Nicene Creed

I can't resist sharing more, it's probably too much but whatever, they're short paragraphs anyway and it's not like I'm posting the whole article, I still skipped a lot of background history:

The Wrong Choice

Some apologists sensed the danger that philosophy could pose to the Christian faith. Yet, even though they criticized the philosophers, they still loved the intellectual approach of philosophy. Tatian, for example, denounced the philosophers for accomplishing nothing good but, at the same time, called the Christian religion “our philosophy” and indulged in philosophical speculations. Tertullian on the one hand decried the influence of pagan philosophy on Christian thinking. On the other hand, he stated that he wanted to follow in the steps of “Justin, philosopher and martyr; Miltiades, the sophist of the churches,” and others. Athenagoras called himself “a Christian philosopher of Athens.” As for Clement, it is said that he felt that “philosophy can be judiciously used by the Christian as an aid to wisdom and the defense of the faith.”

Whatever success these apologists might have had in defending their faith, they had nonetheless committed a serious error in their defense. How so? The apostle Paul reminded Christians that among the spiritual weapons at their disposal, none is more potent than “the word of God,” which “is alive and exerts power.” With it, Paul said, “we are overturning reasonings and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God.”—Hebrews 4:12; 2 Corinthians 10:4, 5; Ephesians 6:17.

On the night before he was killed, Jesus told his disciples: “Take courage! I have conquered the world.” (John 16:33) The trials and tribulations that he experienced in the world had not overcome his faith and his loyalty to his Father. Similarly, the last surviving apostle, John, wrote: “This is the conquest that has conquered the world, our faith.” (1 John 5:4) Although the apologists wanted to defend the Christian faith, they made the wrong choice in adopting the ideas and the approach of worldly philosophy. In so doing, the apologists allowed themselves to be seduced by such philosophies and, in effect, allowed the world to conquer them and their brand of Christianity. So rather than being champions and defenders of true Christian faith, the apologists of the early church, perhaps unwittingly, fell into the trap set by Satan, who “keeps transforming himself into an angel of light.”—2 Corinthians 11:14.

The clergy and theologians of the churches today have largely followed in the same path. Instead of defending true Christianity by using God’s Word, they often downgrade the Bible and resort to worldly philosophy in their teaching in an effort to win over public opinion and the establishment. Rather than sounding a warning against the dangers of following the unscriptural trends of the world, they have become teachers who do their best to ‘tickle the ears’ of their listeners in order to win adherents. (2 Timothy 4:3) Sadly, as did the early apologists, these teachers have ignored the apostolic warning: “Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry you off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ.” And we are reminded that “their end shall be according to their works.”—Colossians 2:8; 2 Corinthians 11:15.

Perhaps after reading the above the videos below (containing some of the same bible quotations) will make more sense:


Trinity Doctrine, A False Teaching Of Man, Council of Nicaea (context playlist)

The early christian apologists did what they had to do. To defend their faith. In an arguable the best way.

On the emergence of the Trinity

Christians had a dilemma as soon as they declared that Christ was God. If Christ is God and God the Father is God, doesn't that make two gods? And when you throw the Holy Spirit into the mix, doesn't that make three gods? So aren't Christians polytheists? Christians wanted to insist, no, they're monotheists. Well, if they're monotheists, how can all three be God?

So there are various ways of trying to explain this, and one of the most popular ways ... was called modalism. It's called modalism because it insisted that God existed in three modes — just as I myself at the same time am a son, and a brother and a father, but there's only one of me — well these theologians said: That's what God is like. He's manifest in three persons, but there's only one of him, so he's at the same time father, son and spirit. So he's in three modes of existence, so there's only one of him.

- Bart Erhman
How Jesus Become God

www.npr.org...

Designating Jesus as the “one Lord” stresses His role as the One who exercises God’s rule over creation—the point being that the Father does not do so directly but acts through Jesus Christ. This fact is a crucial aspect of defining God. And particularly for us, just as David recognized, Jesus is our immediate Lord and Master—the Father being ultimate Lord and Master. But there is no division in allegiance, for devotion to Christ is the way we are devoted to the Father. So again, the fact that the Father is Lord does not contradict Jesus being the “one Lord.” For their lordship is not divided. Rather, the Father rules through the Son.

