Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Nicene Creed

I believe that the word/logos is an expression of Father YHWH and that He used it to speak creation into existence (Psalm 33:6), but I do not believe the word/logos was a second person until it became flesh.
I apologize that I just now noticed this. Above you say, " I do not believe the word/logos was a second person until it became flesh".
Now it occurs to me, that perhaps you are saying, that the Word became a distinct person from the Father when the Word became flesh. Is that what you mean by " a second person"?
 
We still don't know what Arius taught. Everything we are told that he taught, is presented by his opponents.
There are H U G E logical fallacies in this statement.
The first is the assumption that in the case of a heretic, the opponents of Arius were not accurate in what they stated.
The second is the fact that you are using the logical error called "begging the question". that happens when someone makes a false assumption then asks a question that assumes that the false assumption is true.

I am not attempting to be snarky here, and it does seem at this point that you are indeed a defender of Arius, BUT if you really believe that he got a bad reputation, then it is your obligation to demonstrate that with facts, and not to make allegations using unsubstantiated innuendos

I question whether it was a heresy.
I was right!

God spoke and through His Word all things were created. So was there a time or place before God spoke, before anything was created? Before God expressed Himself?
Indeed, there was a time before God created anything. But since it requires created beings, and created material to create a written history. there is nothing else we need to know about that time, other than what is recorded in Scripture.

At any rate, it bothers me that his works were destroyed.
Obviously, you must feel some sort of affinity for him. Why is that?

I
wouldn't burn Mein Kampf, just because I was afraid that those who read it would become Nazis.
This is also another false analogy. You are making s highly superficial comparison between two books on two different subjects. It is called "false comparison" or "false moral equivalent.
 
My position is that Yeshua is the Messiah, the Son of YHWH who began to exist as a living being when he was conceived in his mother's womb via the power of the Holy Spirit. His Father spoke him into existence (the word became flesh). Prior to that, he existed only in the mind of his Father YHWH.

As I understand it, Arius believed the Son preexisted, but not eternally, that is, that he had a beginning prior to creation.
Are you SURE that you are NOT Oneness?

Do you believe in the Trinity as a valid expression of the nature of the Godhead?
th


Let's cut to the chase: What do you believe is in error in the diagram above?
More important is your ability to express your opinion using Scripture to back it up.
 
We know Jesus was born and had a beginning as a man.

That is not an accurate, Bible-based statement:
.
Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. Jesus ALWAYS (and still) exists
John 8: 40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham
The Word is the power that created all things including time and space. As pertains to the Word, there could be an eternal existence before God ever spoke. This doesn't change the fact that God's Word is the expression of Himself.
John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am
 
There are H U G E logical fallacies in this statement.
The first is the assumption that in the case of a heretic, the opponents of Arius were not accurate in what they stated.
The second is the fact that you are using the logical error called "begging the question". that happens when someone makes a false assumption then asks a question that assumes that the false assumption is true.

I am not attempting to be snarky here, and it does seem at this point that you are indeed a defender of Arius, BUT if you really believe that he got a bad reputation, then it is your obligation to demonstrate that with facts, and not to make allegations using unsubstantiated innuendos


I was right!

Indeed, there was a time before God created anything. But since it requires created beings, and created material to create a written history. there is nothing else we need to know about that time, other than what is recorded in Scripture.

Obviously, you must feel some sort of affinity for him. Why is that?
I
This is also another false analogy. You are making s highly superficial comparison between two books on two different subjects. It is called "false comparison" or "false moral equivalent.

This is an excellent expose of faulty reasoning. Congrats!
 
This is an excellent expose of faulty reasoning. Congrats!
Thank you for that comment.
When we deal with statements that are not congruent with what the Ecumenical Creeds teach (we have to remember that the Ecumenical Creeds are codifications of what Scripture itself teaches) that there are many logical fallacies.

One of my favorite examples of logical fallacies involve what I call "number spinners" who do everything they can do to make the return of Jesus happen in the fall of this, year, last year, or next year (you get the picture, and why I call them "number spinners")

Almost to a person, they will have the Statue of Daniel have all ten toes on one foot, and not realize the absurdity of their reasoning, nor the fact that they are actually being foolish, and are shearing the flock of pastors in order to line their pockets.
 
Therefore, what would your uncorrupted English translation of Ἰησοῦς be?
Names are supposed to be transliterated. The Son's name in Hebrew is "Yeshua". Transliterated into English it is "Yeshua".
 
