Nicene Creed

[MJFlores]

You are confusing the idea of 'person' by placing today's concept back into the Trinitarian doctrine.

No confusion done. I said persons, you said it also.

The trinity dogma are written like this:

The dogma of the Trinity
The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion — the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another.

Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God." In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent. This, the Church teaches, is the revelation regarding God's nature which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came upon earth to deliver to the world: and which she proposes to man as the foundation of her whole dogmatic system.

In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word trias (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom (To Autolycus II.15). The term may, of course, have been in use before his time. Afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian (On Pudicity 21). In the next century the word is in general use. It is found in many passages of Origen ("In Ps. xvii", 15). The first creed in which it appears is that of Origen's pupil, Gregory Thaumaturgus.P

For the original texts please refer to CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Blessed Trinity

It is my position that the Trinity is NOT IN THE SCRIPTURES and INVENTED.

The 'three Persons' who exist in God are the reality of word and love in their attachment to each other. They are not substances, personalities in the modern sense, but the relatedness whose pure actuality does not impair the unity of the highest being but fills it out.

The Confusing Doctrine about God

Apostle Paul also said that these people teaching “a different gospel” are “throwing you into confusion.” Thus, the “different gospel” that according to Apostle Paul must be eternally condemned is also "a very confusing doctrine." How confusing is the doctrine about the Trinity? Another Catholic book titles, The Faith Explained” has this to say:

“One such truth is the fact that though there is only one God ,yet in that one God there are three divine Persons – the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. There is only one divine nature, but there are three divine Persons…So when we try to think of God as Three Persons possessing one and the same nature, we find ourselves batting our head against the ceiling.” [Trese, Leo J. The Faith Explained. Nihil Obstat: Louis J. Putz, C.S.C., University of Notre Dame. Imprimatur: Leo A. Pursley, D.D. Bishop of Fort Wayne, Notre Dame, Indiana. USA: Fides Publishers Inc.,1969, pp. 25-26.]

This is a Catholic book written by a Catholic and approved by Catholic authorities. The book said, “So when we try to think of God as Three Persons possessing one and the same nature, we find ourselves batting our head against the ceiling” (Emphasis mine). This book also admits that no one will understand the doctrine of the Trinity even the greatest theologian:

“We are dealing a mystery of faith: no one, not even the greatest theologian, can hope in this life to really understand it. At best, there will merely be varying degrees of ignorance.” (Ibid., p. 29.)

Catholic authorities further admit that no one, not even the greatest theologian, can understand the doctrine of the Trinity because it's an absurdity:

“God, of course, cannot perform an absurdity, a contradiction in terms. He cannot, for instance, make two and two equal five.” (Walsh, John. This is Catholicism. New York: Image Book, 1959, p. 25)

'Father' is purely a concept of relationship. Only in being for the other is he Father. In his own being in himself he is simply God. Person is the pure relation of being related, nothing else. Relationship is not something extra added to the person, as it is with us; it only exists at all as relatedness.

Not Really A Gospel

Apostle Paul also said that the “different gospel” “is really no gospel at all.” Is the Trinity a gospel or “no gospel at all”?

“It cannot therefore be seriously maintained that the mystery of the Divine Trinity was clearly revealed in the Old Testament.” (Pohle, Joseph, Ph.D., D.D.. The Divine Trinity, A Dogmatic Treatise, p. 20.)

The author admits that they cannot seriously maintained that the doctrine that there are three persons in one God (the doctrine of the Trinity) was clearly revealed in the Old Testament. The reason of this admission is because the doctrine of the Trinity is not known before the advent of Christ:

“It is true that before the advent of Christ the Trinity of Persons was not known, not even to the inspired authors.” (Gratsch, Edward J. Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 50.)

How about in the New Testament? Can we found the word “Trinity” in the New Testament? This is the admission of another Catholic book:

“The word Trinity does not appear in the New testament and the meanings of the words persons and nature, in the precise senses and which these words are used to bear the message of God, had to be carefully refined to bear that message rightly. But what the New Testament teaches is in truth captured with care and reverence in the exact statements of the early councils of the Church.” (Lawler, Ronald, Wuerl, Donald, and Lawler, Thomas Comerfod. The Teaching of Christ: A Catholic Catechism for Adults, p. 177.)
Trinitarians clearly admit that the word "Trinity" and the formula ("that there are three persons in one God") cannot be found in the Bible. Thus, it is truly "not a gospel at all."