This then, in stark contrast to the competing deities of pagan polytheism, is Paul’s brief explanation of true monotheism—God the Father, who is supreme, working through the Son, who perfectly carries out His will, these two being one in unity. And it is through Jesus that we worship and serve the Father. Thus, we should be able to see that Paul in 1 Corinthians 8 was not denying the deity of Christ but was, rather, affirming it through carefully chosen wording.

www.ucg.org...

If Jesus had not been declared God by his followers, his followers would've remained a sect within Judaism — a small Jewish sect, and if that was the case it would not have attracted a large number of gentiles. If they hadn't attracted a large number of gentiles, there wouldn't have been this steady rate of conversion over the first three centuries to Christianity; it would've been a small Jewish sect.

If Christianity had not become a sizable minority in the empire, the Roman emperor Constantine almost certainly would not have converted, but then there wouldn't have been the masses of conversions after Constantine, and Christianity would not have become the state religion of Rome. If that hadn't happened, it would never have become the dominant religious, cultural, political, social, economic force that it became so that we wouldn't have even had the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, the Reformation or modernity as we know it. ... It all hinges on this claim the early Christians had that Jesus was God.

- Bart Erhman
How Jesus Become God

www.npr.org...


Conclusion:
If Paul didn't act as self apointed the "Apostle of Gentiles" in the first place, none of this could have happen. Almost everything Paul wrote, included Jesus alongside God the Creator. The Gospel of Paul. And all this Son of God things The Jewish traditionally addresed for themselves poisoned the Gentiles mind who dont understand Moses Law, THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUE GOD. This retard stupid pagans cant understand monotheism. They insisted to shoehorn their gnostic polytheist ignorant. Because they're indoctrined to believe every good Caesers must be Lords, therefore must be Gods, therefore must be applied to Jesus and christians.

The early christian apologists refined the principles laid to them by their teacher Paul with their own Greek Logos. The early christian apologists expended the God-Son-Holy Ghost unity philosophy through Logos because they had to explained why there're 3 Gods. The Council of Nicea was called to resolve such disputes. As a result we have the Creed we have today.

a reply to: EasternShadow



They didn't have to lie.

Invent a false god.

What's with you?


How many things must I refute you on before you quit trying?

Paul invented the Trinity you say.

I proved you wrong it Theophilus 2nd century.

So you run with apologizing for apologists who were corrupt liars just to avoid saying you were wrong?

I had no problem admitting you understood math better than I although I wonder now...

Nevertheless it's because I made it clear the Fibonacci sequence had no relevance to the topic and you've been obsessed with "correcting" me on anything ever since.

It's really sad.

a reply to: Disturbinatti

You clearly didnt read all the previous posts, didnt you?

Let me ask you something, who teach Jesus is God? and who teach Jesus is son of God in the first place?

Without this things how trinity supposedly pop out from 2nd and 3rd centuries church fathers?

Without cause, how is effect suppose to happen?

Did Theophilus of 2nd century happen to know the basic principle that Jesus is God and Jesus is God Son all by himself?
Of course not, someone must have teach him. Because someone had teach him, only then he can called this new theory a trinity.

And to whereislogic:

I told you that more words doesn't equal more right already. That's true for everyone.

Only right makes you right.

I use the Gospels to prove my case.

You rely on quoting modern apologists, who are nothing but liars and more corrupt than the relatively unwise Council of Nicea.

Your attempts to refute the truth are no longer admirable because I have established beyond doubt that:

1. Jesus pbuh denied being God.

2. The Trinity was first mentioned in the second century by Theophilus and the Nicene Creed made it Dogma.

3. But Jesus pbuh refuted the very possibility of it. "God is ONE" "Worship HIM."

4. John's Gospel is better for proving this than any other because of it's quotes and the little known deception that is Tontheon vs theos making the Greek original only say that the Word is theos/divine.

5. Yohann Theos or John the Divine is not God but called theos too.

I don't need to say anymore.

a reply to: Disturbinatti

2. The Trinity was first mentioned in the second century by Theophilus and the Nicene Creed made it Dogma.

And you dont check your fact very well, do you?

