Hello! I've posted this question here a few times already, and please answer it according to my exact doubt, as I tend to get confused by many discrepancies. I just want to know why the interpretation below isn't heresy, and if heresy is anything that calls into question the essence of the gospel and salvation? I believe that every human being has inherent dignity, not through their own merit, but because God gave value to our lives, and because of this, even the worst sinner is allowed to have a level of self-esteem that keeps them alive and values their life, even if what is wrong is the rest that is corrupted by sin and becomes pride (but fear is needed, someone who is proud needs the minimum to survive). I've already posted and researched this doubt in other places and I'm even more confused because some may see it as heresy and don't offer solutions if it is, and others say it isn't heresy but don't explain exactly why it isn't! I'm asking for help because this has been distressing me.
Question
- Thread starter Angelica00
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Hello @Angelica00, I was going to point you to a few passages and verses, beginning with Genesis 1:26-27, but here is a short, well-written article on the topic (from the folks at GotQuestions.org) that will no doubt say it better and more thoroughly that I can: https://www.gotquestions.org/human-life.html
Enjoy
(and if you have any questions about what is said in the article, please don't hesitate to ask me/us)
I'll read through the article again and see if there is anything else that I'd like to add. I believe that God sees us all as "human beings" (not "human doings"), because the intrinsic value that we have, especially to Him, is based on who we are, not on what we do.
Finally, I should also ask what it is, exactly, that you find distressing, the "doubt" that you speak of that may or may not be some form of heresy, that is
(because I'd like to make sure that I'm understanding your concern correctly). Thanks
God bless you!!
~Deuteronomy (David)
Enjoy
(and if you have any questions about what is said in the article, please don't hesitate to ask me/us)I'll read through the article again and see if there is anything else that I'd like to add. I believe that God sees us all as "human beings" (not "human doings"), because the intrinsic value that we have, especially to Him, is based on who we are, not on what we do.
Finally, I should also ask what it is, exactly, that you find distressing, the "doubt" that you speak of that may or may not be some form of heresy, that is
(because I'd like to make sure that I'm understanding your concern correctly). Thanks God bless you!!
~Deuteronomy (David)
O que me aflige é o medo de ser considerado heresia, e nem sequer conseguir entender o que é heresia ou por que o que eu disse seria considerado heresia. Além disso, há pessoas que podem achar que é heresia.Olá @Angelica00 , eu ia indicar algumas passagens e versículos, começando com Gênesis 1:26-27 , mas aqui está um artigo curto e bem escrito sobre o assunto (do pessoal do GotQuestions.org) que, sem dúvida, explicará melhor e mais detalhadamente do que eu: https://www.gotquestions.org/human-life.html
Aproveite
Vou ler o artigo novamente e ver se há algo mais que eu gostaria de acrescentar. Acredito que Deus nos vê a todos como "seres humanos" (e não como "fazendo coisas humanas"), porque o valor intrínseco que temos, especialmente para Ele, se baseia em quem somos, e não no que fazemos.
Por fim, gostaria de perguntar o que exatamente lhe causa angústia, essa "dúvida" da qual você fala, que pode ou não ser alguma forma de heresia
Deus o abençoe!!
~Deuteronômio (Davi)
because God gave value to our lives
Value is an interesting and subjective concept. The proud may value themselves highly. The humble may value themselves lowly. One might value a doctor that saves your life, but not a murderer.
We may not have an intrinsic value simply for having been born. Our parents and family may value us (or may not). The value God has for us may depend on the choices we make.
Luk_15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.
Value is an interesting and subjective concept. The proud may value themselves highly. The humble may value themselves lowly. One might value a doctor that saves your life, but not a murderer.
We may not have an intrinsic value simply for having been born. Our parents and family may value us (or may not). The value God has for us may depend on the choices we make.
Luk_15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.
The idea of heresy is sort of binary. An example of heresy might be saying that Jesus did not die for our sins.
