Nicene Creed

[kyredneck]

The Roman Empire represented "the World" to the 1st century Jews and Christians.

...don't you think it odd that it was Jews and not Romans that were convicted of the crime? The Romans were tools, used by the Jews [Acts of the Apostles 2:22-23].

Was it to the Romans that Christ declared this?:

"...upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of Abel the righteous unto the blood of Zachariah son of Barachiah, whom ye slew between the sanctuary and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation...."

Was it Roman multitudes that the Jewish leaders were manipulating?:

"...the chief priests and the elders persuaded the multitudes that they should ask for Barabbas, and destroy Jesus...."

Was it a Roman multitude that made the choice?:

"...the governor answered and said unto them, Which of the two will ye that I release unto you? And they said, Barabbas...."

Was it a Roman multitude that called for His execution?:

"...Pilate saith unto them, What then shall I do unto Jesus who is called Christ? They all say, Let him be crucified...."

Was it Romans that pronounced this and openly took the blame?:

"... And all the people answered and said, His blood be on us, and on our children...."

Once again, the Spirit makes no bones about laying the blame for Christ's murder squarely on the Jews.

 

[37818]

You reject the Doctrine of the Trinity.

I do not reject the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity.

Do you also reject the Spirit comes from God?

John 4:24, God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

 

[JonC]

...don't you think it odd that it was Jews and not Romans that were convicted of the crime? The Romans were tools, used by the Jews [Acts of the Apostles 2:22-23].

Was it to the Romans that Christ declared this?:

"...upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of Abel the righteous unto the blood of Zachariah son of Barachiah, whom ye slew between the sanctuary and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation...."

Was it Roman multitudes that the Jewish leaders were manipulating?:

"...the chief priests and the elders persuaded the multitudes that they should ask for Barabbas, and destroy Jesus...."

Was it a Roman multitude that made the choice?:

"...the governor answered and said unto them, Which of the two will ye that I release unto you? And they said, Barabbas...."

Was it a Roman multitude that called for His execution?:

"...Pilate saith unto them, What then shall I do unto Jesus who is called Christ? They all say, Let him be crucified...."

Was it Romans that pronounced this and openly took the blame?:

"... And all the people answered and said, His blood be on us, and on our children...."

Once again, the Spirit makes no bones about laying the blame for Christ's murder squarely on the Jews.

I don't think it odd.

And you make a bit of a mistake here. Scripture does not lay blame square on the Jews. Scripture lays blame on the Jewish leadership that called for His death.

If you recall, the reason the Jewish leadership sought to arrest Jesus before the Festival and at night was to avoid outcry and riots from the Jewish people.

The Jewish leadership and the Roman government were both a part of the World as a system. The Jewish leadership worried that they woukd loose power if a rebellion was started by another calling Himself the Christ.

The whold problem was the number of Jews who were following Jesus.

Scripture often makes the point that all Jews are not Jews (they belong to the World).

Likewise, all Christians were at one time Jewish. From there Christianity spread to non-Jewish peoples.

In fact, Scripture states that the Jews are God's chosen people. Those who reject Christ are not true Jews while Gentiles who accept Christ are grafted in to this people.

 

[JonC]

I do not reject the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity.
John 4:24, God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

I said that you reject the Doctrine of the Trinity. There is no concise doctrine expressed in Scripture (those truths are gathered systematically to form the doctrine).

And we all know God is Spirit. And we all know that God became flesh in the Person of Jesus Christ. No Christian denies that.

But the topic is about God as Spirit to include the divinity of Christ.

You say that the Word lost His relationship within the Godhead with the Incarnation. I say that is a heresy.


What you reject is the doctrine that the Word "eternally comes forth" from the Father and is "consubstantial with the Father" or "of the same substance".

You instead view the Persons of the Trinity with in the Godhead as changing in terms of their relationship with One Another.

Scripture specifically states that God does not change. The 1st Person of the Trinity did not become the Father, the Second did ot become the Word or Son, and the 3rd did not become the Spirit in terms of the nature of YHWH.

 

[JonC]

God not begotten and not made.

?


Genesis 3:22, And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, . . .

Whose identity, saying this, is the Son. Per John 1:3.

