The curious case of John 5:4

[GodsGrace]

but who makes this defenition?

It’s legalistic if you say if you do not accept some creed made after the church was started and after the word was completed. You are not a christian.

I agree,
Just like God sets the standard. he spent 2000 years putting that standard together for us.

in the same way a google emplyee may disagree with something that Google set in stone is their truth..

we can not say we disagree with Gods standard, which he set in truth.

we either accept it as whole or as truth.



Yes,

just like you have to accept Gods standard.

God’s standard is not the some creed. God did not write that standard..Man did. It may agree with a lot of things or all the things in the word. But it is not. And should not be the standard

How did man write the standard?
Where did he get the ideas from?
Wasn't it what the NT taught?

Which part of the following did MAN write?

The (Original) Nicene Creed of 325

We believe in one God, the Father almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages.
Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of one essence with the Father by whom all things were made;
who for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man. And He was crucified for us under PonEus Pilate, and suffered, and was buried.
And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; whose Kingdom shall have no end. And in the Holy Spirit.


Which part of the above do you not agree with?

Yes, again agreed,

But the true church accepts Gods standard.

Not accepting the catholic standard. Or baptist, or Lutheran or anyone else standard.

Does the above creed sound catholic to you? Or reformed, or Lutheran?
Or does it sound like something all Christians should agree with?
Which part should we not agree with?

Gods standard is in his word. You have to accept it.. Not all of the churches mentions agree with what the word of God says.

so in the end, who gets to determine who is correct and who is not?

God, His Son and all the writers of the NT.

The pope? the pastor? The minister? The church elder? The church institution?

or God?

Again, which part do you not agree with?

that is the point that I am tryign to make, and I believe @Matthias is making also. To say he must submit to some creed if he wants to be a christian is legalistic..

The definition of what a Christian believes was set in stone 2,000 years ago.
We have no right to change what a Christian SHOULD believe.

 

[Matthias]

The (Original) Nicene Creed of 325 …

Do you see why it had to be amended in 381 at the Council of Contantinople?

The definition of what a Christian believes was set in stone 2,000 years ago.
We have no right to change what a Christian SHOULD believe.

I agree. 2,000 years takes us back beyond Nicaea to primitive Christianity.

 

[GodsGrace]

I do submit to a creed - the creed of Judaism, the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) - but it isn’t the one (or more?) that @GodsGrace does. What I don’t do is insist that everyone must submit to the only creed that I submit to in order to be Christian.

LOL
Yes,,,,but YOU are not the one to set the standard!
I'm surprised that you know church history and still make this assertion....most Christians I know believe
all church history ended with the last pages of Acts.

ALL Christians believe in the Shema.
And I agree with all the creeds except for one, but it was poorly translated.
Can't remember which one right now, but it states that on the 3rd day Jesus descended into hell.
Jesus was never in hell,,,the correct word should be Inferi, which means Hades...where the dead were waiting to be released from Abraham's bossom.

The early theologians took a lot of time to free the church from heresies...which were abundant.
Creeds were necessary to set this standard I'm speaking of. They were absolutely necessary or we would never have
our Christian faith today....it would have been lost among the differing ideas.

 

[Matthias]

LOL
Yes,,,,but YOU are not the one to set the standard!

That’s of course right.

I'm surprised that you know church history and still make this assertion....most Christians I know believe
all church history ended with the last pages of Acts.

That’s remarkable. I’ve never met anyone who believes Church history ended with the last pages of Acts.

One of my favorite fields of study is Church history. We were required to read it as college students but I’ve been reading and studying for at least 45 years.

ALL Christians believe in the Shema.

The Shema isn’t a trinitarian creed; it’s a unitarian creed.

And I agree with all the creeds except for one, but it was poorly translated.
Can't remember which one right now, but it states that on the 3rd day Jesus descended into hell.
Jesus was never in hell,,,the correct word should be Inferi, which means Hades...where the dead were waiting to be released from Abraham's bossom.

The early theologians took a lot of time to free the church from heresies...which were abundant.
Creeds were necessary to set this standard I'm speaking of. They were absolutely necessary or we would never have
our Christian faith today....it would have been lost among the differing ideas.