Other issues are often various degrees of not understanding. As we are all supposed to be growing and maturing in our faith, we should expect that we are going to get some things wrong as we grow.
The statement, "Question your assumptions", is useful to apply to ourselves to make sure we have not taken in some error.
"I am embarrassed by what I thought five years ago and I hope to be embarrassed five years from now by what I think today." - said by someone still learning.
Other issues are often various degrees of not understanding. As we are all supposed to be growing and maturing in our faith, we should expect that we are going to get some things wrong as we grow.
The statement, "Question your assumptions", is useful to apply to ourselves to make sure we have not taken in some error.
"I am embarrassed by what I thought five years ago and I hope to be embarrassed five years from now by what I think today." - said by someone still learning.
What is or is not heresy in many cases depends on who you ask or even when you ask. Heresy, in its root form, just means different. And the problem is, different from what? Depending on which church council one pays attention to for example, saying Jesus is the son of God is heretical, just as a different church council ruled that saying Jesus is not the son of God is heretical. But the point in history when heresy became a real issue was in the late 4th century when the Roman emperor decided that imperial funds should only go to the "proper"/"orthodox" Christians, not heretics. With money on the line, and Roman authority weighing in on what was heretical (some theological points were enforced by Roman law with death as a potential penalty for not believing correctly) heresy became the serious issue it is today. Even other religions were widely accepted as legitimate by the Christian church prior to the 4th century when the Roman Empire got involved in theology.
Hello Rewriter, which church council teaches that Jesus is NOT the Son of God
Thanks!Considering the claims of exclusivity that are made throughout the Bible (see some of them below), I find what you say about the Early Church impossible to believe. I know that there were heretics and blasphemers that made such claims back then, but not the church as a whole. In fact, it seems to me that if such claims of inclusivity (with other world religions) were taught by the Early Church (that these other religions were also legitimate faiths, along with Christianity), then there must be evidence for it, so please point us to it.
On a more positive note, such a teaching could be useful in this particular thread though, because it is perhaps the quintessential example of what heresy (or perhaps blasphemy?) really is (IOW, a teaching that stands diametrically opposed to that which is taught to us by God is the Bible).
Thanks!
God bless you!!
~Deuteronomy
John 14
6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.
Acts 4
12 There is salvation ~in no one else;~ for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.
John 3
18 He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
John 3
36 He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.
1 John 5
11 The testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.
12 He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.
Exodus 20
2 “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
3 You shall have no other gods before Me.
4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.”
Isaiah 43
10 “You are My witnesses,” declares the LORD, “And My servant whom I have chosen,
In order that you may know and believe Me,
And understand that I am He.
Before Me there was no God formed,
And there will be none after Me.
11 “I, even I, am the LORD;
And there is no Savior besides Me.”
.
Whoops, I meant God ~in~ the Bible, of course, which (along with a couple of formatting problems) I missed until after our 5-minute editing time was up
Oh course it's not a heresy. Every human life has value because God created that life. The pro life movement focuses a lot of energy on abortion which is good but somewhat regrettable. The pro life movement also includes opposition euthanasia and the death penalty. Whats happened is we've swapped the value of life for the quality of life. THATS the hersey!
Hello Rewriter, which church council teaches that Jesus is NOT the Son of God
Considering the claims of exclusivity that are made throughout the Bible (see some of them below), I find what you say about the Early Church impossible to believe. I know that there were heretics and blasphemers that made such claims back then, but not the church as a whole. In fact, it seems to me that if such claims of inclusivity (with other world religions) were taught by the Early Church (that these other religions were also legitimate faiths, along with Christianity), then there must be evidence for it, so please point us to it.
On a more positive note, such a teaching could be useful in this particular thread though, because it is perhaps the quintessential example of what heresy (or perhaps blasphemy?) really is (IOW, a teaching that stands diametrically opposed to that which is taught to us by God is the Bible).
Thanks!
God bless you!!
