Nicene Creed of 326 AD

[livingbygrace]

. It will be

scripture twisting (cf. 2 Peter 3:16). God save us from that. In Erie PA Scott H.

Yes indeed, that is as bad as adding to scripture, don't you think?

 

[Scotth1960]

The true Church of Christ is not Greek Orthodox, or

Catholic, or Baptist, or whatever. It is composed of people who have accepted Jesus

Christ as their Savior and King, and whose lives are being perfected by the power of the

Holy Spirit. I am sure that there have been such people at all times, since the creation of

the Church, IN SPITE of Roman Catholicism, and other corruptions of the Truth which

have assailed the Church.

It was not Luther, or Calvin, or Zwingli, who caused a reformation from the excesses of

the Roman Catholics, and others who "claim" apostolic succession" as authority. It was

the vastly increased availability of the Holy Scriptures to the general public, (and there

ability to read it), which allowed people everywhere, to gain access to the Truth,

through Holy Spirit inspired reading of God's Word.

It is the Holy Scriptures, inspired by Holy Spirit, that are the final authority on

all matters pertaining to God's Truth, not apostolic succession.

If the Holy Scriptures are the final authority on all matters pertaining to God's

Truth, what do the Scriptures teach, and what do they mean? Consider:

"The Bible says once someone accepts Christ, they can never lose their

salvation. All true Christians have eternal security. "The Bible says it is

possible to fall away from grace. Even believers can turn away from God and

be forever lost in their sins. "The Bible says homosexuality is a perversion of

God's moral law and a deviation from natural human behavior.

"The Bible says homosexuality is morally acceptable, it is a life-style as viable

as any "traditional" concept of marriage or family. "The Bible says long ago

God predestined some men and women to everlasting life, and some to

everlasting judgment. We are not free to accept or reject His salvation. "The

Bible says God Himself does not know who will choose Him. Salvation is a

matter of free will. The decision is entirely up to us. "The Bible says Jesus

Christ is the eternal Son of God the Father, sharing fully in His divinity, and

indivisibly united with the Holy Trinity. "The Bible says Jesus Christ is a

created being. He is superior to the angels, but not eternal and not of the

same nature as the Father. "The Bible says we should no longer use the

terms "Father" and "Son" in relation to God. They are merely symbolic and

were meant to be replaced with less sexists terminology.

"The Bible says ....

"Wait a minute!

"How can so many contradictory statements be based on the teachings of

one book? How can intelligent and sensible people read basically the same Old

and New Testament text, yet arrive at such opposite conclusions? Is there

any other book, ancient or modern, which has prompted such a vast and

often incompatible array of interpretations and dogmas? Why can't anyone

agree on what the Bible really teaches?

"I believe the time has come for those who love the Holy Scriptures, no

matter what their backgrounds may be, to earnestly and sincerely address

such questions in the name of Christ. No one who takes seriously Christ's

High Priestly prayer for unity among His followers in John 17:20-1 ("I do not

pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their

word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that

they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me")

can look with indifference upon the divisions, factions, and schism which have

become so synonymous with contemporary Christianity. Nor can we ignore

the crisis of biblical interpretation which is bringing so much of that division

upon us. ...." (pages 1-3: SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. by Raymond L. Zell.

Copyright 1992, Conciliar Press, Ben Lomond, California. ).

God bless and save us: AMEN. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington March 31, 2011

AD (n.c.).

 

[livingbygrace]

" How can intelligent and sensible people read basically the same Old

and New Testament text, yet arrive at such opposite conclusions?

Because whatever they say they are relying on their intelligence and sense to understand scripture. It is the spirit who leads into truth



Is there

any other book, ancient or modern, which has prompted such a vast and

often incompatible array of interpretations and dogmas? Why can't anyone

agree on what the Bible really teaches?

"I believe the time has come for those who love the Holy Scriptures, no

matter what their backgrounds may be, to earnestly and sincerely address

such questions in the name of Christ. No one who takes seriously Christ's

High Priestly prayer for unity among His followers in John 17:20-1 ("I do not

pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their

word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that

they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me")

can look with indifference upon the divisions, factions, and schism which have

And where does this unity come from?
It can only come from being of one heart and one mind in the Spirit




become so synonymous with contemporary Christianity. Nor can we ignore

the crisis of biblical interpretation which is bringing so much of that division

upon us. ...." (pages 1-3: SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. by Raymond L. Zell.