Though conservative in his worldview, Tertullian originated new theological concepts and advanced the development of early Church doctrine. He is perhaps most famous for being the first writer in Latin known to use the term trinity (Latin: trinitas). According to The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Tertullian's trinity [is] not a triune God, but rather a triad or group of three, with God as the founding member".

A Berber Roman. This is what you get when you dont educate a gentile with proper Mosses teaching and Abraham Law or at least get some Judaism qualification first.

a reply to: whereislogic



Unless you provide Biblical quotes with proof that:

1. Jesus pbuh declared himself God.

2. Trinity is in the Bible.

Give up you are defeated.


Jesus pbuh denied so many times that he was God it's impossible for you to accomplish and yet you refuse to give up but why can't you formulate your own or provide someone else's coherent argument for Trinity?


Because one doesn't exist.

The truth is hard to stomach but 2 billion trinitarians, less because of the JWs and Unitarian Church who are both despised which in the case of the JW leadership I get but they are nice people and so are the Unitarians who will not be admitted into some union of fundamentalists because of their tolerance and reasonable, humble decision to admit the truth.

That's where you should seek justification, as they are a great community who accept anyone and hold to the teachings of Christ admirably and bother no one.

It is not just because they are known for considering Islam a brother/sister religion that makes me say this and I don't agree with everything they do but I don't agree with everything Sufis do and I am one of the Ashari tradition.

Why is honesty so difficult for some people?

Because Christian theology makes people mad with no ability to defend their doctrines using their own scripture which is the single best tool at refuting Pauline Christianity.

It doesn't have to be like that.

It's by design. There are as many people who wish Christians didn't exist and probably as many as feel that way about Islam and they don't want it to be hard when the time comes so they have destroyed the illusion that the Bible is infallible and it's everywhere.

It is when Christianity is no longer useful in the war on Islam as they are programmed to persecute and see nothing wrong with it and can't fathom the darkness that exists in this world so make it a cartoon about Mystery Babylon which is nonsense. But it's in the Bible so they listen.

They see the leaked conspiracies and never consider that they were leaked by the people that participate on purpose because what they are really doing is a lot worse.

They keep you occupied, asleep with your eyes open and you fight for it to continue out of misplaced zeal for evangelism which is just hard sell proselytizing and shady.

It's the only religion that actually tries to make everyone think like them every other religion you need to ask them and they usually say yes depending on the religion, Zoroastrians and Mandaeans don't accept converts and are dwindling because of it.

Without evangelism Islam is almost as large as Christianity and if you subtract the fringe groups that are technically Christian like Mormons just not considered to be by Christians it's even closer.

Think about that it's also younger by 600 years and despite persecution the fastest growing religion on earth.

Without evangelism.

a reply to: Disturbinatti

I have given you Paul testimonials through his various letters but you refused to take it.

Almost all scholars agree, The Gospel of John contains information of Jesus of Divinity. Those scholars happen to be Bard Ehrman and Michael Bird. But you refused those scholars views.
I have made it it clear The Gospel of John cant be the cause of trinity because trinity predate the gospel itself. But of course you ignore that too.

So.. if you continue to be ignorant, nothing will make any diffence no matter how much evidences are there, even if John or Paul appear in front of you.

a reply to: EasternShadow


No buddy we are through you have nothing to offer me and I don't find you credible.

Salaam.

originally posted by: Disturbinatti
a reply to: EasternShadow


No buddy we are through you have nothing to offer me and I don't find you credible.

Salaam.

It's not my fault if you dont read them.

Peace on you.

a reply to: EasternShadow



It's written all over this thread for anyone to see that you are not even aware of the facts before you speak and Paul and Trinity is the perfect example.

Another is that Trinity was pre Justin, Iranaeus.

All I had to do was Google it to prove you wrong and prior I admitted I was guessing, it ended up being LATER than I guessed.

You have no credibility, the proof is here.

Salaam for the actual last time.

a reply to: Disturbinatti
Credibility?

You have a credibility of primary schools compare to Bard Ehrman, Michael Bird and many others scholars in the field of Cristology.