~Deuteronomy
John 146 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. Acts 412 There is salvation ~in no one else;~ for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.John 318 He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. John 336 He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.1 John 511 The testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12 He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life. Exodus 202 “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. 3 You shall have no other gods before Me. 4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.” Isaiah 4310 “You are My witnesses,” declares the LORD, “And My servant whom I have chosen,In order that you may know and believe Me,And understand that I am He.Before Me there was no God formed,And there will be none after Me.11 “I, even I, am the LORD;And there is no Savior besides Me.”.
If you want to know which of the "greater" councils did, you are correct. But also remember that the "greater" councils involved the emperor getting involved, thus politics over theology. One classic example would be that "homoousia" was affirmed at Nicaea, but both previous Antiochian counsels had condemned the term. But since the emperor allowed the council to be held at his palace, with imperial transportation provided to at least some bishops, troops loyal to the emperor providing security and Eusebius, the main supporter of Arius prior to the council receiving an order for 50 Bibles to be produced at imperial expense (too large a project for a single diocese to produce so lots of subcontracting with attendant funds provided to other dioceses), when Constantine wanted "homoousious"", he got it. Athanasius of Alexandira claimed to have argued for it and convinced the bishops, but he was not a bishop and would not have been allowed to speak, unless Constantine granted him permission in contradiction to custom, and if so, he would only have served as Constantine's mouthpiece.
But there were numerous other, "lesser" councils, some with more bishops and far more representative of the entire church. It was in some of these councils that Jesus was declared not to be the son of God.
As for other religions being acceptable, read Clement of Alexandria among others of the early church fathers. They focused more on other aspects of Jesus's teachings than the post-Nicaean church did when imperial largess became a factor (clearly there was not enough for Christians and non-Christians to share, so non-Christians need to be excluded).
Hello again Rewriter, it is, of course, no surprise that false teachers/heretics have existed/exist today in the church. After all, the Bible uses quite a bit of ink to warn us about them (as I'm sure you know). Church councils were often convened to address false teachers (and their teachings) when various heretical beliefs began to gain a foothold (more than just a passing interest, that is) in the church.
The GREAT news for us is that we've had millennia to vet/reconsider what the various Church councils taught us (about the nature of the Trinitarian Godhead and the Deity of Christ, for instance), and happily, the conclusions of these early "greater" councils have continued to be both reconsidered and (then) viewed as true by every church within the pale of Christian orthodoxy for millennia (and up to this very moment in time).
As I believe St. Augustine said about a certain heresy in the 5th century, the church has spoken, the matter is settled, and so it continues to be today with heretical beliefs of all kinds.
My point (above) is that the ~Bible itself~ does not allow us to embrace other (non-Christian) religions as being true alongside of Christianity (as if to say that Christianity is "just one of the many paths" that lead to God/salvation/eternal life). The Bible simply does not give us that option, rather (for our sake, and for everyone else's) it tells us the truth and instructs us to continually share that truth among ourselves and with others, with all of its exclusivity still intact.
On a personal note, I own the Library of the Fathers and I was STUNNED (years ago) when I first read some of the things that certain ECF had to say, even by some of those (ECF) who were otherwise orthodox in most of their (other) teachings. The good news is that heresies, even if they seemed to be accepted by some for a time, were eventually vetted and removed (and that same process continues in our churches and seminaries throughout the world today, not to mention by our interested congregants), as I just mentioned above.
It also seems clear that throughout history, when the ship (the Christian church) needed a significant course correction, the HS raised up a leader(s) to get the job done/to right the ship and to get it sailing in the right direction again (St. Athanasius, St. Augustine and Martin Luther come quickly to mind).
Finally, you seem to have a problem with the secular world and its leadership, in particular, and I understand that. The thing is, God is the One who establishes the world's secular leaders/leaderships (as you know), and I believe that He often uses them to help advance His Kingdom. For instance, if the Renaissance had never happened/had never pulled us out of the Dark Ages, and secular power and authority had not risen along with it, then I believe that the fate of Martin Luther would probably not have fared any better than that of Tyndale and Hus, and the Reformation would not have happened (at least, not by 1517 anyway).
