The Apostles' Creed

[Mike]

quotes within quotes.. confusing?

Sorry stranger. We seem to be in agreement most of the time, so I'm assuming we're in agreement here. But in reading your post 4 or 5 times, I have no idea what you're saying to me in it. Just lost in the formatting, I think?

 

[jasoncran]

ah, but you didnt answer the question,

how do you do it?

and where and who taught you how to worship? and the order

the how exactly isnt in the bible btw nor is the teaching

only what the the definition of proper doctrine is and what worship is. all esle that the church does is based on a men's idea of how to get it across.

please present me some methodology of order, just as i shown you, and those churches i have been to

help the poor,
the one i'm at now teaches children and that is its primary mission, at first for me.

You are so legalistic. Serving Jesus with all your might is worship. You believe in chariots and horses, not God's power. You believe in the majority, not the quality of your fruit.

legalistic, right, this from a guy who believes that person cant be these:

a judge, a cop
work for the federal goverment
a man in the military
yet no verse says this

have you healed through this power you claim to have done these:
have you seen the lost and and high on drugs get set free in one sec, after their prayer.
have you prayed for the sick and they have cancer and get healed
those churches that i have been to has.

you dont know me, i tend to avoid legalism.

you have a lists of dos and donts

i follow what the liberty given to me allows me to without violation of the basic commands.

since we are on the creed, and you say that the trinity is wrong, what part of bible dont you accept? since the nicean council was obviously wrong.

 

[shad]

Jason says:
legalistic, right, this from a guy who believes that person cant be these:

:
a judge,

Do not judge.Luke 6:37
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.

a cop

Luke 6:27-36 (King James Version)
27But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,
28Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.
29And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also.
30Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.
31And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
32For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them. 33And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.
34And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.
35But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.
36Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.

work for the federal goverment

Deuteronomy 23:21-23 (New International Version)
21 If you make a vow to the LORD your God, do not be slow to pay it, for the LORD your God will certainly demand it of you and you will be guilty of sin. 22 But if you refrain from making a vow, you will not be guilty. 23 Whatever your lips utter you must be sure to do, because you made your vow freely to the LORD your God with your own mouth.

a man in the military

Luke 6:27-36 (King James Version)
27But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,
28Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.
29And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also.
30Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.
31And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
32For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them. 33And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.
34And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.
35But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.
36Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.

 

[shad]

double

 

[jasoncran]

if the later is true then why did jesus ONLY tell the roman soldiers to treat no man harshly?

killing a man isnt exaclty nice. but he didnt say that they should stop being soldiers. take note. only that they shouldnt abuse their authority which they did alot.

since we are on this. you call a cop for a man stabbing your wife , and the cops kill him, you have just commited the sin. as if you let him go he would have lived.

so i see hyprocrasy, but i will leave that off

this chruch you have? what is it, you read the bible that's it.
is this house church have vistitors are you witnessing? and are souls coming to the lord. if you are the pastor . did God call you to this? what of the others, you have a wife and kids. what do they do in this chruch, if they invite more or do you fellowship in another house, and if so.
what is the plan when the lord blesses you find a structure to hold church in? as this must have some growth to it eventually as the lord surely wants his children to come and learn the true way.


where do you go if its only you and your family when you have an arguement and need counsel? and if that another group do they fellowhsip with you?

 

[chestertonrules]

I haven't read this whole thread, but I have seen many posts from those who deny the communion of the saints. Also, I don't think any evangelical can honestly claim to believe in the Holy Catholic Church as understood by the authors of the Creed.

Please don't think! LOL I've already defined the word catholic as it was intended. Plus, since it was written late 2nd. century, pre-RCC,er, excuse me, Latin Rite church, maybe you'd like to tell us the authors intentions?

Besides, one of the earliest versions of this creed simply said, "The Holy Church."

The Creed was written by members of the Catholic Church based in Rome. That was the Church they were referring to. Jesus only started one Church and the authors of the creed belonged to this Church.

The word Catholic has been redefined by protestants because it exposes them.

