Growth Scriptural Creed

[brother Paul]

Part 1

I Believe
Rom 10:9, Jas 2:19, John 14:1

In one God,
Deut. 6:4, Is. 44:6

The Father
Is. 63:16, 2 Pet 1:17, Matt. 6:9

Almighty,
Gen. 17:1, Ps. 91:1, Rev. 4:8

Maker
Job 4:17, 35:10, Is. 17:7, 54:5

of heaven
Gen 1:1, 8

and earth
Ps. 104:5, Jer. 51:15

and of all things
Gen 1:31

visible and invisible.
Ps. 89:11-12, Amos 4:13, Rev. 3:5, Col. 1:16

The Son

And in one Lord
Eph. 4:5

Jesus Christ,
Acts 10:36, 11:17, Rom. 1:7, 5:1, 1 Cor 1:2, 6:11, 2 Cor. 1:2, 8:9
Gal. 1:3, 6:14, Eph. 1:2, 3:11, Phil. 1:2, 3:20, Col. 1:3, 2:6, 1 Thes. 1:1, 5:9,
2 Thes. 1:1, 2:14, 1 Tim. 6:3, 14, 2 Tim. 1:2, Philemon 1:3, 25, Heb. 13:20,
Jas. 1:1, 2:1, 1 Pet. 1:3, 3:15, 2 Pet. 1:8, 14, Jude 17, 21, Rev. 22:20-21

the only-begotton,
John 1:18

Son of God,
Matt 3:17, John 3:16

Begotten of His Father,
Heb. 1:5

Before all worlds,
John 1:1, Col. 1:17, 1 John 1:1

begotten,
John 1:1, Heb. 1:5

Not Made,
Mic. 5:2, John 1:18, 17:5

Being of one substance with the Father,
John 10:30, 14:9

By whom all things were made;
1 Cor. 8:6, Col 1:16

Who for us men
Matt 20:28, John 10:10

and for our salvation
Matt 1:21, Luke 19:10

came down from heaven
Rom. 10:6, Eph. 4:10

and was incarnate
Col. 2:9

by the Holy Spirit
Matt 1:18

of the Virgin Mary
Luke 1:34-35

and was made man;
John 1:14

and was crucified
Matt. 20:19, John 19:18, Rom. 5:6, 8, 2 Cor. 13:4

also for us
Rom. 5:8, 2 Cor. 5:15

under Pontius Pilate.
Matt. 27:2, 26, 1 Tim 6:13

He suffered
1 Pet. 2:21, Heb. 2:10

and was buried.
Mark 15:46, 1 Cor. 15:4

 

[brother Paul]

Part II

And the third day
Matt. 27:63, 28:1, 1 Cor. 15:4

He rose again
Mark 16:6, 2 Tim. 2:8

according to the Scriptures
Ps. 16:10, Luke 24:25-27, 1 Cor. 15:4

and ascended
Luke 24:51, Acts 1:9

Into heaven
Mark 16:19, Acts 1:11

and sits at the right hand of the Father.
Ps. 110:1, Matt. 26:64, Acts 7:56, Heb. 1:3

