The curious case of John 5:4

[Matthias]

Does the Apostles’ Creed suggest to others the idea that God interacted miraculously / supernaturally with the virgin to breed a God? It doesn’t to me.

 

[Matthias]

You're cherry picking your creeds to suit your needs!

What is my need? My need is to abide by the current board policy. I “cherry picked” the Apostles’ Creed because I believe it is the only post-biblical creed that we can discuss and remain in compliance with the policy.

I still believe that to be the case but I’m beginning to think that you may not.

 

[talons]

I’m a Jewish monotheist. I believe in God. I believe also in Jesus Christ. That should be sufficient to establish me as a Christian. It did for them in the first century. Why would that not be sufficient for me In the twenty-first century?

I have a a question for you if I may . If the risen Christ was standing before you would you bow down and worship him ?

 

[Matthias]

I have a a question for you if I may . If the risen Christ was standing before you would you bow down and worship him ?

Yes.

 

[Lambano]

Yes.

That was an unexpected answer. Can you elaborate on why you would consider it appropriate to worship the risen Christ, please? And would it be a different answer for the pre-resurrection Christ?

 

[GodsGrace]

I believe Jesus is God, figuratively, not literally.



Check and check.



I’ve agreed with that.



Jesus told his fellow Jewish monotheists that they believe in God. He commanded them to believe also in him. Right?

I’m a Jewish monotheist. I believe in God. I believe also in Jesus Christ. That should be sufficient to establish me as a Christian. It did for them in the first century. Why would that not be sufficient for me In the twenty-first century?

The answer seems to be, because I don’t affirm the post-biblical creeds. If we are to consider them Christians - you do and so do I - then why the additional requirement for me?



***


As I see it, that was completed in the days of the Apostles.

That was NOT completed in the days of the Apostles.
Was Jesus God?
Was Jesus man?
Was He 50% of each?
THIS was completed by the time of the Apostles?
No.
It took a lot of time to sort this type of doctrine....
which is what makes us Christians today.

You want to go just by the bible?
Good.
Then please explain Titus Our savior AND God
Or Thomas' assertion My Lord AND My God
And many statements Jesus made.

The Nicene Creed came at the tail end of many heresies that required a final and authoratative statement
to STOP them.

As I've said...you've turned the Apostles Creed into your bible.
Why? Because you don't like how the Nicene Creed is worded...
because it doesn't match YOUR understanding of scripture.

I'm going to have to side with the Early Church Fathers who either were taught by one of the Apostles OR
by one of those who learned from them....

Ignatius and Polycarp​

Two of the earliest Church Fathers, Polycarp and Ignatius taught the deity of Christ. The early Church father, Irenaeus (circa AD 120–190) wrote that Polycarp was "instructed" and "appointed" by the apostles, and "conversed with many who had seen Christ...having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles."[2] Irenaeus also wrote that he clearly remembered "the accounts which [Polycarp] gave of his intercourse with John and with the others who had seen the Lord. And as he remembered their words, and what he heard from them concerning the Lord, and concerning his miracles and his teaching, having received them from eyewitnesses of the ‘Word of life’."[3] So his view of Jesus is very important. In The Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians, he mentions "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" and "our Lord and God Jesus Christ."[4]

Now may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal High Priest himself, the Son of God Jesus Christ, build you up in faith and truth and in all gentleness and in all freedom from anger and forbearance and steadfastness and patient endurance and purity, and may he give to you a share and a place among his saints, and to us with you, and to all those under heaven who will yet believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ and in his Father who raised him from the dead.

Thus, Polycarp agrees with the teachings of the apostles that Jesus is God.


Ignatius was the Bishop of Antioch at the same time Polycarp was the Bishop of Smyrna. He wrote seven letters to the Churches while en route to his execution in Rome around the year AD 110. In Ignatius’ Letter to the Ephesians 18:2 he states:

For our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived by Mary according to God’s plan...

In 19:3 he states:

Consequently all magic and every kind of spell were dissolved, the ignorance so characteristic of wickedness vanished, and the ancient kingdom was abolished, when God appeared in human form to bring the newness of eternal life...

