|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jun 6, 2009 12:36:24 GMT -5
It gets really irritating to have beliefs attributed to you by others that are not what *you* believe. So here's an opportunity for readers to indicate where they stand on how much of the Trinity Doctrine (as presented by the the current Lutheran version of the Nicene Creed, not the phrase "Jesus is God") they agree with. Thanks. I 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 only-begotten Son of God, begotten of His Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He 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 will come again with glory to judge both the living and the dead, whose kingdom will have no end. And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And I believe in one holy Christian and apostolic Church, I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins, and I look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Jun 6, 2009 15:30:59 GMT -5
Just for the sake of clarity, even though the creed doesn't used the term "Jesus is God", it absolutely is a confession to that same end:
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of His Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God,
The last two lines highlighted here are in reference to Jesus. Just sayin.
But to your point, Jesse you are spot on in understanding that the term "Jesus is God" is not be confused with the doctrine in its entirety. Christ's deity is simply one component; albeit probably the most misunderstood component of the doctrine. Thanks for posting this, hopefully reading the creed in its entirety will clear up some misconceptions.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jun 6, 2009 15:51:45 GMT -5
Hey Zorro, not just those five lines refer to Jesus, it seems this whole part does; And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of His Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He 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 will come again with glory to judge both the living and the dead, whose kingdom will have no end. I could bold certain parts and thus draw the battle lines, heh, heh, you probably know exactly which ones I might bold too don't you? Seriously, doesn't really seem to me there need to be battle lines at all.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Jun 6, 2009 16:09:16 GMT -5
Jesse, You're correct, that's all about Jesus. As for bolding certain parts and drawing the battle lines, I suppose it would depend on who you wanted to battle with Fortunately, I agree with it all....I'm tired and going to hang up the sword for a few days
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jun 6, 2009 16:15:19 GMT -5
Zorro! If we wimp out Brick's new board idea will be all in vain!! "Blessed are the peacemakers for they will be called the children of God." Peridot, maybe the F&W's are just to shy to talk about it. Did you notice that the "F&W's" who agree with most of that creed currently outnumber the "Not F&Ws" who agree with most of it by a *two-to-one* margin??
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jun 6, 2009 18:06:35 GMT -5
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried;
He descended into hell.
The third day He arose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting.
Amen.
This is the Apostle's Creed which is the one I have most often heard recited at Lutheran funerals. There is just one line that I'm not sure I could repeat with real belief. << He descended into hell. >> Can someone prove this to me from scripture?
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jun 6, 2009 18:25:54 GMT -5
Here is why I have no problem with that statement:
catho·lic adjective 3. of the Christian church as a whole; specif., of the ancient, undivided Christian church
With a non-capital 'c' catholic is similar in meaning to universal. The specific Catholic Church (Roman Catholic Church) should be capitalized.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jun 6, 2009 18:40:00 GMT -5
Emy asked:
I believe that statement is based on Ps 68:18: Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also, that the LORD God might dwell among them.
This is quoted in Eph 4:8: Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
9(Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?
10He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)
Many people believe while Jesus' body was hanging on the cross, that He left and went to hell and conquered it.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jun 6, 2009 19:01:21 GMT -5
This is the Apostle's Creed which is the one I have most often heard recited at Lutheran funerals. There is just one line that I'm not sure I could repeat with real belief. << He descended into hell. >> Can someone prove this to me from scripture? I understood it to come from 1 peter 3:19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; No, really! It continues: Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.or maybe the NLT is more clear: those who disobeyed God long ago when God waited patiently while Noah was building his boat. Only eight people were saved from drowning in that terrible flood.He is visiting the fallen angels which have been housed in the Abyss, ever since the days of Noah, preaching to them so that they might repent. The story is clearer in Jubilees and 1 Enoch. This is also the source of several "second chance" theologies.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jun 6, 2009 19:21:27 GMT -5
"This is the Apostle's Creed which is the one I have most often heard recited at Lutheran funerals. There is just one line that I'm not sure I could repeat with real belief. << He descended into hell. >> Can someone prove this to me from scripture?"
Emy there happens to be 2 lines of thought as to the particulars of Jesus decending into the bowels of hell(hades) the grave....the first is "My God, My God Why has thou forsaken me?" That in itself is tasting of hell for all mankind, don't you think...Just think about it...Jesus had never been far from the Father's presence even as a man on earth, now had he? Now in his most horrible hour, he's aware that the Father has turned His face away from His only begotten Son? What kind of hell do you think that would be?
I've been in a place where all my kin had turned their face away from me and it was not of any fault of mine and I know how I felt, but I wasn't dying either! So Jesus' experience was much more of an hellish experience then even mine! That's a fact.