That is not an accurate, Bible-based statement:
.
Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. Jesus ALWAYS (and still) exists
John 8: 40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham
The Word is the power that created all things including time and space. As pertains to the Word, there could be an eternal existence before God ever spoke. This doesn't change the fact that God's Word is the expression of Himself.
John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am

John 1:1 (ESV) confirms that the Word (Jesus) was always God but he became the God-man by becoming flesh (John 1:14 ESV). When was that? When he was born to Mary at Bethlehem.
 
I take it for granted most believers know what the filioque meant.

That wasn't in the original Nicene Creed. Most believers I know do not follow creeds and they wouldn't know the meaning of filioque.
 
childeye,

I am coming in late on the conversation, but you seem to be skewing something here with your statement that 'I tend to capitalize 'Word' to indicate that it/he is Spirit, and therefore a person in that respect'.

'The Word' cannot be an 'it' because he is the God-man, not an inanimate 'it'.
Yes you are right. That's why I said 'he' also, to draw attention to that exact point.. Our language is limited, so I do the best I can. When someone asks me what is spirit? Inevitably I tend to say, 'it' is the life giving part of the person that constitutes our sentient character or person. Even scripture sometimes says 'It' when referring to the spirit. but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

John 1:1 (ESV) tells us that 'the Word was God' but there is no identification of 'the Word' with Jesus in this verse.
That comes in John 1:14 (ESV), 'And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth'. Thus, the Word is the Son who became flesh.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the son refers to the Word before becoming flesh. If so your point might be made in the parable of the vineyard, where the Master first sends His servants whom they kill, and then He sends His son.

So, the Word of John 1:1 (ESV) and John 1:14 (ESV) is not the Spirit. The Word is the person of the God-man Jesus who became flesh when conceived and born in the flesh (cf. Gal 4:4)
Some more semantic issues for me. This doesn't make sense to me. Why? Because when I say Spirit, I am referring to that power that animates gives life, and is sentient. God is the Eternal Spirit which is Light and Truth. His Spirit is therefore also His Person or Character. So to me, for you to say that the Word is not the Spirit of God, is to say the Word is not a living Word.

It doesn't seem relevant to me whether the son as the Word had no beginning and is co-eternal. There is no way to know if God was ever not a Father, and it doesn't even constitute equality in my view. The terms Father and son are temporal terms that I believe are used to convey the understanding that Spirit begets Spirit. But what is important to me, is that the Character of God is the same Character that is in Jesus. So as to say that believing that Jesus is God's Christ/son, is saying that this man Jesus, is the True Image of God sent by God.
 
Last edited:
Names are supposed to be transliterated. The Son's name in Hebrew is "Yeshua". Transliterated into English it is "Yeshua".

Transliterated from the Greek NT to English, it is Jesous, which becomes Jesus in English. It should be no big deal. We know from the NT who he is - the God-man, Messiah, Saviour, Son of God, Son of Man, etc.
 
Yes you are right. That's why I said 'he' also, to draw attention to that exact point.. Our language is limited, so I do the best I can. When someone asks me what is spirit? Inevitably I tend to say, 'it' is the life giving part of the person that constitutes our sentient character or person. Even scripture sometimes says 'It' when referring to the spirit. but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

In Greek, the pronoun he/she/it is built into the verb and which pronoun is chosen depends on the context and the nature of the person.
 
John 1:1 (ESV) confirms that the Word (Jesus) was always God but he became the God-man by becoming flesh (John 1:14 ESV). When was that? When he was born to Mary at Bethlehem.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2001).
I have mo doubt that you BELIEVE as you posted, but the Bible in that version, nor any other version does not support what you stated

If it were as you stated, then Jesus would be a liar or a lunatic when he stated this:

John 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am
 
In Greek, the pronoun he/she/it is built into the verb and which pronoun is chosen depends on the context and the nature of the person.
When you post about things in Koine Greek, you need to be aware that there are people who have studied the language in grad school.
Do you wish to revise that statement?
 
I have a question from the creed. Homoousia, Of the same substance, God is an eternal spirit essence, ??? DOES THE CREED SAY JESUS IN NOT A MAN.\????
Doceian heresy that Jesus only came in the spirit and not the flesh.
Logos DOES NOT MEAN JESUS. The WORD is what GOD SAID!

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1

Tertullian said John 1:1 the Word (logos) was reason and from OT Hebrew thinking reason was the personification of God. That is where the idea the “Word” is Jesus came from. A study of history and Greek writings shows that the Greek “logos” was not used in that way. It means the “reason of thought carried out to maturity”. Yes Jesus is the fulfilment of God’s plan, but the word is what God said all His commandments not just the final fulfilment. The verse says “God is all life and that life (Jesus) is the light of the world.”

1 Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν,
In Beginning was the word, and the word was before the God

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. 2 οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν.
and God was the word. It was in beginning before the God

3 πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν
All through Him came in to being and without Him came into being nothing

ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων·
In him Life was and the life was the Light of men.