 

[GodsGrace]

Do you see why it had to be amended in 381 at the Council of Contantinople?



I agree. 2,000 years takes us back beyond Nicaea to primitive Christianity.

It was amended in 381, but then pushed back to 325...if I remember my history correctly.
I'd have to check to be absolutely certain and I'm just too tired now.
Wait...
Oh. It's missing the Holy Spirit. Maybe I don't remember correctly...

Primitive Christianity....I see the Nicene Creed in Primitive Christianity.
Is the issue with the Holy Spirit? (without getting into details).

 

[GodsGrace]

That’s of course right.



That’s remarkable. I’ve never met anyone who believes Church history ended with the last pages of Acts.

Did I misspeak? I meant that many Christians believe that church history ended with Acts.
Of course, those that have studied some church history know that it continued after that and up to this very day.

The Shema isn’t a trinitarian creed; it’s a unitarian creed.

Correct.
My point is that there is only one God....not three.
Are you saying that the Shema is a creed?
I guess so...it's a faith statement, a statement of belief.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

How did man write the standard?
Where did he get the ideas from?
Wasn't it what the NT taught?

The NT should be the standard. Not what men write correct?

Which part of the following did MAN write?

The (Original) Nicene Creed of 325

We believe in one God, the Father almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages.
Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of one essence with the Father by whom all things were made;
who for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man. And He was crucified for us under PonEus Pilate, and suffered, and was buried.
And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; whose Kingdom shall have no end. And in the Holy Spirit.


Which part of the above do you not agree with?

I disagree that I have to agree with that in order to be called a christian.

It does not make me a christian because I agree with some creed,

thats my point of contention

Does the above creed sound catholic to you? Or reformed, or Lutheran?
Or does it sound like something all Christians should agree with?
Which part should we not agree with?

Why should we hold this above the Bible?

God, His Son and all the writers of the NT.


Again, which part do you not agree with?

again, I disagree that I have to agree in order to be called a christian.

The definition of what a Christian believes was set in stone 2,000 years ago.
We have no right to change what a Christian SHOULD believe.

Yes, it was set in stone long before the nicede creed was put into existence. And we have no right to change not only the standard. But what we look to to find the standard.

 

[Matthias]

It was amended in 381, but then pushed back to 325...if I remember my history correctly.
I'd have to check to be absolutely certain and I'm just too tired now.
Wait...
Oh. It's missing the Holy Spirit. Maybe I don't remember correctly...

The Holy Spirit is in the Nicene Creed but it doesn’t go far enough. That’s why the quote from Gregory of Nazianzus is so important for all students of Christianity.

Primitive Christianity....I see the Nicene Creed in Primitive Christianity.

I don’t. The Nicene Creed (original and as amended) asserts much more than primitive Christianity does, and uses language and terms which weren’t used in primitive Christianity.

Is the issue with the Holy Spirit? (without getting into details).

It was the issue that necessitated the amendment.

 

[GodsGrace]

That’s of course right.



That’s remarkable. I’ve never met anyone who believes Church history ended with the last pages of Acts.

One of my favorite fields of study is Church history. We were required to read it as college students but I’ve been reading and studying for at least 45 years.



The Shema isn’t a trinitarian creed; it’s a unitarian creed.

PS
I'm not a scholar so my info on church history is very limited and it just seems to come and go and I don't study much anymore.
But what got me interested were 2 ideas:
1. Was Peter really the first Pope? I didn't feel I should trust the CC regarding this.
2. Are works necessary for salvation? Different ideas out there...I thought they were but I got so much push-back when I came onto these forums that I just thought I should use some different sources. The Early Church Fathers. On this subject they were all united in their writings.
Found this very helpful so I read some of their writings too....but way too little. So sad I didn't do this as a younger person many years ago.
Church history just wasn't discussed and I was trying to find out what the actual bible wrote about, while raising a family, so....

 

[Matthias]

Did I misspeak?

I don’t think so.

I meant that many Christians believe that church history ended with Acts.

That’s what I understood you to be saying.

Of course, those that have studied some church history know that it continued after that and up to this very day.


Correct.