And He will come again
Jn. 14:3, 1 Thes. 4:16

with glory
Matt. 16:27, 24:30, 25:31, 26:64, Mark. 8:38, Col. 3:4

to judge
Matt. 25:31-46, Acts 17:31

both the living and the dead,
Acts 10:42, 1 Pet. 4:5

whose kingdom
John 18:36, 2 Tim. 4:1, 18

will have no end.
Luke 1:33, Rev. 11:15, Ps. 145:13


The Holy Spirit

And I believe in the Holy Spirit,
Matt. 28:19, Acts 13:2

The Lord
2 Cor. 3:17

And giver of life,
John 6:63, Rom. 7:6, 8:2, 2 Cor. 3:6

who proceeds from the father
John 14:16-17

and the Son,
John 15:26, Rom. 8:9, Gal. 4:6

Who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped
Luke 4:8, John 4:24

and glorified
John 4:24, 1 Tim. 1:17

Who spoke by the prophets.
1 Pet. 1:10-11, 2 Pet 1:21

And I believe in one
1 Cor. 10:16-17, 12:12-13

Holy
Eph. 3:16-17, 5:27, 1 Pet. 2:9

Catholic
1 Cor. 1:2

and Apostolic
Eph. 2:20, Rev. 21:14

Church,
Acts 20:28, Eph. 1:22-23, Col. 1:24, Heb. 12:23, 1 Pet. 2:9

I acknowledge one Baptism
John 3:5, Rom. 6:3, Eph. 4:5

For the remission of sins,
Acts 2:38, 1 Pet. 3:21, Tit. 3:5

And I look for the resurrection of the dead
1 Thes. 4:16, 1 Cor. 15:12-13, 16, 52

And the life of the world to come.
1 Cor 15:54-57, Rev. 22:5

Amen.
Ps. 41:13, 2 Cor. 1:20

 

[Jim Parker]

Part II
and the Son,
John 15:26, Rom. 8:9, Gal. 4:6

John 15:26 But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.

Send: πέμπω pempō

to send
to bid a thing to be carried to one
to send (thrust or insert) a thing into another

Proceeds: ἐκπορεύομαι ekporeuomai
to go forth, go out, depart


The verb “to send” refers to an action. For example, I may send a message or a letter.

The verb “proceeds” refers to the phenomenon of something coming out from a source such as light or heat coming from the sun.

The word “send” is used to describe an action while the word, “proceeds” is used to denote the source of something. As used in scripture, the word “proceeds” describes the source of the Holy Spirit in the same manner as the word “begotten” describes the source of the Son.

The words, “send” and “proceeds” are used in an ontological sense and, while they have related meanings in English, they had very different meanings to the bishops of the Council of Nicaea who crafted the creed to counteract the attempts of the Neo-Platonists to describe the Son and the Spirit as emanations of descending order from the Father.

Romans 8:9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.

This verse says nothing about the proceeding of the Spirit. The passage, in which this verse is found, addresses an entirely different matter. It is faulty exegesis to lift it from its context and attempt to force a meaning into it which was not intended by the author.

Gal 4:6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!”

This verse is referring to the establishment of a relationship between the Father and believers that is similar to that of Jesus, the Son of God, and the Father.

It does not address the ontology of the Holy Spirit.

The 11th century, unilateral, addition to the symbol of faith (creed) of the words, “and the Son” (filioque) by the western church resulted in a distortion of the Holy Trinity by subordinating the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son. The avoidance of such subordination was precisely the purpose of the bishops in attendance at the great councils. The Filioque undoes what the church worked so hard to accomplish.

my 2 kopecks
jim

 

[brother Paul]

Thanks for bringing this up Jim. The point of the post (which as you can see no one responded to) was just to show the creed was not something in and of itself we were to believe in (as in the sense of a "creedal" church as opposed to a word based church)...but that the creed itself was based on Scripture.

And I agree this addition did cause dome controversy and allowed for alternate interpretations and I know the argument but just as "proceeds from" the Father does not necessitate subordination of the Spirit to the Father, neither does the idea (interpretation) of proceeding from the Son imply subordination....the idea (in Greek terms) is that YHVH is one Ousia in three Hypostases...one hypostasis being core but all existing eternal and simultaneous...

