The Nicene Creed

[OzSpen]

By Grace,

You stated,

But IMHO, there is no one, no matter his theological stripe (I am Reformed and Evangelical) who has the right to place words into Scripture that are neither there, nor in a scribal gloss. So the choice is yours on what to do next:

Which translation of John 1:14 from Greek to English do you accept? Here's the Greek: Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας·

 

[RevSRE]

You may very well be.
Please look further at these Scriptures because it says that the Word was Jesus, and that He is God.

John1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;
2 this one was in the beginning with God;
​

ONLY by ignoring the previous verses can one come to the conclusion that Jesus Christ is something else other than God incarnate.

Please do not miss understand me I am with you fully that Jesus is the son of God, The GOD/MAN Fully God and Fully man. This is a mystery that God controlled and in His will it is true.
JOHN 1: 1- DOES NOT SAY THAT, The Greek Logos does not say nor imply that. There are other places that this is taught but this verse says the "Thought, the word spoken, the intent, of God was that the Messiah would come. Logos is the thought not the physical reality of the idea. It is a Gnostic influence that all Flesh is Evil, and JESUS could not be flesh. Thus we have a theology that Jesus the Man has been from all eternity. THE BIBLE DOES NOT SAY THAT!! He was born, lived and taught, and He died as all MEN do. He was raised from the dead and rewarded. Then seated at the right hand of the father.

No challenge or insult intended here, BUT, Please try to look at what it clearly says, Not what theology has taught for many years. There is more there that old church theology has admitted. If HE was not a man, He could not be from the people a priest and Savior.

This is the very problem with the Creed. This is the very fight they were having. Was Jesus a man or "Of the same substance as God." since God is a Self-existent Spirit essence, that makes Jesus the same, NOT A REAL MAN.

 

[JLB]

Please do not miss understand me I am with you fully that Jesus is the son of God, The GOD/MAN Fully God and Fully man. This is a mystery that God controlled and in His will it is true.
JOHN 1: 1- DOES NOT SAY THAT, The Greek Logos does not say nor imply that. There are other places that this is taught but this verse says the "Thought, the word spoken, the intent, of God was that the Messiah would come. Logos is the thought not the physical reality of the idea. It is a Gnostic influence that all Flesh is Evil, and JESUS could not be flesh. Thus we have a theology that Jesus the Man has been from all eternity. THE BIBLE DOES NOT SAY THAT!! He was born, lived and taught, and He died as all MEN do. He was raised from the dead and rewarded. Then seated at the right hand of the father.

No challenge or insult intended here, BUT, Please try to look at what it clearly says, Not what theology has taught for many years. There is more there that old church theology has admitted. If HE was not a man, He could not be from the people a priest and Savior.

The only begotten Son of God was sent into the world and became a Man, born of a virgin.

He was The Son of God, before He became flesh, born of a virgin, and continues to be the Son of God.

He shall be called... Everlasting Father.

He is the Lord, YHWH the Son of YHWH the Father.

And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced.
Zechariah 12:19

Every eye will look upon Him when He comes with His saints.

Make no mistake, it is the Lord God,
YHWH the Son, who is coming with the saints.

Thus the Lord my God will come,
And all the saints with You.
Zechariah 14:5


JLB

 

[By Grace]

By Grace,
You stated:
Please inform us when the Word of John 1:14 became sarx (flesh). When did that happen?

Thank you for your previous recognition of my exposures of logical fallacies. I am therefore surprised that you would attempt to engage me in one called "begging the question."

I am sticking only with the text, and it says what it means, and it means exactly what God, Holy Spirit inspired the Apostle John to write. Since there is no time frame referenced in John 1:14, you are erroneously imposing a time frame on that verse, then you are asking me a question based upon a faulty proposition. Hence the error of logic called "begging the question".

Because an error of logic is faulty from the get-go, it is a "gotcha trap" and it is false. Therefore I cannot nor will I answer a faulty question. It is akin to asking "Give me a yes or no answer to this question: Have you stopped beating your wife?"

Of course, you are welcome to believe that John the Apostle should have written ἄνθρωπος (human) instead of σὰρξ (flesh) (sarks), but from this monitor, that seems to be crossing the line dron of being a student of Scripture to presumptuously going on to say that Holy Spirit as well as the APOSTLE John "got it wrong". And therein lies the inherent danger of the dynamic translation method,

 

[By Grace]

JOHN 1: 1- DOES NOT SAY THAT, The Greek Logos does not say nor imply that. There are other places that this is taught but this verse says the "Thought, the word spoken, the intent, of God was that the Messiah would come. Logos is the thought not the physical reality of the idea. It is a

Gnostic influence that all Flesh is Evil, and JESUS could not be flesh. Thus we have a theology that Jesus the Man has been from all eternity. THE BIBLE DOES NOT SAY THAT!! He was born, lived and taught, and He died as all MEN do. He was raised from the dead and rewarded. Then seated at the right hand of the father.

I will deal with John 1:1-2a

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2001). (Jn 1:1–2). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.​

In English, this is predicate nominative because "the Word" is connected by the stative verb "be" so there is a stated equality between "the word" and "God"
That there is no stated genesis of "the Word" the antecedent of the proper pronoun "He", is a second indication of the divinity of Jesus Christ

There are other places that this is taught

Your stating that as an opinion does not establish that as a fact. Where is the Gnostic heresy taught in the Bible? Please include the verses in its context, and not partial snips.