One opinion among many. The Imprimatur and Nihil Obstst does not signal agreement with the author, simply that a book is without heresy.

I believe it is your clergy who are fond of those fancy imprimaturs and nihil obstat
Imprimatur an official license by the Roman Catholic Church to print an ecclesiastical or religious book.
Nihil obstat (Latin for "nothing hinders" or "nothing stands in the way") is a declaration of no objection to an initiative or an appointment.

If you have an objection with the writings of your Bishops and Cardinals, well you should report these to the Roman Curia or the Pope. If not they are then they are official Roman Catholic teachings.

 

[pearl]

Well, I don't know. When you have a father and a son, it sure sounds like two persons.Saying one is a father only in "being for the other" sounds like trying too hard to explain something that does not make sense. The father and son are two different "people" but they are both holy and are both God.

And no one knows absolutely. There will continually be theological conflicts when attempting to explain what is Mystery. Why did the church in Matthew's time use the formula 'in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit to baptize? In Luke Stephen just before his execution sees God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit at Stephen's side. In Gen there is dialogue within God himself.

 

[pearl]

In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together.

True. I have never argued there was. There is no single term in the Creed either.

So when we try to think of God as Three Persons possessing one and the same nature, we find ourselves batting our head against the ceiling.”

Again it is the misconception of 'persons'.

“We are dealing a mystery of faith: no one, not even the greatest theologian, can hope in this life to really understand it. At best, there will merely be varying degrees of ignorance.”

Key being 'Mystery'.

I believe it is your clergy who are fond of those fancy imprimaturs and nihil obstat
Imprimatur an official license by the Roman Catholic Church to print an ecclesiastical or religious book.
Nihil obstat (Latin for "nothing hinders" or "nothing stands in the way") is a declaration of no objection to an initiative or an appointment.

There was a time in the Church that the Nihil Obstat etc. was necessary for an author to publish a 'Catholic' book. It is no longer necessary and is only granted upon request of the author. In any book that carries these also provides an explanatory statement; "The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur agree with the contents, opinions or statements expressed."

 

[MJFlores]

True. I have never argued there was. There is no single term in the Creed either.



Again it is the misconception of 'persons'.



Key being 'Mystery'.



There was a time in the Church that the Nihil Obstat etc. was necessary for an author to publish a 'Catholic' book. It is no longer necessary and is only granted upon request of the author. In any book that carries these also provides an explanatory statement; "The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur agree with the contents, opinions or statements expressed."

That's funny
You should raise your complaints against the Catholic authors who wrote them.
Just showed you that they are dumbfounded on the Trinity
and these people are men of the cloth.

Your own priest wrote
“So when we try to think of God as Three Persons possessing one and the same nature, we find ourselves batting our head against the ceiling”

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Why do people fail to see the similarity of words like family or team or group? One family can have several members. One team is made up of several members. God is a family. Why else would we say there is a father and a son? This is a family. ONE God but made up of several members. And as for being equal - Jesus himself said the Father was greater than himself. This does not sound like equality. Just like the husband is the head of his family, the Father is the head of the God family. Separate members but one family. Father an Son but one God. It seems like many churches are actually trying to hide this from people. Why? Maybe because many churches have been influenced and taken over by Satan who does not want people to know the truth. The greatest changes in the Catholic church took place when a Pagan emperor Constantine) brought in his Pagan beliefs and then made this pagan influenced religion the official religion of his empire. At that point it was no longer God's church, it was Constantine's Pagan church.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

And no one knows absolutely. There will continually be theological conflicts when attempting to explain what is Mystery. Why did the church in Matthew's time use the formula 'in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit to baptize? In Luke Stephen just before his execution sees God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit at Stephen's side. In Gen there is dialogue within God himself.

Why does everything in the church have to be a "mystery"? Does God not want people to know the truth? Maybe the truth is there but people are too blind to see it.

 

[pearl]

Why does everything in the church have to be a "mystery"? Does God not want people to know the truth? Maybe the truth is there but people are too blind to see it.

God is not anyone's name, but the name of the Mystery that is the root of all that exists. Because God is incomprehensible mystery, there is no absolute correct way to speak about God, only a least wrong way.

 

[pearl]

Your own priest wrote
“So when we try to think of God as Three Persons possessing one and the same nature, we find ourselves batting our head against the ceiling”

If he is my own, identify him!