"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).


"[N]or does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of Aeons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:10,3 (A.D. 180).

“…to be in honour however with the Catholic Church for the ordering of ecclesiastical discipline...one to the Laodicenes, another to the Alexandrians, both forged in Paul's name to suit the heresy of Marcion, and several others, which cannot be received into the Catholic Church; for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. The Epistle of Jude no doubt, and the couple bearing the name of John, are accepted by the Catholic Church...But of Arsinous, called also Valentinus, or of Militiades we receive nothing at all.†The fragment of Muratori (A.D. 177).


“For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago,--in the reign of Antoninus for the most part,--and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled.†Tertullian, On the Prescription Against Heretics, 22,30 (A.D. 200).


â€Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God's priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another.†Cyprian, To Florentius, Epistle 66/67 (A.D. 254).

“But 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...these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.†Creed of Nicea (A.D. 325).

"Concerning those who call themselves Cathari, if they come over to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the great and holy Synod decrees that they who are ordained shall continue as they are in the clergy. But it is before all things necessary that they should profess in writing that they will observe and follow the dogmas of the Catholic and Apostolic Church; in particular that they will communicate with persons who have been twice married, and with those who having lapsed in persecution have had a period [of penance] laid upon them, and a time [of restoration] fixed so that in all things they will follow the dogmas of the Catholic Church..." Council of Nicaea I (A.D. 325).

“Concerning this Holy Catholic Church Paul writes to Timothy, 'That thou mayest know haw thou oughtest to behave thyself in the House of God, which is the Church of the Living God, the pillar and ground of the truth'†Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures,18:25(A.D. 350).



I could go on, but you get the idea! There is no difference between the Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church. Jesus started one Church, and it came to be based in Rome. It could have been based anywhere, but it ended up in Rome.

 

[Mysteryman]

I haven't read this whole thread, but I have seen many posts from those who deny the communion of the saints. Also, I don't think any evangelical can honestly claim to believe in the Holy Catholic Church as understood by the authors of the Creed.

Please don't think! LOL I've already defined the word catholic as it was intended. Plus, since it was written late 2nd. century, pre-RCC,er, excuse me, Latin Rite church, maybe you'd like to tell us the authors intentions?

Besides, one of the earliest versions of this creed simply said, "The Holy Church."

The Creed was written by members of the Catholic Church based in Rome. That was the Church they were referring to. Jesus only started one Church and the authors of the creed belonged to this Church.

The word Catholic has been redefined by protestants because it exposes them.

"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).


"[N]or does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of Aeons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:10,3 (A.D. 180).

“…to be in honour however with the Catholic Church for the ordering of ecclesiastical discipline...one to the Laodicenes, another to the Alexandrians, both forged in Paul's name to suit the heresy of Marcion, and several others, which cannot be received into the Catholic Church; for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. The Epistle of Jude no doubt, and the couple bearing the name of John, are accepted by the Catholic Church...But of Arsinous, called also Valentinus, or of Militiades we receive nothing at all.†The fragment of Muratori (A.D. 177).


“For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago,--in the reign of Antoninus for the most part,--and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled.†Tertullian, On the Prescription Against Heretics, 22,30 (A.D. 200).


â€Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God's priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another.†Cyprian, To Florentius, Epistle 66/67 (A.D. 254).

“But 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...these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.†Creed of Nicea (A.D. 325).

"Concerning those who call themselves Cathari, if they come over to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the great and holy Synod decrees that they who are ordained shall continue as they are in the clergy. But it is before all things necessary that they should profess in writing that they will observe and follow the dogmas of the Catholic and Apostolic Church; in particular that they will communicate with persons who have been twice married, and with those who having lapsed in persecution have had a period [of penance] laid upon them, and a time [of restoration] fixed so that in all things they will follow the dogmas of the Catholic Church..." Council of Nicaea I (A.D. 325).

“Concerning this Holy Catholic Church Paul writes to Timothy, 'That thou mayest know haw thou oughtest to behave thyself in the House of God, which is the Church of the Living God, the pillar and ground of the truth'†Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures,18:25(A.D. 350).