I believe the idea being expressed is that the Spirit, though existing eternal and simultaneous, can be sent by the Father or the Son/Word. each having certain qualities not shared by the others (only the Father know the time of the parousia, only the Son through the incarnation experiences the cross, and so on)

So I have no problem with the concept behind adding the Filiogue but still believe it should not have been added...they added it because they take the Greek as more saying sent by or from as opposed to emanating from within

 

[Brother Mike]

Part II

And the third day
Matt. 27:63, 28:1, 1 Cor. 15:4

He rose again
Mark 16:6, 2 Tim. 2:8

according to the Scriptures
Ps. 16:10, Luke 24:25-27, 1 Cor. 15:4

and ascended
Luke 24:51, Acts 1:9

Into heaven
Mark 16:19, Acts 1:11

and sits at the right hand of the Father.
Ps. 110:1, Matt. 26:64, Acts 7:56, Heb. 1:3

And He will come again
Jn. 14:3, 1 Thes. 4:16

with glory
Matt. 16:27, 24:30, 25:31, 26:64, Mark. 8:38, Col. 3:4

to judge
Matt. 25:31-46, Acts 17:31

both the living and the dead,
Acts 10:42, 1 Pet. 4:5

whose kingdom
John 18:36, 2 Tim. 4:1, 18

will have no end.
Luke 1:33, Rev. 11:15, Ps. 145:13


The Holy Spirit

And I believe in the Holy Spirit,
Matt. 28:19, Acts 13:2

The Lord
2 Cor. 3:17

And giver of life,
John 6:63, Rom. 7:6, 8:2, 2 Cor. 3:6

who proceeds from the father
John 14:16-17

and the Son,
John 15:26, Rom. 8:9, Gal. 4:6

Who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped
Luke 4:8, John 4:24

and glorified
John 4:24, 1 Tim. 1:17

Who spoke by the prophets.
1 Pet. 1:10-11, 2 Pet 1:21

And I believe in one
1 Cor. 10:16-17, 12:12-13

Holy
Eph. 3:16-17, 5:27, 1 Pet. 2:9

Catholic
1 Cor. 1:2

and Apostolic
Eph. 2:20, Rev. 21:14

Church,
Acts 20:28, Eph. 1:22-23, Col. 1:24, Heb. 12:23, 1 Pet. 2:9

I acknowledge one Baptism
John 3:5, Rom. 6:3, Eph. 4:5

For the remission of sins,
Acts 2:38, 1 Pet. 3:21, Tit. 3:5

And I look for the resurrection of the dead
1 Thes. 4:16, 1 Cor. 15:12-13, 16, 52

And the life of the world to come.
1 Cor 15:54-57, Rev. 22:5

Amen.
Ps. 41:13, 2 Cor. 1:20

Most here believe the Modern version of the Creed, the Anthasian creed which is vastly different than the Nicene 325ad Creed.

The Nicene Creed does not make "ONE" God out of the mystery of some Christian faith. It makes Jesus the same Substance and level as the Father, like the Father, and two of them. The Holy Spirit was not included until 381ad in a revised Creed.

As spot on as the 325ad Creed is, it makes Jesus incarnate and begotten of God "BEFORE" the birth through Mary. The scripture does not give Jesus a incarnate or begotten date but when He became man, and the Creed has this event before Mary birthed Jesus. The Creed also states you must be Roman Catholic.

However, it's far more accurate than the Modern Anathasian Creed which the Western World bought into through ignorance.

Thank you for the post.

Mike.

 

[Kidron]

Most here believe the Modern version of the Creed, the Anthasian creed which is vastly different than the Nicene 325ad Creed.
The Nicene Creed does not make "ONE" God out of the mystery of some Christian faith. It makes Jesus the same Substance and level as the Father, like the Father, and two of them. The Holy Spirit was not included until 381ad in a revised Creed.
As spot on as the 325ad Creed is, it makes Jesus incarnate and begotten of God "BEFORE" the birth through Mary. The scripture does not give Jesus a incarnate or begotten date but when He became man, and the Creed has this event before Mary birthed Jesus. The Creed also states you must be Roman Catholic.
However, it's far more accurate than the Modern Anathasian Creed which the Western World bought into through ignorance.

Thank you for the post.

Mike.

 

[brother Paul]

Most here believe the Modern version of the Creed, the Anthasian creed which is vastly different than the Nicene 325ad Creed.

The Nicene Creed does not make "ONE" God out of the mystery of some Christian faith. It makes Jesus the same Substance and level as the Father, like the Father, and two of them. The Holy Spirit was not included until 381ad in a revised Creed.