There is a difference between what is Catholic dogma and what is a naïve presentation of the dogma, which is what you have been expressing here. Catholic doctrine is not frozen in time but develops for often doctrine has been phrased in 'the changeable conceptions of a given epoch'. Some doctrinal formulas may give way to new expressions.
What is meant by the doctrine of the Trinity, without too great an exaggeration, that the entire doctrine of the Trinity is an enormous gloss on that phrase in the First Letter of John that God is self-gift. From that metaphor spins out the whole of Trinitarian theology.

By the way, is the following a true representation of your church?
Another example of defective doctrine in the Iglesia ni Cristo is their Christology. They deny the divinity of Jesus Christ (as do all cults and false religions) and assert that Jesus was created by God and enabled to do miraculous works by God. They deny the doctrine of the Trinity. They claim that the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force. They also claim that the Christian church in its current form has apostatized, and that the Iglesia ni Cristo is the reinstatement of the true church that was lost in the first century; and this by means of God’s last messenger, Felix Manalo—the founder of Iglesia ni Cristo.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Iglesia-ni-Cristo.html

 

[pearl]

The greatest changes in the Catholic church took place when a Pagan emperor Constantine) brought in his Pagan beliefs and then made this pagan influenced religion the official religion of his empire.

I know, the sheer audacity of the Church to accept these outlawed pagans into its fold!

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

I know, the sheer audacity of the Church to accept these outlawed pagans into its fold!

No, the problem is not accepting pagans into the church if they are willing to change their beliefs. The problem is that the church changed its beliefs in order to get the political power of a powerful emperor who would spread these beliefs around the world.

 

[pearl]

The problem is that the church changed its beliefs

What exactly were these beliefs the Church changed?

 

[MJFlores]

If he is my own, identify him!

There is a difference between what is Catholic dogma and what is a naïve presentation of the dogma, which is what you have been expressing here. Catholic doctrine is not frozen in time but develops for often doctrine has been phrased in 'the changeable conceptions of a given epoch'. Some doctrinal formulas may give way to new expressions.
What is meant by the doctrine of the Trinity, without too great an exaggeration, that the entire doctrine of the Trinity is an enormous gloss on that phrase in the First Letter of John that God is self-gift. From that metaphor spins out the whole of Trinitarian theology.

By the way, is the following a true representation of your church?
Another example of defective doctrine in the Iglesia ni Cristo is their Christology. They deny the divinity of Jesus Christ (as do all cults and false religions) and assert that Jesus was created by God and enabled to do miraculous works by God. They deny the doctrine of the Trinity. They claim that the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force. They also claim that the Christian church in its current form has apostatized, and that the Iglesia ni Cristo is the reinstatement of the true church that was lost in the first century; and this by means of God’s last messenger, Felix Manalo—the founder of Iglesia ni Cristo.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Iglesia-ni-Cristo.html

I believe we are discussing the trinity - if its factual, real or NOT.

A PREACHER IS supposed to know and teach the truth, otherwise he could not expect anyone to understand and believe what he preaches. False preachers do not understand what they preach. Concerning them, the Apostle Paul said:

“They want to be teachers of God's law, but they do not understand their own words or the matters about which they speak with so much confidence.” (I Timothy 1:7 TEV)

False teachers “do not understand their own words or the matters about which they speak.” Regarding the Trinity doctrine this is what Catholic priests admitted about it:

“The Trinity is a wonderful mystery. No one understands it. The most learned theologian, the holiest Pope, the greatest saint, all are mystified by it as the child of seven.” (Martin J. Scott, S.J., God and Myself, p. 118)

As Catholic priests themselves admitted, the “Trinity” (which Catholic theologians, popes, bishops, and priests boldly preach) is a “mystery” that “No one understand it” even the most learned theologians, the “holiest Pope” and the “greatest saint.” They further admitted that “all are mystified by it as a child of seven.” Catholic theologians, popes and saints preaching the “Trinity” without understanding it? This is what the Bible says about them, quoting again I Timothy 1:7, this time from Revised Standard Version:

“Desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make assertions.” (I Timothy 1:7, RSV)

Thus, those who preach the Trinity doctrine are the false preachers, not only that they don’t understand their Trinity doctrine, but that this doctrine they uphold contradicts the teachings of the true preachers like the Lord Jesus Christ and the apostles.