The way I see it.. You are biased to your preset islamic prejudice. You have no desire to know the truth but merely want to make slenderous comments. Your statements are as wrong as you pointed Theophilus being the first to write about Trinity.
But of course, you get that 'fact' from Islamic source. Didnt you? Since your intrepretation on the Gospel of John is as screwed as any muslim scholars.

Next time, dont listen to one side of the story. But listen to both and try not let your bias to get in your way. And I am not a trinitarian.

Have a nice day.

a reply to: Disturbinatti


" whereislogic" DOES NOT believe in the Trinity, he has made dozens of posts and videos to that effect, yet for some inexplicable reason you keep posting against him, like he does, it's like you can't comprehend what he is posting.
But you should stop, it's embarrassing and making you look silly.

originally posted by: Disturbinatti
You rely on quoting modern apologists, ...

Hardly, since in my last set of comments I was focussing on 2nd and 3rd century apologists in response to the comments and names that were dropped by you and EasternShadow and only bringing them up for comparison with what the bible teaches compared to what they taught and in relation to the development of Trinitarian teachings and other Pagan philosophies connected to it (and perhaps more importantly, the associated behavioural patterns as described in the bible). My commentary is filled with bible references. It also often follows the standard pattern of looking at the historical facts and comparing them with what the bible really says or teaches.

And I'm still not arguing in favor of the doctrine of the Trinity or Trinitarian teachings unlike your replies to me seem to imply. This is the pattern:

Myth 1: The Soul Is Immortal

What is the origin of the myth?

“The early Christian philosophers adopted the Greek concept of the soul’s immortality and thought of the soul as being created by God and infused into the body at conception.”—The New Encyclopædia Britannica (1988), Volume 11, page 25.

What does the Bible say?

“The soul that sinneth, it shall die.”—Ezekiel 18:4, King James Version.

Regarding the creation of the first human soul, the Bible says: “Jehovah God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul [Hebrew, neʹphesh].”—Genesis 2:7.

The Hebrew word neʹphesh, translated “soul,” means ‘a creature that breathes.’ When God created the first man, Adam, He did not infuse into him an immortal soul but the life force that is maintained by breathing. Therefore, “soul” in the Biblical sense refers to the entire living being. If separated from the life force originally given by God, the soul dies.—Genesis 3:19; Ezekiel 18:20.

The doctrine of the immortality of the soul raised questions: Where do souls go after death? What happens to the souls of the wicked? When nominal Christians adopted the myth of the immortal soul, this led them to accept another myth—the teaching of hellfire.

Compare these Bible verses: Ecclesiastes 3:19; Matthew 10:28; Acts 3:23

FACT:

At death a person ceases to exist

Source: One Myth Leads to Another

I do sometimes split up the pattern into 2 comments.

a reply to: whereislogic


Show me evidence Jesus pbuh is God.

Show me evidence of trinity in the Bible.

That you can't has been established so what's your deal?

Eastern Shadow doesn't even think that God is good ir satan evil or at least know why as he asked me why so good choice of an ally.

Regardless of all his nonsense that he assumed was true, Paul being the inventor of trinity and I would love to blame Paul, can't stand the guy but the truth is the truth and he didn't.

It wasn't mentioned until people got confused and paganism started to creep in, the proverbial nail in the coffin was at Nicea.

Ever since the Creed has been indestructible because Christians don't want to believe that for 2,000 years they worshipped Jesus pbuh against his will.

It was his enemies who accused him of making himself equal to God but he denied it saying "Of my own power I can do nothing."

He denied being God when he said he had one, "Our God is ONE God worship HIM."

It was his enemies that elevated Paul and who earlier even sent him, the Romans and the Herodian Benjaminite Jews.

It is the Christians who will worship the dajjal/antichrist with the Synagogue of Satan as they will think he is Jesus pbuh but the Synagogue will know better and you will think they've accepted Christ because they worship the dajjal/beast/antichrist.

You've been warned.

a reply to: whereislogic



Your quotes are irrelevant entirely btw.

Prove that the Nicene Creed is in the Bible and that Trinity is too or leave me the h alone you are just trying to harass me by calling something a myth I don't really know I've stopped fully paying attention all I know is I have not said anything that isn't true thus haven't said anything that can be proven a myth so I just don't care.