In 7:2 he states:

There is only one physician, who is both flesh and spirit, born and unborn, God in man, true life in death, both from Mary and from God, first subject to suffering and then beyond it, Jesus Christ our Lord.

And in 1:1:

Being as you are imitators of God, once you took on new life through the blood of God you completed perfectly the task so natural to you.

In his letter to the Smyrnaeans 1:1 over whom Polycarp was Bishop he states:

I glorify Jesus Christ, the God who made you so wise...

Thus, Ignatius and Polycarp both referred to Jesus as God.

There's much more...
source: The Early Church Fathers on Jesus


You can disagree with Ignatius and Polycarp...
But I cannot.

AND, they made the above statement by about 100AD......
MUCH BEFORE the Nicene Creed of 325AD.

 

[GodsGrace]

I see that I need to clarify my position: They didn’t have to leave the Jewish faith. They didn’t leave the Jewish faith. They eventually had to leave the synagogues.

Where I can agree with your point is that Christianity later did leave the Jewish faith.



Christianity began as a sect of Judaism. The earliest Christians still met at the Temple and in synagogues. The home churches became the meeting places for the Jewish sect after they were “booted out” by the other sects of Judaism.



Jewish monotheism in the Church came before the post-biblical creeds. Harold O.J. Brown (another in your theological camp, this time a Protestant) poses a brilliant question to readers in his book Heresies: Heresy And Orthodoxy In The History Of The Church. I’ll have to think about whether or not posting it as a rhetorical question would be a problem.

***

I thought about. I think it will be okay.

”Was the transition from the personal monotheism of Israel to the tri-personal theism of Nicaea a legitimate development of Old Testament revelation?”

When Dr. Brown says “personal monotheism” he is referring to Jewish monotheism. I don’t think I need to explain what he means when he says “tri-personal theism”. You know what that is.

Everyone should be able to acknowledge that a theological shift / transition has occurred in the history of the Church and then ask themselves the question Dr. Brown posed.



My position is that Christianity is fully defined in the first century. Further definition happened after the days of the Apostles, as history attests.



***



Thanks. Do you accept then Tertullian as an ECF?

He left orthodox Christianity to join a sect.
He has differing opinions about orthodox Christianity that is in opposition to what other ECFs believed.
So I don't use him for support for any doctrine that I would question.

After 325 -> The Nicene Creed had to be modified in 381. (Again, the comment by Gregory of Nyssa is truly remarkable.) The Hypostatic Union comes to us from 451. I‘ve presumed that you accept these as valid developments. Please let me know if I’m mistaken about that.



That’s an interesting distinction that you’re drawing. I would say that the people in the first century are Christian by definition.



Yes, including the Apostles.



***



It’s fine for this forum to make that a litmus test but in doing so, if enforced, puts out all who lived without ever knowing in their lifetimes that years after there day - as much as three hundred years later - such a creed would even come into existence. They didn’t meet the litmus test in their day - the litmus test didn’t even exist - and they were still Christians.



The connotation, perhaps unintended, is that what they believed is in some way lacking.

Why didn’t they know any better? You commented earlier that you would still believe what you do even if the post-biblical creeds had never been formulated. They weren’t affirming what you’re affirming.

Because I believe THE NEW TESTAMENT First and Foremost.
The creeds just explain, as best they can, the NT.

I’m with them.



My road, my destination, ends in the first century.

This is becoming repetitive...
Let alone the fact that I don't usually post re one topic for this length of time...

 

[GodsGrace]

What is my need? My need is to abide by the current board policy. I “cherry picked” the Apostles’ Creed because I believe it is the only post-biblical creed that we can discuss and remain in compliance with the policy.

I still believe that to be the case but I’m beginning to think that you may not.

No Matthias....
You picked the Apostles Creed because you don't agree with the Nicene Creed....
Which just BUILDS on the Ap Creed.

Do the Covenants, beginning with the Edenic,,,,build on each other or do they each abolish the previous one to
create a brand new covenant?

They build on each other.
Which is what the creeds do.

 

[Matthias]

No Matthias....
You picked the Apostles Creed because you don't agree with the Nicene Creed....
Which just BUILDS on the Ap Creed.