Regarding the belief of the Iglesia Ni Cristo about God, the doctrine that the Father alone is the True God, is affirmed and confirmed by the Holy Scriptures. This is what the Lord Jesus Christ teaches:


“Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: "Father…And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.” (John 17:1,3 NKJV)

Apostle Paul also teaches the following:

“Yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.” (I Corinthians 8:6 NKJV)

Thus, the doctrine that the Father is the One True God that uphold by the Iglesia Ni Cristo (Church of Christ) is also the doctrine that was taught by the Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostles. Those who teach that the Father is the One True God that created us are true messengers of God:


“Don't we all have the same father? Didn't the same God create us all?…


“It is the duty of priests to teach the true knowledge of God. People should go to them to learn my will, because they are the messengers of the LORD Almighty.” (Malachi 2:10, 7, TEV)

The belief that the Father alone is the one true God is the true knowledge about God that is taught by true messengers of God. Thus, true preachers like the Lord Jesus Christ, the apostles and the prophets explicitly preached that the Father alone is the true God.




INDEED, THOSE WHO PREACH THE TRINITY DOCTRINE ARE THE FALSE PREACHERS!

 

[MikeDwight]

Great to have a discussion about the Nicene Creed! A True Beginning of the Rule of written Law in the church, of Synod, the greek for Meeting, of Presbyters, the word for Elders or Bishops, in a ekuminikos setting ecumenical, or between all the Orthodox Churches of the Orthodox World. Its great to hear people talk about this.

Now, I don't want to be labeled a Neo-Pagan or any sort of scrupulous character, but I really like the discussion I've heard concerning the Greeks, Zeus, and his Human Son after he had Actual Sex with a Human, wasn't it? Zeus has visceral sex with humanbeings to produce his God-Like son, which is Hercules. This would be well-known to every greek person, and this would be well-known to a "Community of Believers", a Church, if you will, the People who are Believing when Religion is Made, like all the old Greek Gods would be known to them. I think there are equal Biblical sayings that could Undo people believing in the Trinity. Jesus said none but my Father in heaven is Good. Nowhere do I know of in the Bible, its not prominent anyway, do we pray to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, Believers have so overwhelmingly come to this conclusion that Trinitarianism is a Foundational Necessity to all European Christianity from a time of unity in European Christianity, and the wider world obviously, this trinitarianism.

 

[MJFlores]

A True Beginning of the Rule of written Law in the church, of Synod, the greek for Meeting, of Presbyters, the word for Elders or Bishops, in a ekuminikos setting ecumenical, or between all the Orthodox Churches of the Orthodox World.

It is more the beginning of the Apostasy

THE DICTIONARY DEFINES “apostasy” as “the renunciation of a religious or political belief or allegiance” (Microsoft Encarta Dictionary). Thus, Apostasy is a defection, a falling away from what one believed in, as apostasy from one’s religion, creed, or politics. Hence, one becomes an "apostate" as soon as he departs from his former belief, whatever it was. What undergoes change is not the person nor his nature but his beliefs.


THE BIBLICAL DEFINITION OF APOSTASY

The Bible also has a definition for “apostasy.” The Lord Jesus mentioned the following in Matthew 24:9-11:

“Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. 10At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people.” (NIV)

These words of the Lord Jesus Christ, “will turn away from the faith” were also mentioned by Apostle Paul in I Timothy 4:1:

“Now the Holy Spirit tells us clearly that in the last times some will turn away from the true faith; they will follow deceptive spirits and teachings that come from demons.” (NLT)

“Turning away from the true faith” is synonymous with “apostasy”:

“But the Spirit speaks expressly, that in latter times some shall APOSTATIZE from the faith, giving their mind to deceiving spirits and teachings of demons.” (Darby Bible)

What other translations rendered as “turning away from the faith” is rendered by other translations as “apostasy.” Aside from “turning away from the true faith,” the Bible also used the following words referring to “apostasy”:

“depart from faith” (KJV)
“abandon the faith” (NIV)
“fall away from the faith” (NASB)
“desert the Christian faith” (God’s Word)
“turned away from the faith” (Bible basic English)
“renounce the faith” (NRSV)

Thus, according to the Bible, “apostasy” means “turning away (departing, abandoning, falling away, deserting and renouncing) from the faith.”


THE PROCESS OF APOSTASY

Who is an apostate? When an individual, groups or organizations being considered as apostatized? How one becomes an apostate? Let us read what is written I Timothy 4:1:

“Now the Holy Spirit tells us clearly that in the last times some will turn away from the true faith; they will follow deceptive spirits and teachings that come from demons.” (New Living Translation)

According to Apostle Paul, “some will turn away from the true faith; they will follow deceptive spirits and teachings that come from demons.” Thus, an “apostate” turned away from the true faith by following “deceptive spirits and teachings that came from demons.” Hence, “apostasy” is following the teachings of the demons, instead of following the teachings of God or upholding the true faith.