Also Jesus did descend into the depths of the grave, Hades as some Bibles interpret....He did taste of death, He did taste of the grave for all mankind...it was a descension for Him, no doubt! For someone who'd known the very heights of Heaven to have been made so low to the depths of hell and the grave.
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Jun 6, 2009 19:32:32 GMT -5
Well, my choice "you guys come to my house and we'll have a glass of wine and watch the dragonflies, consider the lillies and do that sort of stuff" wasn't on there, so, um, lemme see here... I'm...well... I'm not crazy about some of the language used when people talk about "the trinity doctrine" like "Jesus is God" or "Trinity" or or "God the Son" or explaining God as "three persons" because those things are not directly found in the bible. BUT those things deal with the semantics NOT concepts. This verse: 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. indicates to me a "unity" rather than a "trinity" but that too is mere semantics. Personally, I think that human language sometimes gets in the way of communication. And... um... I'm not so sure the sword of the spirit is supposed to be used to split hairs. And, anyway, even though I'm not nuts about the extra-biblical language, I dearly love the old hymn Holy, Holy, Holy which reads: Holy, holy, holy! Lord God Almighty! Early in the morning our song shall rise to thee. Holy, holy, holy! Merciful and mighty, God in three persons, blessed Trinity!
Holy, holy, holy! All the saints adore thee, casting down their golden crowns around the glassy sea; cherubim and seraphim falling down before thee, which wert, and art, and evermore shalt be.
Holy, holy, holy! Though the darkness hide thee, though the eye of sinful man thy glory may not see, only thou art holy; there is none beside thee, perfect in power, in love and purity.
Holy, holy, holy! Lord God Almighty! All thy works shall praise thy name, in earth and sky and sea. Holy, holy, holy! Merciful and mighty, God in three persons, blessed Trinity.But, then I'm kinda freespirited like that. IMO Jason was very articulate here: The divinity of Christ has never been the issue; the deity of Christ, on the other hand, has been. If the Alaskan Church was promoting a non-divine Christ, they put themselves not only outside of the teaching of the Bible which clearly shows Jesus as a divine being - "I am from above" - but also outside of the communion of the rest of the Church. They place themselves in the company of the most ardent liberals, and make a nonsense out of many hymns. I doubt this was the case; the divinity of Christ is maintained, though the deity may be questioned. Divinity and deity are not interchangable concepts. This was a debate that occured in the ancient Church as well. Was Christ's humanity able to sin? If he could not, then how could he be tempted with sin? I think the orthodox view is that Christ's humanity, though perfect and pure, was capable of sin - but yet he did not sin, nor was any blemish found in him, and thus sin was overcome through Christ's deity. I maintain, in any case, that most Workers and Friends are functional Trinitarians, even if they themselves deny the Doctrine of the Trinity. So, there ya go... clear as mud. ;D hey, look... a dragonfly! freespirit
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jun 6, 2009 20:21:29 GMT -5
Freespirit quoted this verse:
I was surprised to learn recently that except for four or five very late manuscripts that contain these words in Greek, the following phrase in RED has been omitted from 1 John 5:7-8.
1 John 5:7-8: For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.
Without this clause it would read: "For there are three that bear record; the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."
The subject clause is called the "Johnnine Comma." ------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Wikipedia: The "Comma Johanneum" is a comma (a short clause) contained in most translations of the First Epistle of John published from 1522 until the latter part of the nineteenth century, owing to the widespread use of the third edition of the Textus Receptus (TR) as the sole source for translation.
In translations containing the clause, such as the King James Version, 1 John 5:7-8 reads as follows (with the Comma in bold print):
5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."
The resulting passage is an explicit reference to the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
The Johnnine Comma/clause does not appear in the older Greek manuscripts, nor in the passage as quoted by many of the early Church Fathers. The words apparently crept into the Latin text of the New Testament during the Middle Ages... [possibly] as one of those medieval glosses but were then written into the text itself by a careless copyist.
