worthless shepherd.

Oh! You shepherd of the darkness who claim God sent you out
And even though we know that's true that fact I wouldn't flout
For God commanded Zechariah, "Throw my wages cross the floor
Those thirty bits of silver, for I'll guide this flock no more.
A useless shepherd now I'll raise to guide that stubborn flock
And he will be a worthless one of him I'll take no stock
For he'll not feed my little ones, nor search for them that's lost
But he eats the meat of the fattest sheep, and their hoofs? He tears them off.
That worthless shepherd he is doomed for abandoning my flock
His power will I destroy by war, his arm will wither dry then drop
And his right eye will I turn blind, that's why he's never seen
The passage where I speak of him, Zechariah eleven: twelve to seventeen.

The church of Rome claims that she is the bride of Christ, when the Lord tells us that it not Rome, but Jerusalem, who is the bride of Christ.

From the catholic Study Edition of the bible: 1st letter of John 4:1-3; "My dear friends, do not believe all who claim to have the spirit/teaching, (My words are spirit said the Lord through his servant Jesus) but test them to find out if the spirit/teaching they have comes from God. For many false prophets have gone out everywhere. This is how you will be able to know if it is Gods spirit/word: anyone who acknowledges that Jesus came as a human being has the spirit/teaching, who comes from God. But anyone who denies this about Jesus does not have the spirit from God. The spirit that he has is from the enemy of the anointed one, the Anti-christ etc."

2nd letter of John verses 7-10;."Many deceivers have gone out all over the world, people who do not acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being. Such a person is a deceiver and an enemy of Christ."

If you would care to open your eyes, I'm sure that you will have little difficulty in finding the teaching of the anti-christ, which does not deny that Jesus had come, but which refused to acknowledge that Jesus was a true human being born of the seed of Adam, and descended through the genetic line of David, which lie has been spread throughout the entire WORLD.

Rome who denies that Jesus came as a human being is the bride of the Anti-Christ, who has been brought down by Christ, and yet she claims that she is no widow and will never see the grave.

Come out of her my people, do not share in her sins
You must not share her punishment, her judgement day has come.
Her sins are piled to heaven and God recalls her evil ways
She says "I am no widow and I'll never see the grave,"
Because of that in just one day disease will strike her down
Plagues and famine she'll receive, til finally she'll be burned.
You must pay her back two fold for all that she has done
Fill her cup as she filled yours, but make it twice as strong
For all the glory she has claimed and all her luxury
Must be repaid this very day, with pain and misery.

Over the centuries the false teaching of the anti-christ continued to evolve. But as the followers of the anti-christ became more enlightened and harder to deceive. In Alexandria, by the second century, Docetism, the concept that Jesus had existed as a spirit rather than a human being, had all but theoretically been stamped out.

But still, there persisted the belief that their false Jesus, although seen as a sort of human being, did not have our normal bodily needs, such as eating, drinking and having to go to the toilet, and Clement the bishop of Alexandria, wrote: "It would be ridiculous to imagine that the redeemer, in order to exist, had the usual needs of man. He only took food and ate it in order that we should not teach about him in a Docetic fashion." Satan must have been some sort of an idiot believing that this false Jesus of theirs, who had no need of food such as we human beings do, was starving hungry after a mere 40 days without food, who then tried to tempt him into turning stones into bread.

Their Jesus was not the Jesus as taught by the apostles, but that other Jesus, taught by the Anti-Christ, who unlike we mere HUMAN BEINGS, did not need to eat, drink, or go to the toilet, as was taught by one of the great teachers that the members of the universal church, loved to use as one of their authorities when trying to defend one of their false doctrines.

Saint Clement of Alexandria, who was a saint in the Martyrology of the Roman universal church of Emperor Constantine, in support of the great lie, speaks of the time that some imaginary midwife, (Which is not supported by scripture) who was supposed to be at the birth of Jesus, told some woman by the name Salome, that the mother was still a virgin after the birth and that her hymen was still intact, (Which is not supported by scripture) and that this supposed Salome, stuck her finger into the mother's vagina to check, and her hand immediately withered up, but the baby Jesus reached out and touched her hand and healed it.(What utter unadulterated crap)

Down to the 17th century Clement was venerated as a saint. His name was to be found in the Martyrologies, and his feast fell on December 4. But when the Roman Martyrology was revised by Clement VIII (Pope from 1592 to 1605), his name was dropped from the calendar on the advice of his confessor, Cardinal Baronius. Pope Benedict XIV in 1748 maintained his predecessor's decision on the grounds that Clement's life was little-known; that he had never obtained public cultus in the Church; and that some of his doctrines were, if not erroneous, at least highly suspect.

Erroneous and highly suspect, you can say that again, but by then the great lie had become so entrenched in the minds of the gullible that their heads were so mixed up and set as hard as concrete, one would need a sledge hammer to shatter that conglomerat and allow the light of truth to shine in.