The “true faith” is what the Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles taught. Where could we find the truth taught by the Lord Jesus and His Apostles? Which can teach us the truth? This is what apostle Paul said in II Timothy 3:16-17:

“And you remember that ever since you were a child, you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching the truth, rebuking error, correcting faults, and giving instruction for right living, so that the person who serves God may be fully qualified and equipped to do every kind of good deed.” (TEV)

Not all the things done by Christ and the Apostles were written (cf. Jn. 20:30-31). In fact there were some things that God did not want to be written (cf. Dan. 12:4; Rev. 10:4). The Apostles wrote down what they witnessed (cf. 1 Jn. 1:1-4). All such writings were inspired by God and should be used for doctrine, correction, instruction, and they make man perfect (cf. II Tim. 3:16-17). What were written are enough and nothing should be added to them nor subtracted from them (cf. Rev. 22:18-19) for what are written were written so that we might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and that by believing we might have eternal life through His name (cf. Jn. 20:30-31). Apostle Paul adds that we must not go beyond what is written:

“Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.” (I Corinthians 4:6 NIV)

Thus, departing from the true faith is departing from what the Bible teaches through going beyond what is written. Hence, apostasy is going beyond what is written in the Bible.

The Bible explicitly says that worships and services rendered to God but if based on the teachings of men are fruitless and vain:

“They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.” (Matthew 15:9 NIV)

The Bible doesn’t approve that men established their own way, rules and doctrines:

“For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness.” (Romans 10:2-3 NIV)

Thus, apostasy is also creating or establishing their own rules or doctrines, or upholding man-made doctrines or teachings. Moreover, apostasy is also changing the gospel of Christ or the doctrine written in the Bible:

“I am surprised at you! In no time at all you are deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ, and are accepting another gospel. Actually, there is no ‘other gospel,’ but I say this because there are some people who are upsetting you and trying to change the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel that is different from the one we preached to you, may he be condemned to hell!” (Galatians 1:6-8 TEV)

Apostle Paul mentioned it in Acts 20:30 as “distorting the truth”:

“Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.” (Acts 20:30 NIV)

Apostle Paul said, “there is no other gospel,” but a “distortion of the gospel.” Also, this is what Apostle Peter tells us regarding apostasy:

“But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them-bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.” (II Peter 2:1-3 NIV)

Apostasy according to Apostle Peter is “bringing the way of truth to disrepute” through “made up stories.”

Hence, an apostate is (1) those that followed the erroneous doctrines (doctrines of demons); (2) went beyond what is written (taught doctrines not in the Bible or upholding unbiblical doctrines); (3) invented, established or created their own (man-made doctrines), (4) believed in made up stories (traditions), and (5) changed or distorted the doctrines written in the Bible. Apostle Paul said, “if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel that is different from the one we preached to you, may he be condemned to hell!.”

Thus, apostasy took place in the first century Church Of Christ when doctrines taught by Christ and the apostles were changed and distorted, and when they brought inside the Church and uphold the doctrines of demon, unbiblical doctrines, man-made doctrines and made up stories.


WHAT APOSTASY REALLY MEANT

The first nation of God was the ancient Israel. According to Apostle Paul:

“The people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises.” (Romans 9:4 NIV)

However, the Bible explicitly tells that Israelites was apostatized:

“I prayed to the LORD my God and confessed: "O Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps his covenant of love with all who love him and obey his commands, we have sinned and done wrong. We have been wicked and have rebelled; we have turned away from your commands and laws.” (Daniel 9:4-5 NIV)

Did Israel ceased to exist? No, they continued to exist until our time. Thus, in terms of existence, from Moses to our time, Israel can boast a 3,500 years continuous history, longer than the 2,000 years existence of the Roman Catholic Church. But did they remained God’s nation? No, they were replaced by the first century Church Of Christ:

“But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.” (I Peter 2:9-10 NIV)

From the establishment of the Church Of Christ in the first century, Israel ceased to be God’s nation. Take note that the organization remained, and what ceased is not their existence of Israel, but their being God’s nation. Why they were replaced? The Prophet Daniel said, “we turned away from your commands and laws.”

Thus, apostasy took placed in ancient Israel not because the organization was dissolved or ceased to exist, but because the organization changed their doctrines and abandoned the commandments of God, hence, they ceased being God’s nation.