God bless you!!
~Deuteronomy
p.s. - if you'd care to post a few of the heretical beliefs from church history that we've been discussing, including how and by whom they came to be, how they came to be established for a time, and why and by whom they were removed as heretical, I'd be happy to do so, but let's discuss them one at a time
Hello again Rewriter, it is, of course, no surprise that false teachers/heretics have existed/exist today in the church. After all, the Bible uses quite a bit of ink to warn us about them (as I'm sure you know). Church councils were often convened to address false teachers (and their teachings) when various heretical beliefs began to gain a foothold (more than just a passing interest, that is) in the church.
The GREAT news for us is that we've had millennia to vet/reconsider what the various Church councils taught us (about the nature of the Trinitarian Godhead and the Deity of Christ, for instance), and happily, the conclusions of these early "greater" councils have continued to be both reconsidered and (then) viewed as true by every church within the pale of Christian orthodoxy for millennia (and up to this very moment in time).
As I believe St. Augustine said about a certain heresy in the 5th century, the church has spoken, the matter is settled, and so it continues to be today with heretical beliefs of all kinds.
My point (above) is that the ~Bible itself~ does not allow us to embrace other (non-Christian) religions as being true alongside of Christianity (as if to say that Christianity is "just one of the many paths" that lead to God/salvation/eternal life). The Bible simply does not give us that option, rather (for our sake, and for everyone else's) it tells us the truth and instructs us to continually share that truth among ourselves and with others, with all of its exclusivity still intact.
On a personal note, I own the Library of the Fathers and I was STUNNED (years ago) when I first read some of the things that certain ECF had to say, even by some of those (ECF) who were otherwise orthodox in most of their (other) teachings. The good news is that heresies, even if they seemed to be accepted by some for a time, were eventually vetted and removed (and that same process continues in our churches and seminaries throughout the world today, not to mention by our interested congregants), as I just mentioned above.
It also seems clear that throughout history, when the ship (the Christian church) needed a significant course correction, the HS raised up a leader(s) to get the job done/to right the ship and to get it sailing in the right direction again (St. Athanasius, St. Augustine and Martin Luther come quickly to mind).
Finally, you seem to have a problem with the secular world and its leadership, in particular, and I understand that. The thing is, God is the One who establishes the world's secular leaders/leaderships (as you know), and I believe that He often uses them to help advance His Kingdom. For instance, if the Renaissance had never happened/had never pulled us out of the Dark Ages, and secular power and authority had not risen along with it, then I believe that the fate of Martin Luther would probably not have fared any better than that of Tyndale and Hus, and the Reformation would not have happened (at least, not by 1517 anyway).
God bless you!!
~Deuteronomy
p.s. - if you'd care to post a few of the heretical beliefs from church history that we've been discussing, including how and by whom they came to be, how they came to be established for a time, and why and by whom they were removed as heretical, I'd be happy to do so, but let's discuss them one at a time
I trust that you are implying that God used at least one pagan to advance His truth with your statement. Constantine was not a Christian when he ran the Council of Nicaea and was declared "isopostollos" or "the equal of the apostles". In fact, even after receiving such accolades from the Church, he posed as Apollos and retained his claimed connection to Sol Invictus, or "the undefeated Sun". And likewise, that the doctrine of the Trinity was supported by the full weight of Roman imperial law under Theodosius I. Much of the 4th century was turmoil during which what has come to be orthodox Christianity finally came to be in control.
Another problem is that the archeological evidence as well as other "clearly irrelevant" sources also indicate that the official biblical record might not be the absolute truth. These sources imply that there was a much closer connection between earliest Christianity and Judaism than the official record easily suggests, although even scripture offers hints that things are not as officially presented. One example is that the Sanhedrin was not a set body of Jewish religious leaders, but rather a body with only one permanent member, thus only one person who could be a high-ranking member as no one else was clearly a member.