***

My point is that there is only one God....not three.

Yes. We are in agreement on your point.

Are you saying that the Shema is a creed?

Yes. In some circles it is identified as the Messiah’s Creed. It is the creed of Judaism.

Since Jesus’ religion is Judaism, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that Jesus would have for his own creed the creed of Judaism.

I guess so...it's a faith statement, a statement of belief.

Yes.

 

[GodsGrace]

The Holy Spirit is in the Nicene Creed but it doesn’t go far enough. That’s why the quote from Gregory of Nazianzus is so important for all students of Christianity.

I'm going to have to put off the reading till tomorrow....
I must not be 60 anymore!!
But will get back to you.

I don’t. The Nicene Creed (original and as amended) asserts much more than primitive Christianity does, and uses language and terms which weren’t used in primitive Christianity.

If you don't mind...
what is in the Nicene Creed - either one - that is not in primitive Christianity?
What does it assert that goes beyond what is in the NT?

It was the issue that necessitated the amendment.

 

[Matthias]

PS
I'm not a scholar so my info on church history is very limited and it just seems to come and go and I don't study much anymore.

That’s fine. We’re just having a pleasant conversation, and we’re both trying to abide by the Board policy.

But what got me interested were 2 ideas:
1. Was Peter really the first Pope? I didn't feel I should trust the CC regarding this.

They make that claim but I don’t see support for it. The churches in major cities squabbled over who had the preeminence for some time before Rome finally emerged the victor.

2. Are works necessary for salvation? Different ideas out there...I thought they were but I got so much push-back when I came onto these forums that I just thought I should use some different sources. The Early Church Fathers. On this subject they were all united in their writings.
Found this very helpful so I read some of their writings too....but way too little. So sad I didn't do this as a younger person many years ago.
Church history just wasn't discussed and I was trying to find out what the actual bible wrote about, while raising a family, so....

Works are important (they give evidence of our faith) but it is faith that is necessary for salvation.

 

[GodsGrace]

The NT should be the standard. Not what men write correct?

Yes. I'm saying that I don't see the difference.

I disagree that I have to agree with that in order to be called a christian.

Well then, WHAT IS A CHRISTIAN?
Someone that follows Jesus?
Is that sufficient?

It does not make me a christian because I agree with some creed,

thats my point of contention

OK
But then what DOES make you a Christian?
I had a thread on this once...but I can't be starting threads anymore.

Why should we hold this above the Bible?

It's NOT above the bible.
You haven't answered my question:
What is in the creed that is NOT in the bible?

again, I disagree that I have to agree in order to be called a christian.

Yes, it was set in stone long before the nicede creed was put into existence. And we have no right to change not only the standard. But what we look to to find the standard.

I understand you. We're not going to agree.
I don't think the creed is changing anything....I've also asked @Matthias if he sees something there that is not biblical.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

PS
I'm not a scholar so my info on church history is very limited and it just seems to come and go and I don't study much anymore.
But what got me interested were 2 ideas:
1. Was Peter really the first Pope? I didn't feel I should trust the CC regarding this.
2. Are works necessary for salvation? Different ideas out there...I thought they were but I got so much push-back when I came onto these forums that I just thought I should use some different sources. The Early Church Fathers. On this subject they were all united in their writings.
Found this very helpful so I read some of their writings too....but way too little. So sad I didn't do this as a younger person many years ago.
Church history just wasn't discussed and I was trying to find out what the actual bible wrote about, while raising a family, so....

Thats why going to history is so dangerous.

1. it assumes what we have in writing today concerning history was based on facts.
2. it assumes that what we have in writting was actually when the true early church believed.

thats far to many assumptions to me.

The jews, when they went after christ. Went to their history. They say it proved they were write, and proved God (who wrote the history or the NT) was in error.

this is why I try my best to persuade people to look to the word. Not history.. remember, the one who rules owns history. They will not write anythign or let anythign stand that would go against them/

 

[Matthias]

Was the Jewish scribe whom Jesus agreed with in Mark 12:28-34 a Nicene creed affirming person?

 

[GodsGrace]

That’s fine. We’re just having a pleasant conversation, and we’re both trying to abide by the Board policy.