Therefore, the apostasy of the first century Church Of Christ mentioned by the Bible does not mean that the Church will not continue to exist. The Church or the organization remained, but she was transformed from being the true Church to an apostatized church. So, although the church continued for 2,000 years, but as we know it, not as the Church Of Christ, but as the Roman Catholic Church.

Now, I don't want to be labeled a Neo-Pagan or any sort of scrupulous character, but I really like the discussion I've heard concerning the Greeks, Zeus, and his Human Son after he had Actual Sex with a Human, wasn't it? Zeus has visceral sex with humanbeings to produce his God-Like son, which is Hercules. However, Believers have so overwhelmingly come to this conclusion that Trinitarianism is a Foundational Necessity to all European Christianity from a time of unity in European Christianity, and the wider world obviously, this trinitarianism.

Source: How Ancient Trinitarian Gods Influenced Adoption of the Trinity

 

[MikeDwight]

The Byzantine Empire was Orthodox and using Greek. I mentioned all Greek words. The Pope as an equally recognized Bishop or Patriarch, or one of many, met at these Creeds, this is actually a Byzantine work, we should say, supervised by the Byzantine Emperor. What do the early Church Creeds have to do with MJFlores' post? It seems like as hard as I try just completely off topic. It did cast many Churches that still live today in an outer darkness. The Coptic Pope of Egypt developed because it was rejected or, in return, rejected the Byzantine's decisions from this period. Lesser groups are affected by this besides Egypt. Now extinct Christian Nestorians in Persia, or the Monophysite Orthodox Ethiopians, Arians, down to the writings of John Knox who studied a main bodies of classical works, were required to list off the damnable heresies even in the Westminster confession, of Arius, the Nestorian, etc.

 

[MJFlores]

The Byzantine Empire was Orthodox and using Greek. I mentioned all Greek words. The Pope as an equally recognized Bishop or Patriarch, or one of many, met at these Creeds, this is actually a Byzantine work, we should say, supervised by the Byzantine Emperor. What do the early Church Creeds have to do with MJFlores' post? It seems like as hard as I try just completely off topic. It did cast many Churches that still live today in an outer darkness. The Coptic Pope of Egypt developed because it was rejected or, in return, rejected the Byzantine's decisions from this period. Lesser groups are affected by this besides Egypt. Now extinct Christian Nestorians in Persia, or the Monophysite Orthodox Ethiopians, Arians, down to the writings of John Knox who studied a main bodies of classical works, were required to list off the damnable heresies even in the Westminster confession, of Arius, the Nestorian, etc.

Yep it is off topic that is why it is recommended for a redirect.

The Nicene Creed is foreign to all the teachings of the apostles.
They never taught its contents to the early Christians.

The Nicene Creed (Greek: Σύμβολον τῆς Νικαίας or, τῆς πίστεως, Latin: Symbolum Nicaenum) is a statement of belief widely used in Christian liturgy. It is called Nicene /ˈnaɪsiːn/ because it was originally adopted in the city of Nicaea (present day İznik, Turkey) by the First Council of Nicaea in 325.

Nicene Creed - Wikipedia
Nicene Creed - Wikipedia

In 325 AD all of Jesus Christ apostles have died
In 325 AD the Church founded by Christ have been apostatized
In 325 AD the Catholic church introduced a new teaching that Jesus is God

56 years later, in 381 AD they introduced a new teaching that the HS is now God

The great apostasy did not consist in the destruction of the first century Church of Christ and the establishment of another one. It consisted in the deterioration of the Church established by Christ. Immediately after the death of the Apostles, during this period the bishops took over the administration of the Church and the Church became very different from what Christ founded (or the first century Church):

“For fifty years after St. Paul’s life a curtain hangs over the church, through which we strive vainly to look; and when at last it rises about 120 A.D. with the writings of the earliest church-fathers, we find a church in many aspects very different from that in the days of St. Peter and St. Paul.” (The Story of the Christian Church, p. 41)

The differences between what used to be the Church of Christ in the first century and the Church that was revealed in the second to the fourth centuries are profound:

“It is necessary to note that we should recall the reader’s attention to the profound differences between this fully developed Christianity of Nicaea and the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth…. What is clearly apparent is that the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth was a prophetic teaching of the new type that began with the Hebrew prophets. It was not priestly, it had no consecrated temple, and no altar. It had no rites and ceremonies. Its sacrifice was ‘a broken and contrite heart’. Its only organization was an organization of preachers, and its chief function was the sermon. But the fully fledged Christianity of the fourth century, though it preserved as its nucleus the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels, was mainly a priestly religion, of a type already familiar to the world for thousands of years. The center of its elaborate ritual was an altar, and the essential act or worship the sacrifice, by a consecrated priest, of the Mass.” (The Outline of History, pp. 552-553)