Likewise, between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Talmud there is evidence that 1st century Judaism was not monotheistic. And it appears that with the possible exception of less than a total of 200 years over roughly a millennium, that there was just one Jewish temple where acceptable sacrifices were offered with likely the majority of the time with just one temple, that temple not being in Jerusalem.
We do not have definitive knowledge of what Paul meant in 1 Tim 3:16, just what we accept as true by faith and that God tolerates us accepting. "theopneustos" is of uncertain meaning (something like "God-breathed" or "God spirited") and possibly invented to avoid using a different term that had been used.
When one only looks at what tradition approves of, tradition looks correct, but when you look beyond what is approved, sometimes doubts can arise as pieces no longer fit so well.
Hello Rewriter, we're not sure when Constantine became a Christian, though many are convinced that he did so as a boy, under the tutelage of his Christian mother, St. Helena (cf Timothy, Lois & Eunice .. 2 Timothy 1:5, 2 Timothy 3:14-15). Considering all that he did for Christianity and the Christian church, I find it difficult, at best, to believe that he was not a Christian in 325 AD, even if he was not when he became emperor earlier, in 306 AD?).
He presided over the opening session of the Nicene council, a council which he influenced in a number of ways (for the good, IMHO) but did not participate in directly (i.e. he took part in some of the opening discussions, but he never had a say/did not vote on what was eventually included in or excluded from the First Council of Nicaea).
As far as the Eastern church honoring him/his work (on behalf of Christianity and the Christian church) with the title, "equal of the apostles", that happened (officially) in the 5th Century, long after his death, though the idea to do so was first broached before that, sometime after he died (337 AD). So, this means that he did nothing in response to receiving that title/honor because he was dead before the declaration was first brought up for consideration, much less officially declared by the Eastern church of the 5th Century.
As far as what I was implying about God's use of secular leaders/governments to either protect and/or advance His Kingdom in some way here on Earth, since I was specifically referring to Constantine the Great and the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, no, I was not implying (there) that God used pagans. That said, yes, of course He has used pagans in this world to benefit His people in various ways (e.g. protection and/or discipline, etc.), and to advance His Kingdom, as well (two Pharaohs and King Nebuchadnezzar come quickly to mind). He has also used/uses political leaders who are Christians too, which I've also mentioned (Constantine the Great and Charles V were both Christian, not pagan).
You make many claims when you are posting here, but you never provide us with any direct evidence showing why you believe they are true. So, please point us to some of the evidence that you have and/or the sources that you are using (so that we can see and examine the evidence and the sources for ourselves), ~especially~ since many of the claims that you've made run counter to what has/is typically understood and widely accepted as Biblical and/or historical truth.
All that said, the most important point that I was (at least) hoping to make above/in my last post, is this, neither the Emperor Constantine, nor any other historical figure (save the Lord Himself), have any sort of chokehold on what we believe today about the Christian faith (or anything else). While we may stand on their shoulders (whenever it seems right to us to do so), we continue vet everything that they said, believed and taught, and we have done so for millennia now, so that the final conclusions that we reach about Biblical and historical truth today are our (own) conclusions, not theirs!
God bless you!!
~Deuteronomy
A. We are made in the image of God.
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
B. We are the objects of His love.
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
If you read the Temple Scroll, DDS11Q19, it describes a temple that is clearly not the Jerusalem one, in which there is a central pillar with a stairwell going up to the roof. This is a known feature involved in worship of the sun god. Then we go to the Talmud, Menahot 109 is one section, it references the Oniad temple built in Leontopolis early to mid 2nd century BCE in Egypt and debates whether sacrifices were proper there, with some rabbis ruling that it was an acceptable site with others arguing that it was not and that only the Jerusalem temple was proper. There was also the Elephantine temple, referenced in numerous letters between Elephantine and Jerusalem, none of which suggested that it was clearly not an acceptable temple, although the elephantine temple clearly deferred to the Jerusalem leadership. And recent archeology has uncovered evidence of a temple existing a few hundred yards from the Solomonic temple dating from the 16th century BCE to about the time of Hezekiah's reforms that also shows possible Yahwistic characteristic, similar to the temple found at Arad. Temples have also been discovered at Beer Shiva, Lachish and Moza, all of which fits with the admissions in the OT that there were multiple cultic sites in ancient Judah.