Thus we have a theology that Jesus the Man has been from all eternity. THE BIBLE DOES NOT SAY THAT!!

You must deal with Scripture actually says, and not what you wish it to say.

Philippians 2:Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal to God,
7 but did empty himself, the form of a servant having taken, in the likeness of men having been made,
8 and in fashion having been found as a man, he humbled himself, having become obedient unto death--death even of a cross,

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ yesterday and to-day the same, and to the ages​

I cannot understand it, I do not presume to explain it, but it is as plain as day. Jesus Christ ALWAYS IS THE GOD/MAN

Like the others, you may not like the Nicene Creed, but no one has demonstrated where exactly the Creed varies with the Bible. That is precisely where the OP author of this thread missed the mark. So unless you are a minister in one of the denominations that reject the Ecumenical Creeds as being inaccurate, you need to be more specific about the Nicene Creed.

Quite frankly, and without any personal animosity, I can state that your position does not seem to be congruent with any Evangelical church with which I am familiar.

 

[By Grace]

By Grace,
Which translation of John 1:14 from Greek to English do you accept? Here's the Greek: Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας·

14 Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας

Nestle, E., Nestle, E., Aland, B., Aland, K., Karavidopoulos, J., Martini, C. M., & Metzger, B. M. (1993). The Greek New Testament (27th ed., Jn 1:14). Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.

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). (Jn 1:14). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

It is not a matter of "preference"; it is an issue of fidelity to the original text.

 

[Jim Parker]

I can read.

That is obvious.
And, since you have so earnestly affirmed your reading ability, I can safely conclude that; either you intentionally distorted what I wrote or your ability to understand what you have read is less than adequate.

Gods Love doesn't change.

Nobody said it did.

What will change is sin/evil and death being put away.

That's another topic.

There will be no non-communion.

No one said there would be.
In fact, non-communion is an impossibility because God is Trinity. Even if there were no creation, there would still be communion and love within the Trinity.

 

[OzSpen]

Thank you for your previous recognition of my exposures of logical fallacies. I am therefore surprised that you would attempt to engage me in one called "begging the question."

I am sticking only with the text, and it says what it means, and it means exactly what God, Holy Spirit inspired the Apostle John to write. Since there is no time frame referenced in John 1:14, you are erroneously imposing a time frame on that verse, then you are asking me a question based upon a faulty proposition. Hence the error of logic called "begging the question".

Because an error of logic is faulty from the get-go, it is a "gotcha trap" and it is false. Therefore I cannot nor will I answer a faulty question. It is akin to asking "Give me a yes or no answer to this question: Have you stopped beating your wife?"

Of course, you are welcome to believe that John the Apostle should have written ἄνθρωπος (human) instead of σὰρξ (flesh) (sarks), but from this monitor, that seems to be crossing the line dron of being a student of Scripture to presumptuously going on to say that Holy Spirit as well as the APOSTLE John "got it wrong". And therein lies the inherent danger of the dynamic translation method,

By Grace,

This is a false accusation about a begging the question fallacy. My question regarding John 1:14 (ESV) and 'the Word became flesh and dwelt among us' has to do with exegesis and exposition.

14 Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας

Nestle, E., Nestle, E., Aland, B., Aland, K., Karavidopoulos, J., Martini, C. M., & Metzger, B. M. (1993). The Greek New Testament (27th ed., Jn 1:14). Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.

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). (Jn 1:14). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

It is not a matter of "preference"; it is an issue of fidelity to the original text.

You have not been faithful to the text because you have made at least 2 interpretive decisions in quoting from the ESV. These are:

1. The translation of monogenous as 'only Son' when other translations translate as 'only begotten' (KJV). In fact, the word 'Son', i.e. huios, is nowhere found in the Greek text of John 1:14. You have ADDED to the Greek text. Remember what you said about people who ADD to the text??
2. Also, in following the ESV, you have accepted 'the Father' as a translation. There is no definite article (i.e. 'the') in the Greek. It should be translated literally as 'a father'. Again, you have ADDED to the text. What did you say about those who ADD to the text??

Back in #414, it was you who stated,

But IMHO, there is no one, no matter his theological stripe (I am Reformed and Evangelical) who has the right to place words into Scripture that are neither there, nor in a scribal gloss.

Now you state, 'I am sticking only with the text, and it says what it means' (#424).

That is NOT what you are doing. You also add to the text with interpretation as in quoting the ESV translation of John 1:14. This demonstrates that it is impossible (even for those like you who like a literal translation to stick with the text) to give a literal translation without adding words of clarification for interpretation.

Oz

 

[smaller]

That is obvious.
And, since you have so earnestly affirmed your reading ability, I can safely conclude that; either you intentionally distorted what I wrote or your ability to understand what you have read is less than adequate.

I'm familiar with the background "story." And it is that. A story made up by a sect.

That's another topic.

Indeed it is.

In fact, non-communion is an impossibility because God is Trinity.

That really had nothing to do with the insertion of the storyline you postured.

Even if there were no creation, there would still be communion and love within the Trinity.

Another, deeper, topic. Before anything was created, there always was as you say, above. And, when this creation and subsequent ages are completed, that again, will be all there is. 1 Cor. 15:28. Who really knows what all has gone on in an endless past or an endless future for that matter?

 

[reba]

Closed for moderator review..