These profound changes, made on the original teachings of Christ, dealt great violence on the teachings of the Bible for the purpose of enhancing the interests of the Catholic Church:

“Jesus too, being a Galilean, was of Aryan stock, a remarkable man whose teachings had, in the course of centuries, been deformed out of all recognition in the interests of the Catholic Church.” (The Vatican in the Age of Dictators, p. 168)

Adding insult to injury, Catholic authorities acknowledge such changes without shame and even with pride:

“We Catholics acknowledge readily, without any shame, nay with pride, that Catholicism cannot be identified simply and wholly with primitive Christianity, nor even with the Gospel of Christ, in the same way that the great oak cannot be identified with the tiny acorn.” (The Spirit of Catholicism, p. 2)

Catholic authorities even boast that they did not derive their faith in Jesus from the Scriptures:

“ ‘Without the Scriptures’, says Mohler, ‘the true form of the sayings of Jesus would have been withheld from us…. Yet the Catholic does not derive his faith in Jesus from Scripture’.” (Ibid. p. 50)

Hence, those responsible for this apostasy of the first century Church of Christ were the bishops under whose administration these profound changes took place. The first bishop identified as having introduced changes into the Church was Ignatius, bishop of Antioch who was martyred in Rome about 110 A.D. He was the first to use the term Catholic Church in reference to the Church of Christ:

“The name Catholic as a name is not applied to the Catholic Church in the Bible. ..St. Ignatius of Antioch, writing to the Christians of Smyrna about the year 110, is the first to use the name ‘The Catholic Church’ …” (The Question Box, p. 132)

This same Ignatius introduced the doctrine that Christ is both God and man:

“He asserted unequivocally both the divinity and humanity of Christ, the Savior.” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 7, p. 353)

Ignatius is one of the so-called Antenicene Fathers who were divided into three groups, namely:

1. Apostolic Fathers – supposedly had personal contact with the Apostles or were instructed by their disciples. To this group belong Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyna, and Clement of Rome.

2. Greek Apologists – born of the Church’s reaction to paganism. To this group belong Justin Martyr, Athenagoras of Athens, Theophilus of Antioch, and Irenaeus.

3. Theologians – to this group belong Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, and Cyprian.

These Church Fathers were the source of the teachings that the Catholic Church taught and implemented beginning the second century. However, such persons were not immune from errors and yet, the apostatized church approved their teachings:

“Obviously much that Christ and the apostles preached was in time reduced to writing. Hence there grew up a library composed of men called ‘the fathers of the Church’. They were called so because in apostolic days the word ‘father’ also meant teacher of spiritual things, and these were among her earliest teachers. But, unlike the apostles, all of whom enjoyed infallibility, they were not immune from error nor inspired as the scriptural writers had been. In so far as they dealt with questions of faith and morals, much of what they wrote was approved by the Church, and thus, became part of written tradition.” (Whereon to Stand: What Catholics Believe and Why, p. 142)

As a result of the teachings of these early Church Fathers, the Church of Christ or Christianity became Roman Catholicism, the last and the greatest of the mystery religions:

“On that dies Domini, or Lord’s Day, the Christians assembled for their weekly ritual. Their clergy read from the Scriptures, led them in prayer, and preached sermons of doctrinal instruction, moral exhortation, and sectarian controversy…
“By the close of the second century, these weekly ceremonies had taken the form of the Christian Mass. Based partly on the Judaic Temple service, partly on Greek mystery rituals of purification, vicarious sacrifice, and participation through communion, in the death-overcoming powers, of the deity, the Mass grew slowly into a rich congeries of prayers, psalms, readings, sermon, antiphonal recitations, and, above all, that symbolic atoning sacrifice of the ‘Lamb of God’ which replaced, in Christianity, the bloody offerings of older faiths. The bread and wine which these cults had considered as gifts placed upon the altar before the god were now conceived as changed by the priestly act of consecration into the body and blood of Christ, and were presented to God as a repetition of the self-immolation of Jesus on the cross. Then, in an intense and moving ceremony, the worshippers partook of the very life and substance of their Saviour. It was a conception long sanctified by time; the pagan mind needed no schooling to receive it; by embodying it in the ‘mystery of the Mass’, Christianity became the last and the greatest of the mystery religions.” (Ceasar and Christ, pp. 599-600)