Copyright 1992, Conciliar Press, Ben Lomond, California. ).

God bless and save us: AMEN. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington March 31, 2011

AD (n.c.).

Save us from ourselves and our dependance on ourselves

 

[superdave5221]

If the Holy Scriptures are the final authority on all matters pertaining to God's

Truth, what do the Scriptures teach, and what do they mean?

Nor can we ignore

the crisis of biblical interpretation which is bringing so much of that division

upon us. ...." (pages 1-3: SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. by Raymond L. Zell.

Copyright 1992, Conciliar Press, Ben Lomond, California. ).

God bless and save us: AMEN. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington March 31, 2011

AD (n.c.).

I see. So disunity proves we are wrong. So which apostolic succession church is telling the truth, and which one is the antichrist?

Is it the Greek Orthodox?

Or is it the Roman Catholics?

Or is it the Oriental Orthodox?

Maybe it's the Anglican Communion?

There are some Lutheran churches that claim apostolic succession. Maybe it's them?

The Mormons claim apostolic succession received through the Angel Moroni.

Certainly all of these apostolic succession churches can't be telling the truth. So who do we believe?

By your definition, we can't trust anybody.

I trust the Word of God, found in the Holy Scriptures, and I trust God to be able to reveal Truth to me, when He is ready, through the power of the Holy Spirit. You can continue to trust in man.

 

[Scotth1960]

I was wanting to have a beter understanding of what the times where like at this point in history and the impact this had on the church. I was concerned that people in positions of power may have struggled with their positons of power in politics versus their responsibility to theology. So i was looking for some clarity and concerned that lessons learned were being used the right way in our government today and not the wrong way.

Friends, The Nicene Creed [of 381 AD[
"The following is the text of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed as uses in parishes of the Byzantine Rite.
"I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Make of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, Begotten of the Father before all worlds, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, Begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made: Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and was made man; And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried; And the third day He rose again, according to the scriptures; And ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father; And he shall come again with glory to judge the quick and the dead, Whose kingdom shall have no end.
"And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and Giver of Life, Who proceedeth from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, Who spake by the Prophets; And I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Churhc. I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins. I look for the Resurrection of the dead, and the Life of the world to come. Amen." (page 45: SAINT ANDREW SERVICE BOOK. The Administration of the Sacraments and Other Rites and Ceremonies According to the Western Rite Usage of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America. Second Edition, 1996. Englewood, NJ. ). Order from GOOGLE at Amazon.com

God bless you. In Erie Scott Harrington

 

[Scotth1960]

I see. So disunity proves we are wrong. So which apostolic succession church is telling the truth, and which one is the antichrist?

Is it the Greek Orthodox?

Or is it the Roman Catholics?

Or is it the Oriental Orthodox?

Maybe it's the Anglican Communion?

There are some Lutheran churches that claim apostolic succession. Maybe it's them?

The Mormons claim apostolic succession received through the Angel Moroni.

Certainly all of these apostolic succession churches can't be telling the truth. So who do we believe?

By your definition, we can't trust anybody.

I trust the Word of God, found in the Holy Scriptures, and I trust God to be able to reveal Truth to me, when He is ready, through the power of the Holy Spirit. You can continue to trust in man.