As spot on as the 325ad Creed is, it makes Jesus incarnate and begotten of God "BEFORE" the birth through Mary. The scripture does not give Jesus a incarnate or begotten date but when He became man, and the Creed has this event before Mary birthed Jesus. The Creed also states you must be Roman Catholic.

However, it's far more accurate than the Modern Anathasian Creed which the Western World bought into through ignorance.

Thank you for the post.

Mike.

I think your onto something there Mike (please show us the early 325 creed) except the idea it requires one to be a "Roman Catholic" as opposed to a member of Christ's universal Ekklesia....the universality (hence the term catholic as used in the Ante-Nicene fathers) of the earliest church had absolutely NOTHING to do with Rome...it speaks of the faith we all hold in common not a particular kind of culture, or dress, or diet, etc., and not a particular focus of leadership

For example, consider a follower of Judaism even in that day...certain clothing set them apart, certain washing rituals, certain diet, all the males were circumcised, etc. Hinduism and Islam each have their own equivalents...Christianity however was cross cultural, no actual food restrictions, no particular way of dressing for certain things...Turkish Christians looked and loved as Turkish people lived, East African Christians looked and lived as ll ther East Africans...and so on

 

[brother Paul]

I believe the main need for a Creed people could recite was illiteracy....most Christians for centuries could not read

 

[Jim Parker]

Most here believe the Modern version of the Creed, the Anthasian creed which is vastly different than the Nicene 325ad Creed.

The Nicene Creed does not make "ONE" God out of the mystery of some Christian faith. It makes Jesus the same Substance and level as the Father, like the Father, and two of them. The Holy Spirit was not included until 381ad in a revised Creed.

Quite right. The council of Nicaea dealt with the teaching of Arius which essentially described the Son/Word-made flesh as a creature of "similar" essence with the Father rather than the eternal Word of the same essence as the Father.

The Council of Constantinople in 381 supplemented the creed of Nicaea in response to the teaching of Macedonius who taught that the Holy Spirit was not a hypostasis (English approximation: "person") but simply a power of God. (Essentially the teaching of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Jehovah's Witnesses. Some things never change!)

That council added: "And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father. Who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified; Who spoke through the prophets....."

My 2 kopecks
Iakov

 

[Brother Mike]

I think your onto something there Mike (please show us the early 325 creed) except the idea it requires one to be a "Roman Catholic" as opposed to a member of Christ's universal Ekklesia....the universality (hence the term catholic as used in the Ante-Nicene fathers) of the earliest church had absolutely NOTHING to do with Rome...it speaks of the faith we all hold in common not a particular kind of culture, or dress, or diet, etc., and not a particular focus of leadership

For example, consider a follower of Judaism even in that day...certain clothing set them apart, certain washing rituals, certain diet, all the males were circumcised, etc. Hinduism and Islam each have their own equivalents...Christianity however was cross cultural, no actual food restrictions, no particular way of dressing for certain things...Turkish Christians looked and loved as Turkish people lived, East African Christians looked and lived as ll ther East Africans...and so on

Well, having to be Roman Catholic was part of the doctrine, you take what it gives you. It was also backed by the Roman War machine if you had any disagreements. Anything coming out of Rome is suspect, and I am not a fan of their Modern Trinity doctrine.
As for folks being able to read? At that time you would do just to get parts of the bible to read. Even up until the 1700's it was not easy to get copies and the study tools you had were stone age. I can see why some very bad doctrines formed back in the 1500's, but I don't blame them for what they had to work with.

Quite right. The council of Nicaea dealt with the teaching of Arius which essentially described the Son/Word-made flesh as a creature of "similar" essence with the Father rather than the eternal Word of the same essence as the Father.

The Council of Constantinople in 381 supplemented the creed of Nicaea in response to the teaching of Macedonius who taught that the Holy Spirit was not a hypostasis (English approximation: "person") but simply a power of God. (Essentially the teaching of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Jehovah's Witnesses. Some things never change!)