I’ve been clear from the beginning that I’m not a Nicene Christian. I don’t agree with the Nicene Creed and cannot affirm it. I picked the Apostles’ Creed because it isn’t a trinitarian creed and can be discussed without violating board policy. The other creeds are trinitarian and can’t be discussed without violating board policy. I can agree with it.

Building on the Apostles’ Creed is a concession that it doesn’t contain what the Nicene Creed (and others) contain. The others just add later beliefs on top of it.

The point of discussing the Apostles’s Creed with you was to demonstrate that I can affirm it and yet still not be considered a Christian by you while people who lived in the second century could affirm it without having any knowledge of later creeds and still be considered Christian. The only difference between me and them is that I do have knowledge of the other creeds.

Do the Covenants, beginning with the Edenic,,,,build on each other or do they each abolish the previous one to
create a brand new covenant?

They build on each other.
Which is what the creeds do.

 

[Matthias]

That was NOT completed in the days of the Apostles.
Was Jesus God?
Was Jesus man?
Was He 50% of each?
THIS was completed by the time of the Apostles?
No.
It took a lot of time to sort this type of doctrine....
which is what makes us Christians today.

If the Apostles didn’t “complete“ them it is because they didn’t hold them. That is Father Fortman’s point. He uses the term “elemental trinitarianism” to describe their writings -> what they wrote doesn’t contain the doctrine but did contain the material which others could (and gradually over the centuries did) use to formulate the doctrine.

You want to go just by the bible?
Good.
Then please explain Titus Our savior AND God
Or Thomas' assertion My Lord AND My God
And many statements Jesus made.

We’ve already spoken about Thomas. I don’t mind talking about any of the statements Jesus made. He’s a Jewish monotheist and I understand and explain what he said in the frameword of Jewish monotheism.

The Nicene Creed came at the tail end of many heresies that required a final and authoratative statement
to STOP them.

As I've said...you've turned the Apostles Creed into your bible.
Why? Because you don't like how the Nicene Creed is worded...
because it doesn't match YOUR understanding of scripture.

I'm going to have to side with the Early Church Fathers who either were taught by one of the Apostles OR
by one of those who learned from them....

Ignatius and Polycarp​

Two of the earliest Church Fathers, Polycarp and Ignatius taught the deity of Christ. The early Church father, Irenaeus (circa AD 120–190) wrote that Polycarp was "instructed" and "appointed" by the apostles, and "conversed with many who had seen Christ...having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles."[2] Irenaeus also wrote that he clearly remembered "the accounts which [Polycarp] gave of his intercourse with John and with the others who had seen the Lord. And as he remembered their words, and what he heard from them concerning the Lord, and concerning his miracles and his teaching, having received them from eyewitnesses of the ‘Word of life’."[3] So his view of Jesus is very important. In The Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians, he mentions "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" and "our Lord and God Jesus Christ."[4]


Thus, Polycarp agrees with the teachings of the apostles that Jesus is God.


Ignatius was the Bishop of Antioch at the same time Polycarp was the Bishop of Smyrna. He wrote seven letters to the Churches while en route to his execution in Rome around the year AD 110. In Ignatius’ Letter to the Ephesians 18:2 he states:


In 19:3 he states:


In 7:2 he states:


And in 1:1:


In his letter to the Smyrnaeans 1:1 over whom Polycarp was Bishop he states:


Thus, Ignatius and Polycarp both referred to Jesus as God.

There's much more...
source: The Early Church Fathers on Jesus


You can disagree with Ignatius and Polycarp...
But I cannot.

AND, they made the above statement by about 100AD......
MUCH BEFORE the Nicene Creed of 325AD.

 

[Matthias]

He left orthodox Christianity to join a sect.

You’ve defined orthodoxy as afiirmation of the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed didn’t exist at the time Tertuallian became a Montanist.

P.S.

His theology concerning the nature of God wasn’t affected by his becoming a Montanist. What he believed about the nature of God before he became a Montanist is the same as his theology concerning the nature of God after he became a Montanist. He wasn’t considered to be a heretic prior to becoming a Montanist.

He has differing opinions about orthodox Christianity that is in opposition to what other ECFs believed.
So I don't use him for support for any doctrine that I would question.



Because I believe THE NEW TESTAMENT First and Foremost.
The creeds just explain, as best they can, the NT.