I trust the Eastern Orthodox Church. By the true definition, Christianity has apostolic succession. This is not my personal doctrine; It's the doctrine of the Historic Church.
Orthodoxy has apostolic succession from Saint Andrew, Saint Peter, Saint James, Saint Mark, and all the other apostles of Christ Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and, later, Moscow, and all the other Patriarchates. Protestantism has 30,000 and growing steadily man-made denominations, each claiming to be "the true church", but teaching conflicting doctrines about what "the Bible says." That's the point of the tract by Raymond L. Zell. This confusion of every "wind of doctrine" comes not from the Holy Spirit; it comes from the Protestant doctrine of "sola Sriptura"; and I don't trust in man. I trust is the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father (John 15:26, 16:13). It's the Protestants who trust in man. They have their man, Luther, their man, Calvin, their men, their preachers and pastors. Take care.
In Erie PA

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I trust the Eastern Orthodox Church. By the true definition, Christianity has apostolic succession. This is not my personal doctrine; It's the doctrine of the Historic Church.
Orthodoxy has apostolic succession from Saint Andrew, Saint Peter, Saint James, Saint Mark, and all the other apostles of Christ Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and, later, Moscow, and all the other Patriarchates. Protestantism has 30,000 and growing steadily man-made denominations, each claiming to be "the true church", but teaching conflicting doctrines about what "the Bible says." That's the point of the tract by Raymond L. Zell. This confusion of every "wind of doctrine" comes not from the Holy Spirit; it comes from the Protestant doctrine of "sola Sriptura"; and I don't trust in man. I trust is the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father (John 15:26, 16:13). It's the Protestants who trust in man. They have their man, Luther, their man, Calvin, their men, their preachers and pastors. Take care.
In Erie PA

The high priest of Jerusalem, And all the priests of the temple had this same thing. They could trace their theology right back to Arron and Moses, Not to mention Go even further to Abraham

We see how well this excuse did for them. Having a line of anything does not guarantee the person or persons in charge will not twist theology to fit their own beliefs.

The problem is the jew's, Just like the romans (eastern and western) had the power of state and fear to enforce their beliefs on anyone. I find it amazing that so many in the church are making so many of the same mistakes and arguments the jews used.

Jesus would have been the protestant who reformed theology (although we know although the jewish preists had believed in false doctrines for hundreds of years. People were still saved because they followed God. Not the authorities in place.

 

[Scotth1960]

The high priest of Jerusalem, And all the

priests of the temple had this same thing. They could trace

their theology right back to Arron and Moses, Not to mention

Go even further to Abraham

We see how well this excuse did for them. Having a line of

anything does not guarantee the person or persons in charge

will not twist theology to fit their own beliefs.

The problem is the jew's, Just like the romans (eastern and

western) had the power of state and fear to enforce their

beliefs on anyone. I find it amazing that so many in the church

are making so many of the same mistakes and arguments the

jews used.

Jesus would have been the protestant who reformed theology

(although we know although the jewish preists had believed

in false doctrines for hundreds of years. People were still

saved because they followed God. Not the authorities in

place.

So Jesus would have "been a protestant who reformed

theology".

JESUS CHRIST SAID, "But when the Comforter has

come, Whom I shall send unto you from the Father,

Even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the

Father, He shall testify to me." So Jesus Christ would

have to CONTRADICT HIMSELF, and say, WITH MARTIN

LUTHER AND WITH THE PROTESTANTS ""which

proceedeth from the Father" AND THE SON

(FILIOQUE). Thus, the PROTESTANTS PUT WORDS

INTO THE MOUTH OF JESUS CHRIST THAT JESUS

CHRIST HIMSELF DID NOT SAY. IS "THAT" WHAT YOU

ARE ADVOCATING, MR. ETERNALLY GRATEFUL, IN THE

NAME OF "JESUS CHRIST, THE FIRST PROTESTANT"?

JESUS CHRIST, THE REFORMED THEOLOGIAN? WOULD

CHRIST HAVE TO "REFORM" HIMSELF? WASN'T CHRIST

SINLESS AND PERFECT? CAN'T HE SPEAK FOR HIMSELF

IN JOHN 15:26? DON'T THE PROTESTANTS "SPEAK FOR

THEMSELVES" IN THE "NAME OF AUGUSTINE OF

HIPPO", WHICH IS WHERE THEY GET THEIR

"FILIOQUE" "AND THE SON" DOCTRINE, (ALONG WITH

THE PAPAL COUNCIL OF TOLEDO OF 589 AD AND THE

POPE OF ROME SINCE 1014 AD)? AND CHARLEMAGNE

AROUND 800 AD? TAKE CARE. GOD BLESS YOU. IN

ERIE Scott Harrington

 

[eternally-gratefull]

So Jesus would have "been a protestant who reformed

theology".

