The Creeds say nothing about their being two Gods. The Creeds also go beyond the subordinationism of Justin and others.
Peter added that Jesus is the Son of the living God. That defines the Messiah for me.
The curious case of John 5:4
- Thread starter Matthias
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Creeds say nothing about their being two Gods. The Creeds also go beyond the subordinationism of Justin and others.
Peter added that Jesus is the Son of the living God. That defines the Messiah for me.
But it's not what the NT teaches!
Aren't Christians supposed to be believers in the NT?
My humble belief is that you'd be a saved person,,,,but not necessarily Christian.
(I do hate to state anyone's soul state, but in this case it's almost necessary for clarification).
Because things happened that had never happened before.
Do we have terminology pertaining to computers?
Why?
How do we explain Jesus or the 2nd Person of the Trinity becoming a human...taking on flesh.
New Term: Incarnation.
New terms make it possible to discuss topics without having to define the topic at every turn.
Yes.
I believe that. I also believe that 1 John is John’s commentary of his Gospel.
I’m a Jewish monotheist and I’ve commented that Christianity is Jewish. My perspective on scripture - OT and NT - is Jewish. I’m a Jewish Christian.
Yes. You will reply that they are heretics.
What is wrong with being “only the Messiah”?
Ok.
My that post is very important IMO.
It explains WHY it took some time to get to any of the creeds...
There's a creed in the NT BTW.
1 Cor 15
And other creeds began very early on, I think in the 100's, I'd have to check.
I believe the beginning of the Apostles’ Creed is what the NT teaches.
Yes.
Thanks.
No doubt that’s true.
The terminology of the Bible remains sufficient for me, just as it was for those who lived in biblical times. I’m a primitive Christian, a first century Christian, living in the twenty-first century.
You’ll have to remember my frame. I believe in the incarnation of God’s logos, not in the incarnation of Jesus.
Ah.
Tricky question and I may not be up to answering it.
Other religions also believe that the Almighty God created the universe.
Are they Christian?
No.
I'd say that's not enough.
Would love to hear it.
That would be John 1:1-3 Hope it's more than WAS to WAS A (God).
Hebrews 1:1-2
Fine. I used the NASB...I have many versions here.
The NASB will be fine.
(back after dinner).
I feel like a primitive Christian too, to use your terminology.
I don't care for all the "stuff" that's been added on to Christianity.
I also believe in the incarnation of God's LOGOS.
Jesus IS the logos.....The WORD.....
Yes. I have a problem with this.
Any creed cannot, and is not meant to, state every single doctrine found in the NT.
It's an overview.
As we would study each sentence...it would be possible to expound on the idea presented.
If He's only the Messiah...
we're worshipping a man.
The Messiah was not meant to be worshipped.
Only God can be worshipped.
Must go for now.
I agree.
The Apostles’ Creed explicitly identifies one person, the Father, as the creator of the heavens and the earth. It was enough for the author of the that creed. It is enough for me. It is a statement that every Jewish monotheist can readily affirm, whether the Jewish monotheist believes Jesus of Nazareth is the promised Messiah (as I do) or not.
That being the case, I‘d like for you to consider John 1:1-3 as rendered in the Geneva Bible.
”In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God, and that Word was God. This same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made.”
Enjoy your dinner.
The question I would like to ask you is this: When would you say “these last days” began?
Primitive Christians didn’t use your terminology. As you said, your terminology had to be invented later. If we confine ourselves to the terminology which the primitive Christians used our conversation will sound like their conversation do. If we don’t, then our conversation will sound very different than theirs does.
This is why I asked you about Father Fortman’s book. He is in your theological camp but he makes concessions to mine.
Anything that has been added on to Christianity, by definition, goes beyond Christianity. Without you being more specific about what those things are, I can only only express general agreement with your comment. (Which I’m happy to do.)
Jesus is what the logos became when it (see the Geneva Bible, and all English language translations made from the biblical languages and published prior to 1611) became flesh.
[The Wycliffe English translation is from Latin.]
Yes. I’m thinking here about 1 Timothy 2:5.
“For there is one God,…”
Who is this one God? I understand him to be the Father. In fact, the God and Father of the Messiah.
“… and one mediator also between God and men, …”
Is “God“ anyone other than the one God? I don’t think so.
”… the man…”
The mediator himself is the man, not the one God.
”…Christ Jesus.”
Christ = Messiah. A specific man is identified by Paul, Jesus.
I believe that he is meant to be worshipped. I do worship him.
There are many examples of others besides God being properly worshipped in the Bible.
See 1 Chronicles 29:20, for example.
In Jewish monotheism, only one person can properly be worshipped as the one God. This, in part, is why Gregory of Nazianzus said that Jewish monotheism had to be destroyed.
I’d like to return to our discussion of the Apostles’ Creed when you’re available again. Thank you for taking the time for it. I much appreciate it.