I could go on, but you get the idea! There is no difference between the Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church. Jesus started one Church, and it came to be based in Rome. It could have been based anywhere, but it ended up in Rome.

NOT ! = 4 cents :rolling

 

[destiny]

Why is it called "The Apostles Creed" if the apostles didn't write it?

 

[A-Christian]

NOT ! = 4 cents Mysteryman
Christian Forum Pro

Posts: 1410
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 5:27 am
E-mail

Talk about blowing your credibility. Sheeez Mysterman. Is that the best you can do in response to Chestertonrules?

 

[francisdesales]

“But 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...these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.†Creed of Nicea (A.D. 325).

"Concerning those who call themselves Cathari, if they come over to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the great and holy Synod decrees that they who are ordained shall continue as they are in the clergy. But it is before all things necessary that they should profess in writing that they will observe and follow the dogmas of the Catholic and Apostolic Church; in particular that they will communicate with persons who have been twice married, and with those who having lapsed in persecution have had a period [of penance] laid upon them, and a time [of restoration] fixed so that in all things they will follow the dogmas of the Catholic Church..." Council of Nicaea I (A.D. 325).

What is interesting on these two points is that most Protestants accept Nicea as a legitimate council, one that most agree "infallibly" tells us about the Trinity and Christology that the Bible is often vague or ambiguous about.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Why is it called "The Apostles Creed" if the apostles didn't write it?

Probably because it represents the faith taught by the Apostles and remembered by the Church.

Regards

 

[stovebolts]

NOT ! = 4 cents :rolling

Hervey,
Let me remind you of our TOS

You will not post anything that disrupts the peace and harmony of this forum. Don't make inflammatory remarks just to get a response.

Your comment does not add to the dialog of this topic. Consider this a friendly reminder of the TOS. You will recieve an official warning in the future.

 

[Vic C.]

Hi Jeff,

This anti-harmonious spirit started pages ago. This thread started out with an OP that was intended to bring believers together on points most of us could agree on. Then, with the first RC poster and their inflammatory remark towards those of the reformed belief, this became yet another RCC debate thread, which is also against the TOS.

I let it go for the time being, but it's really getting out of hand. While MM's post was provocative, it was in response to a post directed at me.

The word Catholic has been redefined by protestants because it exposes them.

In the Greek, it's katholikos and it means, you guessed it, universal. In the Latin, it's catholicus and it means... universal! I'm shocked! LOL I have not redefined anything and I 'wonder' what it is the reformers (Prots) were being exposed to?

The Creed was written by members of the Catholic Church based in Rome. That was the Church they were referring to. Jesus only started one Church and the authors of the creed belonged to this Church.

I could go on, but you get the idea! There is no difference between the Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church. Jesus started one Church, and it came to be based in Rome. It could have been based anywhere, but it ended up in Rome.

Jesus established a collective body of believers, the ekklesia. He did not establish one particular denomination to dictate who shall and shall not be a part of God's ekklesia. That is for God to determine, not man!

It really does irk me whenever any one denomination declares lordship over all other believers in the body; a body of believers bound together in a belief system that stresses a relationship between God and man that far surpasses ANY religious organization and their rules. We are a body that is told we are made free by the simple truth of the Gospel.

OK, enough now. Either we go back to addressing the OP without any denominational slant or we call this topic a done deal and close it. The next couple of posts will determine the fate of this thread.

 

[francisdesales]

This anti-harmonious spirit started pages ago. This thread started out with an OP that was intended to bring believers together on points most of us could agree on. Then, with the first RC poster and their inflammatory remark towards those of the reformed belief, this became yet another RCC debate thread, which is also against the TOS.

Oh, yea, another of those ...! :mad :eyebrow

Here is the original OP - Vic, note, this is asking about disagreements, not about what brings us closer together. So without addressing the "first RC's inflammatory remark", I would like to say the discussion on "catholic" and its meaning in the CREED was a valid point...