JESUS CHRIST SAID, "But when the Comforter has

come, Whom I shall send unto you from the Father,

Even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the

Father, He shall testify to me." So Jesus Christ would

have to CONTRADICT HIMSELF, and say, WITH MARTIN

LUTHER AND WITH THE PROTESTANTS ""which

proceedeth from the Father" AND THE SON

(FILIOQUE). Thus, the PROTESTANTS PUT WORDS

INTO THE MOUTH OF JESUS CHRIST THAT JESUS

CHRIST HIMSELF DID NOT SAY. IS "THAT" WHAT YOU

ARE ADVOCATING, MR. ETERNALLY GRATEFUL, IN THE

NAME OF "JESUS CHRIST, THE FIRST PROTESTANT"?

JESUS CHRIST, THE REFORMED THEOLOGIAN? WOULD

CHRIST HAVE TO "REFORM" HIMSELF? WASN'T CHRIST

SINLESS AND PERFECT? CAN'T HE SPEAK FOR HIMSELF

IN JOHN 15:26? DON'T THE PROTESTANTS "SPEAK FOR

THEMSELVES" IN THE "NAME OF AUGUSTINE OF

HIPPO", WHICH IS WHERE THEY GET THEIR

"FILIOQUE" "AND THE SON" DOCTRINE, (ALONG WITH

THE PAPAL COUNCIL OF TOLEDO OF 589 AD AND THE

POPE OF ROME SINCE 1014 AD)? AND CHARLEMAGNE

AROUND 800 AD? TAKE CARE. GOD BLESS YOU. IN

ERIE Scott Harrington

First off. What is wrong with your formatting. Your hard to read whatever is happening.

2nd. I said to the jews who were in charge of the temple (the jewish version of the church) Jesus would have been considered a reformer. Because he contradicted, and rejected the doctrines they followed. The doctrines they took from OT scripture, and books which were added, yet were not the word of God. And their excuse was that Jesus was wrong they were right, because they got their doctrines from the fathers. History proved them right. And Jesus, as a reformer, protested their doctrines, thus was a heretic.

This is the context. so maybe you can reread what I said again, And then see what you think..This whole post did not respond to what I said because you misunderstood. Maybe I worded it wrong. If I did I am sorry.

 

[Scotth1960]

First off. What is wrong with your formatting. Your hard to read whatever is happening.

2nd. I said to the jews who were in charge of the temple (the jewish version of the church) Jesus would have been considered a reformer. Because he contradicted, and rejected the doctrines they followed. The doctrines they took from OT scripture, and books which were added, yet were not the word of God. And their excuse was that Jesus was wrong they were right, because they got their doctrines from the fathers. History proved them right. And Jesus, as a reformer, protested their doctrines, thus was a heretic.

This is the context. so maybe you can reread what I said again, And then see what you think..This whole post did not respond to what I said because you misunderstood. Maybe I worded it wrong. If I did I am sorry.

Dear friend, Didn't you indeed say, "Jesus would have been the protestant .."? Didn't you say that? What did I misunderstand. Don't you know that most Protestants say "And the Son" (FILIOQUE), and Jesus Christ didn't say that? So, you wouldn't want to say that, because, you, too, Go by what JESUS SAYS and by what THE BIBLE says, a not by what "THE PROTESTANTS SAY", or "MARTIN LUTHER SAYS". Luther's group says, and Calvin's group says, "who proceeds from the Father" AND THE SON (FILIOQUE). It's the "AND THE SON" thing that adds to the Bible! That's a "no, no!". Take care. God bless you. In Erie Scott PS I understand what you say Jesus said though. He preached
against the traditions of men of the Pharisees. That's not the same thing as Martin Luther preachings against the traditions of men of the Roman catholics; Luther himself preached some traditions
of men and he didn't reform the Rome papal patriarch's "FILIOQUE" error.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Dear friend, Didn't you indeed say, "Jesus would have been the protestant .."? Didn't you say that? What did I misunderstand. Don't you know that most Protestants say "And the Son" (FILIOQUE), and Jesus Christ didn't say that? So, you wouldn't want to say that, because, you, too, Go by what JESUS SAYS and by what THE BIBLE says, a not by what "THE PROTESTANTS SAY", or "MARTIN LUTHER SAYS". Luther's group says, and Calvin's group says, "who proceeds from the Father" AND THE SON (FILIOQUE). It's the "AND THE SON" thing that adds to the Bible! That's a "no, no!". Take care. God bless you. In Erie Scott PS I understand what you say Jesus said though. He preached
against the traditions of men of the Pharisees. That's not the same thing as Martin Luther preachings against the traditions of men of the Roman catholics; Luther himself preached some traditions
of men and he didn't reform the Rome papal patriarch's "FILIOQUE" error.