To clarify:

I am not, nor have I ever, said or implied that you reject the Trinity (just heading off false allegations should they arise)

You do, however, reject the Doctrine of the Trinity.

The Doctrine is more than "One God in three Persons).

The Doctrine also addresses heredies regarding these Persons.

You reject that the Word "eternally comes forth" from the Father and is "consubstantial with the Father" or "of the same substance" (Eternal Generation).

I am asking if you extend this type of change within the Trinity to the Spirit.

If the Word's relationship within the Trinity changed with the Incarnation then did the Spirit's relationship also change with being sent as the Comforter?

 

[JonC]

For those who appreciate visuals, here is the "Trinity Shiled" (the oldest copy we have is from the 11th century).

The Son is sent by the Father (the Word is sent by the Father). The Spirit is sent by the Father and Son.

Eternal Generation is the idea that the Trinity is eternal (God did not become Three Persons, the Word always "comes forth from the Father).

This is also known by the term "immutable" (God does not change in nature).

 

[37818]

You say that the Word lost His relationship within the Godhead with the Incarnation.

I say no such thing.
The Word didn't cease to be God. As God the Word did not change.
Now the Word is twice said to be with God. How do you understand "with God"?

 

[37818]

If the Word's relationship within the Trinity changed with the Incarnation then did the Spirit's relationship also change with being sent as the Comforter?

I understand this as two issues. Nicene Creed. Incarnation issue.

The Comforter, when sent. There are multiple views. For example, John 20:22 and/or on Pentecost. Received before or as the immersion[baptism] with/in the Spirit.

 

[37818]

@JonC,

You are using the term "Doctrine" of the Trinity, to only to allow it to only mean Nicene Creed for the word "Doctrine" with Trinity.

 

[kyredneck]

I don't think it odd.

I do. I wouldn't put it past there being a secret Jew or a Judaizer (precursor to Dispensationalism) sitting on the Council at Nicene whose sole intent was to divert blame.

And you make a bit of a mistake here. Scripture does not lay blame square on the Jews.

No. Moses foretold of that entire generation that did not belong to God on whom all the righteous blood shed on the land would come, some 1400 years earlier.

Those here on this board who insist that there is no 'foreknowledge' with God are very deceived, and wrong. God foreknows. Period.

If you recall, the reason the Jewish leadership sought to arrest Jesus before the Festival and at night was to avoid outcry and riots from the Jewish people.

What Christ said: Matthew 21:38

The Jewish leadership and the Roman government were both a part of the World as a system. The Jewish leadership worried that they woukd loose power if a rebellion was started by another calling Himself the Christ.

No. That generation (less the remnant) was of Satan, and they fulfilled Genesis 3:15, the Serpent bruised the seed of the woman. Period.

Scripture states that the Jews are God's chosen people.

It's not about 'the race' of Jews, it's about 'that generation' that was contemporary with Christ.

 

[JonC]

I say no such thing.
The Word didn't cease to be God. As God the Word did not change.
Now the Word is twice said to be with God. How do you understand "with God"?

We are not talking about ceasing to be God.

You reject that the Word "eternally comes forth" from the Father and is "consubstantial with the Father" or "of the same substance" (Eternal Generation) with the Incarnation.

 

[JonC]

I understand this as two issues. Nicene Creed. Incarnation issue.

The Comforter, when sent. There are multiple views. For example, John 20:22 and/or on Pentecost. Received before or as the immersion[baptism] with/in the Spirit.

Those are the same issue applied to different Persons of the Trinity.

Eternal Generation holds that the Word "eternally comes forth" from the Father and is "consubstantial with the Father" or "of the same substance" (that the Word be coming flesh (the Son) did not alter the relationship of the Word IN THE TRINITY.

Eternal Procession is the same doctrine applied to the Spirit.

YHWH is Eternal and Immutable

 

[JonC]

@JonC,

You are using the term "Doctrine" of the Trinity, to only to allow it to only mean Nicene Creed for the word "Doctrine" with Trinity.

I am using the Doctrine of the Trinity to mean the historical doctrine as expressed in the Athanasian Creed, the Nicene Creed and later in the Chalcedon Creed.