That council added: "And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father. Who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified; Who spoke through the prophets....."

My 2 kopecks
Iakov

I am not so convinced Arius was that big a goof ball. Any doctrine He formed, came from very scarce sources of scripture which Rome had shut up, changed, and re-translated. It's oneness that grabbed much earlier writings to make Jesus a word part of a God system, Arius was thinking Jesus came from the spoken word, but at the time He was begotten through the word, through Mary. He missed John 17 where Jesus said give me the same glory you gave me before the World was, meaning Jesus had been here long before the begotten into human part.

Anyway, welcome to the forums, thank you for your 2 Kopecks.

Mike.

 

[brother Paul]

The original apparently reads

We believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of all things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the Son of God,
begotten from the Father, only-begotten,
that is, from the substance of the Father,
God from God,
light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten not made,
of one substance with the Father,
through Whom all things came into being,
things in heaven and things on earth,
Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down,
and became incarnate
and became man,
and suffered,
and rose again on the third day,
and ascended to the heavens,
and will come to judge the living and dead,
And in the Holy Spirit.
But as for those who say, There was when He was not,
and, Before being born He was not,
and that He came into existence out of nothing,
or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance,
or created,
or is subject to alteration or change
- these the catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.

 

[Brother Mike]

The original apparently reads

We believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of all things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the Son of God,
begotten from the Father, only-begotten,
that is, from the substance of the Father,
God from God,
light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten not made,
of one substance with the Father,
through Whom all things came into being,
things in heaven and things on earth,
Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down,
and became incarnate
and became man,
and suffered,
and rose again on the third day,
and ascended to the heavens,
and will come to judge the living and dead,
And in the Holy Spirit.
But as for those who say, There was when He was not,
and, Before being born He was not,
and that He came into existence out of nothing,
or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance,
or created,
or is subject to alteration or change
- these the catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.

Well, better get your Holy Water then, or delete that last line. However, Rome did change it, so I guess it's Anathematizes for them.

You can see the difference though, Jesus is of the same substance as the Father, this new God substance they made up. Not ONE GOD that is a mystery of the Christian faith the Anthasian Creed claimed hundreds of years later.
Still, they have Jesus Begotten, when Scriptures gives him no Begotten date but that coming from Mary through the spoken Word.

Joh_17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

So, Jesus was here with the Father, pre-dating the Genesis creation account. Nothing before that says he was begotten of the Father, or come from the Father.

Jesus said I proceed from my father, but He might have been talking about being on Earth, He did not go into detail about it.

Thank you for sharing Paul. Always good to read your post when I can understand them.

Mike.

 

[Jim Parker]

Well, having to be Roman Catholic was part of the doctrine, you take what it gives you..

There was no such thing as "Roman Catholic" in the 4th century. The split between the eastern and western churches did not occur until the12th century.

The word "catholic" in the 4th century referred to the one christian church which taught a uniform doctrine.

.[/QUOTE] Anything coming out of Rome is suspect, and I am not a fan of their Modern Trinity doctrine..[/QUOTE]

Your Bible came "out of Rome."

The Doctrine of the Trinity comes out of the 7 great councils (4th through 8th centuries.) If you are not a "fan" of that doctrine then you are not a "fan" of Christianity.

The RCC has not changed that doctrine.

.[/QUOTE]As for folks being able to read? At that time you would do just to get parts of the bible to read. Even up until the 1700's it was not easy to get copies and the study tools you had were stone age. I can see why some very bad doctrines formed back in the 1500's, but I don't blame them for what they had to work with..[/QUOTE]

Since all books were written by hand until the early printing presses, they were a rarity.
Before the Gutenberg press, (1500's) which had movable type, every page of a book had to be carved into wood as a mirror image and then printed from that carved block. Books remained very expensive and were only available to wealthy people.