This is becoming repetitive...
Let alone the fact that I don't usually post re one topic for this length of time...

I’ve enjoyed our conversation and would like for it to continue. If it’s becoming wearisome for you then you should probably take a break from it. We can always pick it up again some other time.

 

[Matthias]

That was an unexpected answer. Can you elaborate on why you would consider it appropriate to worship the risen Christ, please?

Jesus is the Messianic King. David wasn’t the Messianic King but had I lived when he did I would have worshipped both he and God (1 Chronicles 29:20).

And would it be a different answer for the pre-resurrection Christ?

No.

 

[GodsGrace]

You’ve defined orthodoxy as afiirmation of the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed didn’t exist at the time Tertuallian became a Montanist.

This is what you stated in your post 790:

If the Apostles didn’t “complete“ them it is because they didn’t hold them. That is Father Fortman’s point. He uses the term “elemental trinitarianism” to describe their writings -> what they wrote doesn’t contain the doctrine but did contain the material which others could (and gradually over the centuries did) use to formulate the doctrine.

I see that we both agree that the IDEA/CONCEPT of what the Nicene Creed affirms were held from the beginning....starting with the NT.
Over time, a doctrine was formulated and authorized to stop heresies.
This is what I've been affirming from the beginning.

I think we should end on this note.

 

[GodsGrace]

Jesus is the Messianic King. David wasn’t the Messianic King but had I lived when he did I would have worshipped both he and God (1 Chronicles 29:20).



No.

Language is important.

Worship, as it is understood TODAY, means something something different than what it meant in both the OT and even at the times of the NT.

So what are you going to do?
Give a definition of the word WORSHIP every time you mention it so that it can pertain also to a person?
Or is it easier to go by the definition of TODAY....
meaning that only God can be worshipped....and no man should be.

Again, you're adapting even this word to what You wish to believe....

So, then, it's OK to WORSHIP Mary?
By your definition it IS.

By common parlance it is NOT OK to worship Mary.

 

[Matthias]

This is what you stated in your post 790:

If the Apostles didn’t “complete“ them it is because they didn’t hold them. That is Father Fortman’s point. He uses the term “elemental trinitarianism” to describe their writings -> what they wrote doesn’t contain the doctrine but did contain the material which others could (and gradually over the centuries did) use to formulate the doctrine.

I see that we both agree that the IDEA/CONCEPT of what the Nicene Creed affirms were held from the beginning....starting with the NT.
Over time, a doctrine was formulated and authorized to stop heresies.
This is what I've been affirming from the beginning.

I think we should end on this note.

I don’t agree that the concept / idea of what the Nicene Creed affirms were held from the beginning.

 

[GodsGrace]

Does the Apostles’ Creed suggest to others the idea that God interacted miraculously / supernaturally with the virgin to breed a God? It doesn’t to me.

So both you and @APAK believe that JOSEPH is the biological father of Jesus?

 

[Matthias]

Language is important.

Worship, as it is understood TODAY, means something something different than what it meant in both the OT and even at the times of the NT.

I’m a first century Christian living in the twenty-first century. What worship meant then is what worship means now to me.

So what are you going to do?
Give a definition of the word WORSHIP every time you mention it so that it can pertain also to a person?
Or is it easier to go by the definition of TODAY....
meaning that only God can be worshipped....and no man should be.

Again, you're adapting even this word to what You wish to believe....

So, then, it's OK to WORSHIP Mary?
By your definition it IS.

By common parlance it is NOT OK to worship Mary.

 

[GodsGrace]

I don’t agree that the concept / idea of what the Nicene Creed affirms were held from the beginning.

Doesn't matter Matthias.
IF tomorrow, something were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls to definitively describe what the early Christians believed....
we would HAVE TO adapt that belief in order to be defined as Christian.

 

[Matthias]

So both you and @APAK believe that JOSEPH is the biological father of Jesus?

I don’t.

 

[GodsGrace]

I’m a first century Christian living in the twenty-first century. What worship meant then is what worship means now to me.

Well then....you better explain it every time you use the word...
because 99.8% of Christians will NOT understand what you mean.

Lucky for you that I do....
but not many will and they'll believe that you think a mere man can be worshipped.