Many times we as Christians focus on the differences in our faiths. If there is one universal statement of faith of the Church, this is it, the Apostles' Creed. Is there anyone, Catholic or Evangelical, who disagrees with this creed?

While some may disagree with what "catholic" means in the Creed, what about the Christological ideas found in the Creed? From my conversations here, this seems to be the part of most contention, which is odd, because it was also during the time of its formation... There are some non-Trinitarian people on this forum, correct?

Any other disagreements? Resurrection of the Body? Virgin birth?

Regards

 

[jasoncran]

not on the virgin birth

the ressurection of the body, to clarify:
is the same that i have been debated oddly in the science forum, that after the millenium we will have bodies and will live on the earth?

 

[francisdesales]

not on the virgin birth

the ressurection of the body, to clarify:
is the same that i have been debated oddly in the science forum, that after the millenium we will have bodies and will live on the earth?

if I am not mistaken, Jason, some Christians consider the virgin birth "mythical", while the resurrection of the Christ was not bodily, since the body was different in mode to the Apostles. I disagree with both, but I have heard it said...

Joe

 

[jasoncran]

not on the virgin birth

the ressurection of the body, to clarify:
is the same that i have been debated oddly in the science forum, that after the millenium we will have bodies and will live on the earth?

if I am not mistaken, Jason, some Christians consider the virgin birth "mythical", while the resurrection of the Christ was not bodily, since the body was different in mode to the Apostles. I disagree with both, but I have heard it said...

Joe

they cant be a christian if they see that its a "mythical" virgin birth as Jesus must be born of a virgin to be a redeemer. and rose on the third day to be the saviour.

 

[francisdesales]

not on the virgin birth

the ressurection of the body, to clarify:
is the same that i have been debated oddly in the science forum, that after the millenium we will have bodies and will live on the earth?

if I am not mistaken, Jason, some Christians consider the virgin birth "mythical", while the resurrection of the Christ was not bodily, since the body was different in mode to the Apostles. I disagree with both, but I have heard it said...

Joe

they cant be a christian if they see that its a "mythical" virgin birth as Jesus must be born of a virgin to be a redeemer. and rose on the third day to be the saviour.

I am not about to judge what a Christian is or must believe, but I am curious to know why the virgin birth is the only way mankind can receive a redeemer, or that this redeemer must rise on the third day to be a savior. Is God BOUND to work that way? What forces God to do this?

Thanks in advance.

Joe

 

[jasoncran]

because he choose to. that is what he said he would do.

i say what i say as that person denies the diety of christ.
to me that is saying that the trinity isnt real and the jesus is and was just a man.and expect salvation

not gonna happen when the lord says that me must believe that lord(jesus) was born of a virgin and died and rose on the third day.

your st.agustine says this about the trinity, you will loose your mind if you try to understand it but you will loose your soul if you deny this.

wouldnt you agree.

 

[francisdesales]

because he choose to. that is what he said he would do.

Where does God say this, that the Messiah would be born of a virgin??? Or have to be?

I understand it is fitting and that it emphasizes the work of the Spirit, but could you point me to the Scriptures that tell me this? Isaiah 7 is quite vague, I think, if you are refering to that...

i say what i say as that person denies the diety of christ.
to me that is saying that the trinity isnt real and the jesus is and was just a man.and expect salvation

not gonna happen when the lord says that me must believe that lord(jesus) was born of a virgin and died and rose on the third day.

I realize this is apostolic teaching, but you said that the virgin birth is the only way man can receive salvation and that the Christ must rise after three days. I realize this was God's plan and that was God's choice, but my point is that God HAD a choice on how to save us, I don't think it necessarily had to be through a virgin or by rising on the third day (as opposed to the second or fourth, or not dying at all...)

your st.agustine says this about the trinity, you will loose your mind if you try to understand it but you will loose your soul if you deny this.

wouldnt you agree.

I think he is correct, that the Trinity is a mystery we will not fully understand in this life.

Regards