.[/QUOTE]I am not so convinced Arius was that big a goof ball. Any doctrine He formed, came from very scarce sources of scripture which Rome had shut up, changed, and re-translated..[/QUOTE]

I don't know where you get your "information" but that is completely false. Arius was a 3rd century teacher in Alexandria. That, again, is about 800 years before there was such a thing as a "roman Catholic Church."

.[/QUOTE]It's oneness that grabbed much earlier writings to make Jesus a word part of a God system, Arius was thinking Jesus came from the spoken word, but at the time He was begotten through the word, through Mary. He missed John 17 where Jesus said give me the same glory you gave me before the World was, meaning Jesus had been here long before the begotten into human part. .[/QUOTE]

Oi veh!

Arius' teaching was the "there was a time when Jesus was not." That means that Jesus was not co-eternal with the Father which is in direct contradiction of John 1:1.

Please be careful that your (very obvious) prejudice against the Roman Catholic Church does not prevent your from loving your neighbor. The RCC (of which I am not a member) holds to the same creed as every Protestant church, the Eastern Orthodox churches, the Syrian Orthodox churches, and the Coptic churches. All those churches agree upon the essentials.

Grace! Grace!

Iakov

 

[Brother Mike]

There was no such thing as "Roman Catholic" in the 4th century. The split between the eastern and western churches did not occur until the12th century.

The word "catholic" in the 4th century referred to the one christian church which taught a uniform doctrine.

.

Anything coming out of Rome is suspect, and I am not a fan of their Modern Trinity doctrine..[/QUOTE]

Your Bible came "out of Rome."

The Doctrine of the Trinity comes out of the 7 great councils (4th through 8th centuries.) If you are not a "fan" of that doctrine then you are not a "fan" of Christianity.

The RCC has not changed that doctrine.

.[/QUOTE]As for folks being able to read? At that time you would do just to get parts of the bible to read. Even up until the 1700's it was not easy to get copies and the study tools you had were stone age. I can see why some very bad doctrines formed back in the 1500's, but I don't blame them for what they had to work with..[/QUOTE]

Since all books were written by hand until the early printing presses, they were a rarity.
Before the Gutenberg press, (1500's) which had movable type, every page of a book had to be carved into wood as a mirror image and then printed from that carved block. Books remained very expensive and were only available to wealthy people.

.[/QUOTE]I am not so convinced Arius was that big a goof ball. Any doctrine He formed, came from very scarce sources of scripture which Rome had shut up, changed, and re-translated..[/QUOTE]

I don't know where you get your "information" but that is completely false. Arius was a 3rd century teacher in Alexandria. That, again, is about 800 years before there was such a thing as a "roman Catholic Church."

.[/QUOTE]It's oneness that grabbed much earlier writings to make Jesus a word part of a God system, Arius was thinking Jesus came from the spoken word, but at the time He was begotten through the word, through Mary. He missed John 17 where Jesus said give me the same glory you gave me before the World was, meaning Jesus had been here long before the begotten into human part. .[/QUOTE]

Oi veh!

Arius' teaching was the "there was a time when Jesus was not." That means that Jesus was not co-eternal with the Father which is in direct contradiction of John 1:1.

Please be careful that your (very obvious) prejudice against the Roman Catholic Church does not prevent your from loving your neighbor. The RCC (of which I am not a member) holds to the same creed as every Protestant church, the Eastern Orthodox churches, the Syrian Orthodox churches, and the Coptic churches. All those churches agree upon the essentials.

Grace! Grace!

Iakov[/QUOTE]

According to the RCC,they started Jesus.

As for the doctrine of the so called trinity, I am not much at odds with the 325 version, it's the new version I don't care for.

And yes, the RCC has changed the Doctrine of the Trinity, starting with adding the Holy Spirit in 381ad. The 325 Version was good enough, and the Anthasian creed is a mess of a doctrine.

You need to go check your facts again, and google where the RCC started, they will be more than happy to tell you they started with Jesus.

amazing.

Mike.

 

[reba]

closed for review