I’m going to go ahead, slowly, to the next phrase. If you have more that you would like to say about this phrase, please feel free. I believe this phrase of the creed wholeheartedly.
I believe also in Jesus Christ, his [referring to God, the Father almighty, from the opening phrase] only Son, our Lord.
Three points here to discuss:
1. Believing in Jesus Christ involves more than just believing that he exists. It includes believing everything that he said, everything that he stands for, everything that he did and will do, and obeying him.
2. All who will inherit the life of the age to come are sons (and daughters) of the one God. The creed is speaking specifically about Jesus. We are inheritors with him.
3. From Psalm 110:1, Jesus is our lord.
“The LORD says to my lord: Sit at my right hand, while I make your enemies your footstool.” (NABRE)
God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth, speaking in a prophetic oracle to the Messiah, to the only Son, Jesus of Nazareth.
I believe Jesus is currently sitting at the right hand of God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
P.S.
As before, can we agree that my affirmation of this portion of the creed is indicative of Christian belief?
Last edited:
I would tell the student , Praise God you are counted worthy to be under attack and no the attack does not originate from the Muslim , but I will tell where the attack does come from . The Muslim wanted to sow a seed of doubt but it is up you if you let it germinate .
Ephesians 6:12
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”As a Christian you should be ready for an attack of this nature , and how would I say this is accomplished ? Read the bible , read more than one translation and PRAY . As you do these things let the Holy Spirit be your guide , you will need to listen and heed the prompts from the Holy Spirit . I have found that to be a process of learning and practice .
John 16:13
“Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.”John 14:26
“But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”There were some other very good comments offered on what to do for your student @Matthias a LOT earlier in this thread and I offer this as an addition .
Thank you. I didn’t take that approach with the student (I wish in hindsight that I had) but I agree that this would have been helpful to him and that it should be helpful to others like him who may be struggling with the reliability of the Bible.
Thanks. I’m taking the creed simply as written and was able to agree with this phrase as far as it goes. To borrow your phrase, I agree with the overview.
I agree with that.
Yes. What, though, if we don’t?
If you were simply to ask me if I agree with the Apostles’ Creed, and if I were simply to say that I do, the sense that I’m getting from you is that it isn’t enough; that I would fail the test for what Christians should believe.
You are welcome .
Well in fairness my reply was thought out over time and I was not the one there in the crosshairs of the situation as you were , the surprise of the moment . Teaching is gift and he was your student after all and the tact you took could have been 100% the right one at that time and place . What I offer may be seen as a talk of encouragement for your student . The exercise in thought has been good in this thread .
Praise God for the anointed teachers in this world like you @Matthias and @GodsGrace .
“The Apostles’ Creed is the oldest statement of faith in the Christian Church, written some time in the second century AD. The creed defines core Christian beliefs about God, Jesus, the church, salvation, and other theological topics.”
zondervanacademic.com
So this particular creed @GodsGrace was written two centuries prior to the Nicene Creed (and other post biblical creeds).
A Christian living in the second century could affirm it, as far as it goes, and be deemed a Christian. A Jewish monotheist who believes Jesus is the Messiah could also affirm it, as far as it goes, but not be deemed a Christian.
Why would that be? I think it may be because the Apostles’ Creed is being viewed through the lens of the later creeds. In other words, it’s making the people of the second century people of the fourth century in belief. If that’s the case, imo it doesn’t allow the people of the second century to be themselves.
P.S.
One of the strengths of Fortman's book (he was a Roman Catholic) is that he allowed people to be themselves, to be what they really were and to believe what they really believed within the constraints of their lifetime. He sees and acknowledges the slow and gradual evolving and development of post-biblical doctrinal beliefs taking place over the centuries.
He doesn’t force the Apostles and the earliest Christians to be fourth century Christians in their belief and practice. He pointedly says that they aren’t.
What Is the Apostles’ Creed?
The Apostles’ creed is the oldest statement of faith in the Christian church, written sometime in the second century AD. The creed defines core Christian…
So this particular creed @GodsGrace was written two centuries prior to the Nicene Creed (and other post biblical creeds).
A Christian living in the second century could affirm it, as far as it goes, and be deemed a Christian. A Jewish monotheist who believes Jesus is the Messiah could also affirm it, as far as it goes, but not be deemed a Christian.
Why would that be? I think it may be because the Apostles’ Creed is being viewed through the lens of the later creeds. In other words, it’s making the people of the second century people of the fourth century in belief. If that’s the case, imo it doesn’t allow the people of the second century to be themselves.
P.S.
One of the strengths of Fortman's book (he was a Roman Catholic) is that he allowed people to be themselves, to be what they really were and to believe what they really believed within the constraints of their lifetime. He sees and acknowledges the slow and gradual evolving and development of post-biblical doctrinal beliefs taking place over the centuries.
He doesn’t force the Apostles and the earliest Christians to be fourth century Christians in their belief and practice. He pointedly says that they aren’t.
Last edited:
Similar threads