Thus, the claim of the Catholic Church that they are the Church founded by Christ in the first century is not true because the Catholic Church is very much different from the Church of Christ founded by Christ in the first century. The Catholic Church is not the Church founded by Christ, instead it’s the fulfillment of the prophecies of the Bible regarding the apostasy that will take place immediately after the death of the apostles. Hence, the claim of the Catholic Church that they succeeded the apostles is not a proof of being the true Christ founded by Christ, but instead, a strong proof that the Catholic Church is indeed the apostate Church, the fulfillment of what the Bible prophesied that after the death of the apostles, among the ranks of the bishops will rise false teachers that will distort the truth.

 

[MikeDwight]

Oh no! My ancient parthenon Ruin avatar, Athens of the North Edinburgh, Athens of the South Nashville, we are like, too later one in the timeline, to late to like alienate fake Christianity for old Christianity we found ,because, whatever, Jesus happens in 215 AD. Didn't The final chapters of Revelation happen on the island of Cyprus by an older Apostle? How am I thinking that? That would make the prophet, technically a prophet, 200 years old? That doesn't make sense. Anyway, what are you saying about the Nicene Creed?

Everybody hates Church. They hate zombies doing their Sunday, and they like taking smart, and they hate Church. That's everybody here. Hey, I hate Church. You can work it out from the Bible if you Want, Jesus went into the Sunday Synogogue to teach. Jesus was Lord of the Sabbath, that's Sunday. He fulfilled the commandments to keep the Sabbath holy. I'm not the guys getting Paid for this Crap either, they probably got 100 of them.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Oh no! My ancient parthenon Ruin avatar, Athens of the North Edinburgh, Athens of the South Nashville, we are like, too later one in the timeline, to late to like alienate fake Christianity for old Christianity we found ,because, whatever, Jesus happens in 215 AD. Didn't The final chapters of Revelation happen on the island of Cyprus by an older Apostle? How am I thinking that? That would make the prophet, technically a prophet, 200 years old? That doesn't make sense. Anyway, what are you saying about the Nicene Creed?

Everybody hates Church. They hate zombies doing their Sunday, and they like taking smart, and they hate Church. That's everybody here. Hey, I hate Church. You can work it out from the Bible if you Want, Jesus went into the Sunday Synogogue to teach. Jesus was Lord of the Sabbath, that's Sunday. He fulfilled the commandments to keep the Sabbath holy. I'm not the guys getting Paid for this Crap either, they probably got 100 of them.

Can you show where it says Jesus went to the synogogue on Sunday? The Sabbath came from the Jewish religion and was always Saturday. There is nothing inthe Bible that changers the sabbath to Sunday. The church founded by Jesus obeyed the Saturday sabbath and the false church started around the third century changed it to Sunday. Pagans celebrated the day of the sun. This pagan belief entered the false church and was spread far and wide.

 

[MikeDwight]

Luke 4:16
He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read

Take up your Cross and read stuff in a boring group of losers.

Who knows, like we kept the right astronomical day the whole time? Popes and Ceasars made the Calendars. Protestants kept different calendars. Fred Rogers made fun of Anglicans having kings keep the calendars, king Friday, Prince Tuesday.

 

[Desert Snake]

Let's look at it:
We believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
begotten from the Father before all ages,
God from God,
Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made;
of the same essence as the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven;
he became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary,
and was made human.
He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered and was buried.
The third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures.
He ascended to heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again with glory
to judge the living and the dead.
His kingdom will never end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life.
He proceeds from the Father and the Son,
and with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified.
He spoke through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church.
We affirm one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look forward to the resurrection of the dead,
and to life in the world to come. Amen

The context was over a dispute over the nature of the Deity. Arianism claimed a mystical, non human Jesus, or a created, non-divine advent. Modalism claimed different "modes' that God appeared through.

Athanasius, Irenaeus, and many other early apologists resisted the redefinings of the Apostle's teachings, and affirmed Jesus as 'very God of very God', and also fully man. They disputed both the mystisizing and any attempt to demean His Deity.

The term 'trinity', was not from Jesus nor the apostles, but was coined later, to describe the Triune God that Jesus described. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit ALL are described and defined as God, by Jesus. I will take Him at His Word, lacking a more Authoritative source.

Seems fine to me, although it is not how I would present Biblical arguments.