Scott, if youir going to twist my words. we can not speak.

You know that is not what I meant. Why do you keep trying to say it is>

Did not the jew religeous leaders consider Jesus a reformer??

You keep telling me I must use History. I am using history to prove the examples you are giving and excuses have been used before. And we should take heed so we do not make the same mistake should we not?

I am not going to discuss what so called protestants believe because that is not what the discussion is about.

 

[Scotth1960]

Scott, if youir going to twist my words. we can not speak.

You know that is not what I meant. Why do you keep trying to say it is>

Did not the jew religeous leaders consider Jesus a reformer??

You keep telling me I must use History. I am using history to prove the examples you are giving and excuses have been used before. And we should take heed so we do not make the same mistake should we not?

I am not going to discuss what so called protestants believe because that is not what the discussion is about.

I didn't twist your words. I understand you meant that Jesus "PROTESTED" against the Scribes and Pharisees. Is that what you meant by Protestant? Well, that's taking the word "Protestant" out of context. Protestant means the Reformers from Wycliffe, Huss, and most of all Luther and Calvin, and so on. Jesus wasn't a Protestant in this sense, was He?
You were using an ANACHRONISM for Christ, which is WHAT I WAS POINTING OUT TO YOU.
Yes, you are completely right: CHRIST PROTESTED AGAINST PHARISEES AMONG JUDAISM, WHO DIDN'T TEACH AN AUTHENTIC JEWISH TRADITION. In Erie Scott

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I didn't twist your words. I understand you meant that Jesus "PROTESTED" against the Scribes and Pharisees. Is that what you meant by Protestant? Well, that's taking the word "Protestant" out of context. Protestant means the Reformers from Wycliffe, Huss, and most of all Luther and Calvin, and so on.

No Scott. I was using a historical point of view which proved that a group of people who are making the exact same exuses you are to prove they are the correct religious authority were wrong. and how Jesus was considered a reformer. (I used the term reformer, not protestor. I stated he protested their dogma or doctrines)

Jesus wasn't a Protestant in this sense, was He?

Yes he was, Because he rejected their doctrines. Just like these people did. The difference is Jesus was correct. Not all of these men were correct

You were using an ANACHRONISM for Christ, which is WHAT I WAS POINTING OUT TO YOU.

No I was doing what you suggested and looking at history. And seeing the mistakes people have made, and their excuses for those mistakes. which are earily the same excuses you are using
[

Yes, you are completely right: CHRIST PROTESTED AGAINST PHARISEES AMONG JUDAISM, WHO DIDN'T TEACH AN AUTHENTIC JEWISH TRADITION. In Erie Scott

Yes because between the time God gave them the law, and the prophets. Someone (or many) in their "succession" had twisted Gods word. Added to Gods word. and distorted Gods word. and this very thing started by God through Aaron, although which could prove priestly succession And they were not what God had started.

 

[Body_of_Light]

well thanks for the replies. I found a good website that has the writings of the early chruch fathers for anyone else that is interested. Bible Study Tools Online ? Verses, Commentaries, Concordances, Verses, Parallel Versions

 

[Body_of_Light]

the link didnt post the way I thought it would but it is called www. bible study tools online .com ok all thanks and God Bless!!

 

[Crazy4GODword]

another resurrection forum?? Crazy wat are you doing?