Trying to translate theword (ὁ λόγος) to Latin as early as the second century the Latin Sermo(speech) and Verbum(word) were rival translations of this term. Tertullian (fl. A.D. 198–210) gives us both, but seems himself to prefer Rati0(reason). The Latin versions without exception adopted Verbum(word), and from it comes our translation ‘the Word,’ translations which have greatly affected Western theology. None of these translations are at all adequate; but neither Latin nor any modern language supplies anything really satisfactory. The Latin Verbum and ‘the Word’ do not give even the whole of one of the two sides of the Greek ὁ λόγος. The other side, which Tertullian tried to express by Ratio (reason), is not touched at all. For ὁ λόγος means not only ‘the spoken word,’ but ‘the thought’ expressed by the spoken word; it is the spoken word as expressive of thought. But on what was this doctrine based? Where did St. John derive the expression? There can be little doubt that it has its origin in the Targums, or paraphrases of the Hebrew Scriptures, in use in Palestine, and in the mixture of Jewish and Greek philosophy prevalent at Alexandria and Ephesus. (1) In the Old Testament we find the Word or Wisdom of God personified, generally as an instrument for executing the Divine Will, as if it were itself distinct from that Will. (2) In the Apocrypha the personification is more complete than in the O.T.(3) In the Targums, or Aramaic paraphrases of the O.T., the development is carried still further. These, though not yet written down, were in common use among the Jews in our Lord’s time; and they were strongly influenced by the growing tendency to separate the Divine Essence from immediate contact with the material world. Cambridge Greek Commentary for Schools e-Sword

With this in mind let us try this again.

1 Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν,
In Beginning was the thought, and the though was before the God

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
and divine was the thought.

2 οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν.
It(the thought) was in beginning before the God

3 πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν
All by God’s plan came in to being and without it came into being nothing

4 ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων·
In him(God) Life was and the life was the Light of men.(Christ)


But, what does that say? So much theology hangs on the meaning of this phrase we must know.
I think John 1:1 says “in the beginning was God’s plan and that plan was followed by God the Plan was divine.” In GOD is all life and that life became the Light of men, JESUS. The problem of this discussion is in the argument that “All Flesh is Sinful, Evil, or the opposite of God.” Jesus the Son of God, cannot be flesh it is evil. This is an ancient Mystic idea coming from Babylonian Mysticism and Zoroastrianism, it is the origin of Satan’s counterfeit. John 1:1 was translated to Latin then German and English with the theology that Jesus existed from before creation because He could not be Flesh, a man. BUT, Jesus was a man, He had to be a man to take our place and pay the sin debt. In a wonderful, hard to understand, God controlled mystery Jesus was both God and man, the exact extent of which I cannot explain.

BUT HE WAS TOTALLY GOD AND TOTALLY MAN.
The man had a birth conceived of God by the Holy Spirit in Mary. Grew and learned a trade, taught the way we can see God and how to live for God, then He took our place on the cross and paid a debt we could not pay. He is risen and rewarded and sits at God’s right hand. We must not translate Bible with a preconceived theology in mind, it generates error.

Joh 18:37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Are you a king then? Jesus answered, You say that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth hears my voice.
Look carefully at this verse there are two statements. 1. I was BORN the MAN. 2. I came into the world, The second person of the trinity.
JESUS WAS THE GOD/MAN BOTH A REAL MAN AND TOTALLY GOD.

Tertullian tried to express by Ratio(reason) the idea that the word was Jesus as God’s reason. And Jesus is the savior who carried out the plan. But, we must be careful not to make Jesus the plan. There is so much here we sell God short if we read this wrong.

Now, the Greeks talked much about the Logos. And according to the Greek philosophy, everything pre-existed in a thought. Anything that you see existed in thought before it became form. In other words, a pulpit began with a thought. Some craftsman had in his mind a design, an idea for a podium. And so, he drew it out on a piece of paper, but it was the expression of his thought. And so, before anything exists, it has pre-existed in a thought. So, to the Greek philosopher, the thought was the origin of things. Well, the Bible takes you one step further back. It said if there was a thought, then there had to be a thinker, because you can't have a thought without a thinker. So, in the beginning, God, "In the beginning, was the Word (the thought, the Plan)." And so, it actually goes back even before the thought, you have the existence of the One who thought, or the existence of God. Chuck Smith Commentary e-Sword

In the Greek world Plato argued that the reality of everything was in the mind, the thought. Aristotle argued the reality of everything is in the ITEM itself, “real” is what I can touch, measure, see. John’s use is the thoughtnot the person or item in the physical world.
 
Back
Top