Idem.

They make that claim but I don’t see support for it. The churches in major cities squabbled over who had the preeminence for some time before Rome finally emerged the victor.

Agreed. I do want to say that the other 4 "Popes" that existed at the beginning of the church DID look to Peter, the Bishop at Rome, for settling some disputes because he had been an Apostle. (Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople, Alexandria).
Finally, yes, it was decided that there should be only one Pope but that wasn't until about the 5th or 6th century and they picked Rome to be the "headquarters" of the CC and so, going backward, the CC proclaims Peter to be the first Pope. Not entirely very honest.

Works are important (they give evidence of our faith) but it is faith that is necessary for salvation.

Absolutely. But I come across persons that state that works are a sin because we're "saving ourselves".
I've just heard all kinds of stuff on these forums.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Yes. I'm saying that I don't see the difference.

this difference is what you trust.

Well then, WHAT IS A CHRISTIAN?
Someone that follows Jesus?
Is that sufficient?

A christian is someone who follows jesus, that is actually what the word means

Now is every Christian a child of God. Thats where the difference comes in.

OK
But then what DOES make you a Christian?
I had a thread on this once...but I can't be starting threads anymore.

What makes me a christian? Or a true christian?

to be a christian is just to claim you follow christ.. go to a church. Or read the Bible

To be a true christian or child of God however, Am I born again, am I adopted as the child of God. Has my sins been forgiven, Have I been redeemed Justified, Sanctified. Will i be ressurected and glorified, do I have the seal of the spirit as a pledge.

if all of these are not true.. then you may be a chritian, But are you a true Christian?

It's NOT above the bible.
You haven't answered my question:
What is in the creed that is NOT in the bible?


I understand you. We're not going to agree.
I don't think the creed is changing anything....I've also asked @Matthias if he sees something there that is not biblical.

the fact they had to change it as he said, should lead you to pause.

I would have to study the creed. But I have no desire to, nor do i need to. It will not make me a christian or may or may not keep me from being a true christian.

I want to focus on the word not creeds. people focus on creeds or as the jews who focused on extra biblical writings. Because the Bible tends to not support them fully.. so they need extra support

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Idem.


Agreed. I do want to say that the other 4 "Popes" that existed at the beginning of the church DID look to Peter, the Bishop at Rome, for settling some disputes because he had been an Apostle. (Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople, Alexandria).
Finally, yes, it was decided that there should be only one Pope but that wasn't until about the 5th or 6th century and they picked Rome to be the "headquarters" of the CC and so, going backward, the CC proclaims Peter to be the first Pope. Not entirely very honest.


Absolutely. But I come across persons that state that works are a sin because we're "saving ourselves".
I've just heard all kinds of stuff on these forums.

If your doing work to save yourself is this not a works based righteousness?

and this does differ than works which are a result of your salvation..

can you at least agree there are differences?

 

[GodsGrace]

Thats why going to history is so dangerous.

1. it assumes what we have in writing today concerning history was based on facts.
2. it assumes that what we have in writting was actually when the true early church believed.

thats far to many assumptions to me.

The jews, when they went after christ. Went to their history. They say it proved they were write, and proved God (who wrote the history or the NT) was in error.

this is why I try my best to persuade people to look to the word. Not history.. remember, the one who rules owns history. They will not write anythign or let anythign stand that would go against them/

I'm sorry EG,,,I'm not following. Maybe I'm just too tired...
You don't trust church history?
You don't trust someone like Ignatius of Antioch?
He was taught by John.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I'm sorry EG,,,I'm not following. Maybe I'm just too tired...
You don't trust church history?

I trust what is written in Matthe through revelations. To me that is church history

I do not trust anything written after this. No one should

You don't trust someone like Ignatius of Antioch?
He was taught by John.

You were there? You know this to be a fact. Or you believe it because someone who claims to be a church father told you this?

and even if he was. What does he need to add that God did not already put in his bible that I need to hear? Can i read what he said? Of course I can, i read books all the time, but when it comes to who do I trust? I trust none of them completely. i follow non of them blindly. Because if they get one thing wrong, that one thing will lead me astray.