As for Constantine becoming Christian fairly early, it was clearly after Nicaea that he presented himself as Apollos and he continued as the supreme head of all official Roman religions until his death. As for what occurred at Nicaea, we only have a later account, which strangely portrays the council as the almost a perfect mirror image of typical councils involving a Roman emperor. Typically, an emperor would call for a council at a location of his choosing, here the bishops originally called for the council, but Constantine offered his palace and assistance with transportation, the emperor alone sat unless he gave permission for others to sit, supposedly Constantine stood until the collected bishops gave him permission to sit. Now both traditions say that the bishops were allowed to speak and resent their cases, although a presbyter life Athanasius would not have been allowed to speak, unlike his claim, but then the emperor would declare what the council agreed on, and all attendees were expected to concur. And given that Eusebius claims to have received an order for 50 bibles from Constantine and that they only met at Nicaea, and that Eusebius shifted his support away from Arius suddenly, it is hard to imagine that such an action was coincidental, or that the entire council was atypical for a council involving the emperor. And one might also with to consider that Maxentius reportedly also supported the legalization of Christianity.
And I trust that you are aware that three different sources all claim that Tiberius forbade persecution of the followers of Jesus sometime in the mid-30's, after he failed to get the Roman senate to approve Jesus as a Roman god, presumably because the Senate did not initiate the proceedings.
The Rockefeller Foundation - infamous for its involvement in one-world political organizations, such as the Council on Foreign
Relations and the Trilateral Commission - is funding the research on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Also, the U.S. government’s top-secret research lab at Los Alamos, New Mexico, is digitizing these Dead Sea Scrolls so that they can be more clearly read. Anyone might ask, “Why would these parties be interested in this material?” This is happening because the Dead Sea Scrolls prescribe all of the elements needed to coerce people to adapt to the one-world political and religious system advocated by these parties. The Dead Sea Scrolls advocate:
1. The confiscation of personal property to the group.
2. The coming of two Messiahs: one a religious prophet, the other a civil leader.
Students of Bible prophecy know that this corresponds exactly to the beast and the false prophet of Revelation. The Dead Sea Scrolls say that the Essenes are “sons of the light,” ruled by the “angel of light.” Bible students know that the “angel of light” is Satan."
Even Google is in on this.
https://cool.culturalheritage.org/coolaic/sg/bpg/annual/v37/bpga37-12.pdf
West Meets East - The Story of Rockefeller Museum
And the Talmud is satanic - don't get me started on that.
When you start getting into re-definitions and re-statements of the Truth, you’re no longer in the Truth, you’re an image of the Truth. A sect or denomination is not the real thing, it is not the Truth; it is only an interpretation of the Truth, it is only a perception of the Truth. The works of men (creeds, confessions, or articles of faith) quicken no one and save no souls.
John 6:63, "It is the spirit [*not creeds, confessions, or articles of faith] that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."
Hosea 8:6, "…the workman made it [*creeds, confessions, or articles of faith]; therefore it is not God:"
Isaiah 17:7-8, "At that day shall a man look to his Maker, and his eyes shall have respect to the Holy One of Israel. And he shall not look to the altars, the work of his hands, neither shall respect that which his fingers have made [*creeds, confessions, or articles of faith]..."
And I believe Acts also suggests that the early Christian church held property in common, and there is a passage in Psalms that in the original Hebrew implies two messiahs.
Now if you can refer me to any quality information that supports your claims, I will look at it, but I am not interested in conspiracy claims. And remember, if you claim that creeds, confessions and articles of faith are not of God, you also are claiming that traditions such as you are citing are also not of God unless you can show very positive proof, and that is extremely difficult to do.