Theophilus was the first to mention the Trinity.

And Jesus'pbuh denied being God.


You claim not to rely on apoligists and immediately after quote one. Maybe you don't know what one is.

It's someone who realizes something is fishy and makes up a reason why it isn't that satisfies the gullible because liars endorse it and these liars are trusted.

Unless you are apologizing for the 2,000 years of blasphemy in the name of the Messiah pbuh I don't want anything to do with apologisms of any variety if that's even a word.

originally posted by: Disturbinatti
a reply to: whereislogic
Show me evidence of trinity in the Bible.

That you can't has been established so what's your deal?

There is no Trinity taught in the bible. And I have no interest in providing evidence for something the bible does not teach.

I'm just reminding the Trinitarians (or others who have been fed misinformation about this topic and especially the historical origin of these philosophies) here that the real facts about Jehovah won't go anywhere by arguing with people with poor or inaccurate arguments against the doctrine of the Trinity. That would only be like Don Quijote fighting against his Windmill Giants, any glorious noble victory at the end of that would be a delusion as well (as in thinking the doctrine of the Trinity is right because someone who is arguing against it is clearly wrong about something or has a particular undesirable behavioural pattern or attitude, or is more easily dismissed because of that pattern or way of arguing).

People tend to underestimate the craftiness of Satan and his kind in producing Windmill Giants for them to fight and conquer spiritually, and feel more sure in their convictions afterwards even when they're flat out wrong themselves as well. In this analogy and/or metaphor I'm comparing the arguments that are poor or inaccurate with the Windmill Giants in the story of Don Quijote. Just to be clear that I'm not calling anyone here a Windmill Giant. Which is the term I would like to use for a strawman argument that was never intended as a strawman but ends up functioning as one, or almost like a strawman argument.

I wish there already was a terminology for the phenomenon that I'm trying to describe here, perhaps there is, I just don't know it. Strawman argument comes the closest.

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: Disturbinatti
a reply to: whereislogic
Show me evidence of trinity in the Bible.

That you can't has been established so what's your deal?

There is no Trinity taught in the bible. And I have no interest in providing evidence for something the bible does not teach.

But you believe in Trinity right?

How do you justify that?

I'm just reminding the Trinitarians here that the real facts about Jehovah won't go anywhere by arguing with people with poor or inaccurate arguments against the doctrine of the Trinity. That would only be like Don Quijote fighting against his Windmill Giants, any glorious noble victory at the end of that would be a delusion as well (as in thinking the doctrine of the Trinity is right because someone who is arguing against it is clearly wrong about something).

People tend to underestimate the craftiness of Satan and his kind in producing Windmill Giants for them to fight and conquer spiritually, and feel more sure in their convictions afterwards even when they're flat out wrong themselves as well. In this analogy and/or metaphor I'm comparing the arguments that are poor or inaccurate with the Windmill Giants in the story of Don Quijote. Just to be clear that I'm not calling anyone here a Windmill Giant. Which is the term I would like to use for a strawman argument that was never intended as a strawman but ends up functioning as one, or almost like a strawman argument. In this case, a misrepresentation of the accurate correct arguments against the Trinity, which is what a strawman argument does, it misrepresents an argument in order to more easily dismiss it.

I wish there already was a terminology for the phenomenon that I'm trying to describe here, perhaps there is, I just don't know it. Strawman argument comes the closest.

YHVH isn't actually pronounced Jehovah it's actually YaHUH, as in Yeshayahu, Isaiah in Hebrew.

As for facts the only one who has been using the Bible and its facts to prove his point is me.

I do it easily too and you rant endlessly because you know I'm right and admitted it, that Trinity isn't in the Bible.

Which means you elevate the teachings of the Nicene Creed, or the Creed itself, to a more authoritative position than the FACTS SPOKEN BY JESUS can possibly justify.

I believe you understand.

originally posted by: Disturbinatti
But you believe in Trinity right?

no.

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: Disturbinatti
But you believe in Trinity right?

no.

But you believe Jesus pbuh is God?

Or are you a JW? If so good for you. Few religions acknowledge what you do.

What were arguing about then?

Wouldn't the Nicene Creed be irrelevant to you?