That is what the Doctrine of the Trinity is. You mean "a doctrine of the Trinity". I mean the orthodox Christian doctrine which holds YHWH as being eternal and immutable.

 

[JonC]

I do. I wouldn't put it past there being a secret Jew or a Judaizer (precursor to Dispensationalism) sitting on the Council at Nicene whose sole intent was to divert blame.



No. Moses foretold of that entire generation that did not belong to God on whom all the righteous blood shed on the land would come, some 1400 years earlier.

Those here on this board who insist that there is no 'foreknowledge' with God are very deceived, and wrong. God foreknows. Period.



What Christ said: Matthew 21:38



No. That generation (less the remnant) was of Satan, and they fulfilled Genesis 3:15, the Serpent bruised the seed of the woman. Period.



It's not about 'the race' of Jews, it's about 'that generation' that was contemporary with Christ.

The remnant are the true Jews. The fact remains that it was not the Jews but the Jewish leaders who arrested and handed Jesus over to be crucified (and they did this priri to the Festival and at night specifically not to cause a riot among the Jews that followed Jesus).

 

[37818]

We are not talking about ceasing to be God.

You reject that the Word "eternally comes forth" from the Father and is "consubstantial with the Father" or "of the same substance" (Eternal Generation) with the Incarnation.

What Biblical passage are you referring to?
As God there is no "coming forth." Unless you mean when the Word being the Creator in Isaiah 45:18, For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else. . . . per John 1:3.

 

[37818]

Those are the same issue applied to different Persons of the Trinity.

Eternal Generation holds that the Word "eternally comes forth" from the Father and is "consubstantial with the Father" or "of the same substance" (that the Word be coming flesh (the Son) did not alter the relationship of the Word IN THE TRINITY.

Eternal Procession is the same doctrine applied to the Spirit.

YHWH is Eternal and Immutable

God the Father, the Word being the Son and the Holy Spirit as distinct Persons have no beginnings being co-eternal the same LORD God.

 

[37818]

I am using the Doctrine of the Trinity to mean the historical doctrine as expressed in the Athanasian Creed, the Nicene Creed and later in the Chalcedon Creed.

That is what the Doctrine of the Trinity is. You mean "a doctrine of the Trinity". I mean the orthodox Christian doctrine which holds YHWH as being eternal and immutable.

Which creed refers to God and the Persons of Trinity using God's Name? Which creed refers the Son as sole Creator on behalf of the Father?

 

[JonC]

What Biblical passage are you referring to?
As God there is no "coming forth." Unless you mean when the Word being the Creator in Isaiah 45:18, For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else. . . . per John 1:3.

Galatians 4, John 3.....God sent His Son. His Son came forth from the Father.

The term "Word" carries the same meaning. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him."

Eternal Generation is the doctrine that the Word always comes from the Father in terms of the relationship between the Persons of the Godhead.

You want to pretend that we are not talking about Persons of the Godhead, but that is dishonest.

We trinitarians believe that God is One, AND eternally in Three Persons.

You seem to be denying God in three Persons with your argument that there is One God and completely ignoring the Godhead.

Do you believe there was a time when God....the One True God.....was not a triune God?

 

[JonC]

God the Father, the Word being the Son and the Holy Spirit as distinct Persons have no beginnings being co-eternal the same LORD God.

Yep.

My point is you reject the idea that the Divine relationship between the Father, Word, and Spirit is an eternal relationship (Eternal Generation).

Nobody is saying any of the Persons of the Trinity have a beginning.....I have no idea why you keep bringing that up


The point is that the DIVINE elationship between the Father and Word did not change with the Incarnation.

YOU keep insisting that the Incarnation means the divine relationship within the Trinity between the Father and the Word changed.

So YOU tell us how that happened.

 

[JonC]

Which creed refers to God and the Persons of Trinity using God's Name? Which creed refers the Son as sole Creator on behalf of the Father?

All of them.

"Lord God" is used as the name (YHWH represents the name, but is not an actual name.....people came up with Yahweh as a representative of how they think it could have been pronounced).

And all recognize the Son as the One through which all things were created.

Now, your turn -

Since you insist the divine relationship between the Father and Son BEGAN at the Incarnation (since you reject Eternal Generation) PROVE it via Scripture.