The Roman Catholic cult is an instrument of judgement. Those that hold not the love of the truth are deluded therein. What, on the surface, you see as a negative evil. I see as a cause to rejoice in saying, "just art thou and upright are Thy judgements".

S-word
April 24th, 2017, 02:21 AM
The Roman Catholic cult is an instrument of judgement. Those that hold not the love of the truth are deluded therein. What, on the surface, you see as a negative evil. I see as a cause to rejoice in saying, "just art thou and upright are Thy judgements".

How could I see the Roman church of Emperor Constantine as an negative evil, when I prove from the scriptures that God raised it up after he was paid his majestic wage of thirty pieces of Silver.

God raised the worthless shepherd for a purpose and that purpose was for Good and not for evil.

But you, who have proven yourself ignorant to the Holy Scriptures and tried to Justify the untruths spoken by Stephen against the word of God, have not a clue as to why the Lord raised it up and is soon to destroy it.

Truster
April 24th, 2017, 02:27 AM
How could I see the Roman church of Emperor Constantine as an negative evil, when I prove from the scriptures that God raised it up after he was paid his majestic wage of thirty pieces of Silver.

God raised the worthless shepherd for a purpose and that purpose was for Good and not for evil.

But you, who have proven yourself ignorant to the Holy Scriptures and tried to Justify the untruths spoken by Stephen against the word of God, have not a clue as to why the Lord raised it up and is soon to destroy it.


If you don't see it as a negative evil why do you say that the Almighty is going to destroy it?

Wait for the twisted answer...

S-word
April 24th, 2017, 02:41 AM
If you don't see it as a negative evil why do you say that the Almighty is going to destroy it?

Wait for the twisted answer...

It has served the purpose for which it was established, and the old must be removed in order to make way for the new.

But you haven't the ability to comprehend that, have you?

Truster
April 24th, 2017, 02:43 AM
It has served the purpose for which it was established, and the old must be removed in order to make way for the new.

But you haven't the ability to comprehend that, have you?

One twisted answer.

Is it evil or not?

S-word
April 24th, 2017, 02:50 AM
One twisted answer.

Is it evil or not?

HEY! You're the one who passes judgement on everyone and every establishment that does not agree with your ridiculous and erroneous interpretation of the scriptures, not I.

I know that God raised the worthless shepherd up for a purpose, and unlike you, I would never accuse God of doing that for an evil purpose.

I have already told you that God had risen the Roman church up for a purpose and that purpose was for good.

Truster
April 24th, 2017, 02:55 AM
HEY! You're the one who passes judgement on everyone and every establishment that does not agree with your ridiculous and erroneous interpretation of the scriptures, not I.

I know that God raised the worthless shepherd up for a purpose, and unlike you, I would never accuse God of doing that for an evil purpose.

I have already told you the God had risen the Roman church up for a purpose and that purpose was for good.

I was waiting for you to deny the sovereign will of the Almighty is not allowed to create evil or to send evil upon the wicked. Are the vessels of wrath not evil? Who made them?

In attempting to honour you have denigrated Him.

S-word
April 24th, 2017, 03:19 AM
I was waiting for you to deny the sovereign will of the Almighty is not allowed to create evil or to send evil upon the wicked. Are the vessels of wrath not evil? Who made them?

In attempting to honour you have denigrated Him.

Truster wrote..........I was waiting for you to deny the sovereign will of the Almighty is not allowed to create evil or to send evil upon the wicked.

S-word..........Oh, I know that you believe that God lies and that he causes people to do evil deeds in order that he can destroy them. But I don't.

Truster wrote........Are the vessels of wrath not evil? Who made them?

S-word........Truster appears to believe that God created people to do evil deeds in order that he might send his wrath upon them.

The choice was theirs my friend, to do good deeds or to do evil deeds, eternal life or eternal death is your choice.

But like those vessels who are to receive the wrath of God because of the evil deeds they commit, you still have time to repent and turn from your evil judgemental ways.

Truster
April 24th, 2017, 03:32 AM
Truster wrote..........I was waiting for you to deny the sovereign will of the Almighty is not allowed to create evil or to send evil upon the wicked.

S-word..........Oh, I know that you believe that God lies and that he causes people to do evil deeds in order that he can destroy them. But I don't.

Truster wrote........Are the vessels of wrath not evil? Who made them?

S-word........Truster appears to believe that God created people to do evil deeds in order that he might send his wrath upon them.

The choice was theirs my friend, to do good deeds or to do evil deeds, eternal life or eternal death is your choice.

But like those vessels who are to receive the wrath of God because of the evil deeds they commit, you still have time to repent and turn from your evil judgemental ways.


And Yah Veh said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.