Erasmus omitted them from his first edition; but when a storm of protest arose because the omission seemed to threaten the doctrine of the Trinity (although that doctrine had in fact been formulated long before the textual variant), he put them back in the third and later editions, whence they also came into the textus receptus, “the received text.”[1] Modern Bible translations such as the NIV, NASB, ESV, NRSV and others tend to either omit the Comma entirely, or relegate it to the footnotes.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jun 6, 2009 20:44:18 GMT -5
Thanks, cherie, fs has been quoting that verse so much lately that I didn't have the heart to tell her. It's NOT in the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Jun 6, 2009 20:48:19 GMT -5
Thanks, cherie, fs has been quoting that verse so much lately that I didn't have the heart to tell her. It's NOT in the Bible. LOL! fs
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 6, 2009 22:46:23 GMT -5
Freespirit quoted this verse: I was surprised to learn recently that except for four or five very late manuscripts that contain these words in Greek, the following phrase in RED has been omitted from 1 John 5:7-8. 1 John 5:7-8: For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one. Without this clause it would read: "For there are three that bear record; the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." The subject clause is called the "Johnnine Comma." ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From Wikipedia: The "Comma Johanneum" is a comma (a short clause) contained in most translations of the First Epistle of John published from 1522 until the latter part of the nineteenth century, owing to the widespread use of the third edition of the Textus Receptus (TR) as the sole source for translation. In translations containing the clause, such as the King James Version, 1 John 5:7-8 reads as follows (with the Comma in bold print): 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." The resulting passage is an explicit reference to the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Johnnine Comma/clause does not appear in the older Greek manuscripts, nor in the passage as quoted by many of the early Church Fathers. The words apparently crept into the Latin text of the New Testament during the Middle Ages... [possibly] as one of those medieval glosses but were then written into the text itself by a careless copyist. Erasmus omitted them from his first edition; but when a storm of protest arose because the omission seemed to threaten the doctrine of the Trinity (although that doctrine had in fact been formulated long before the textual variant), he put them back in the third and later editions, whence they also came into the textus receptus, “the received text.”[1] Modern Bible translations such as the NIV, NASB, ESV, NRSV and others tend to either omit the Comma entirely, or relegate it to the footnotes. Fascinating. Are there not also some Trinitarian verses at the end of Mark thought to be late amendations? One other point regarding the creeds. The objection is not so much with the content of the creeds, although there might be some on that score. It's with the idea of reciting them weekly (vain repititions). For example, the same objection pertains to the Lord's Prayer, and it's right in the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Jun 6, 2009 23:17:42 GMT -5
This is well known to any who has studied the subject in detail. However, a little knowledge, such as that above, can be sufficient to cause doubt and questions as to veracity of the Holy Bible if not properly explained within context.
During the 16th century and onward until the turn of the 19th, most Bibles were translated from several versions of a translation created by the great Erasmus. Erasmus' translated from some Greek manuscripts to which he had access, which are now known to be (in relation to at least a few books) of dubious quality, especially The Revelation. Erasmus, like all in the publishing world, was also under pressure to meet a deadline for printing, which is why Erasmus' translation of The Revelation was truly awful, being rushed and "shoddy".
The King James translators were Greek scholars, but sometimes at a loss about certain passages, and therefore used "comfortable ambiguity" as one theologian has put it, so that some passages are not always easy to decipher. King James translators also apparently operated on the rule that "when in doubt, put it in". This accounts for a number of so-called "lost verses" in newer transaltions.
Erasmus' version of the Greek is known as the Textus Receptus (the recieved text). The Textus Receptus, like all well-used texts, began to accrue footnotes, copyist glosses, and editorial flourishes, one of which has entered our scripture referencing system as 1 John 5:7. This does not invalidate God's holy word; nor make it unreliable as the logical conclusion to the aforementioned statement would have it.
Newer versions - including the excellent New International Version, which is my version of choice, or the equally good American Standard Version - removed this verse and place it as a footnote, in doing so explaining that it is at best a minority reading, (since some older manuscripts do indeed have this verse in it - again, perhaps as a result of scribal error).
In any case, the omission does not set in jeopardy the Doctrine of the Trinity which is based on a host of texts from Genesis to The Revelation and suffers no violence as a result of the mistaken inclusion, or the proper (in my opinion) exclusion of 1 John 5:7.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jun 6, 2009 23:23:22 GMT -5
Well, my choice "you guys come to my house and we'll have a glass of wine and watch the dragonflies, consider the lillies and do that sort of stuff" wasn't on there, so, um, lemme see here... I'm...well... I'm not crazy about some of the language used when people talk about "the trinity doctrine" like "Jesus is God" or "Trinity" or or "God the Son" or explaining God as "three persons" because those things are not directly found in the bible. BUT those things deal with the semantics NOT concepts. This verse: 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. indicates to me a "unity" rather than a "trinity" but that too is mere semantics. Personally, I think that human language sometimes gets in the way of communication. And... um... I'm not so sure the sword of the spirit is supposed to be used to split hairs. <snip> ;D hey, look... a dragonfly! freespirit I agree, FS. We are quibbling more over the term than the concept. Except for those who believe that sin was a total impossibility for JEsus.
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Jun 6, 2009 23:37:29 GMT -5
Thank you, Jason. I enjoyed reading. fs
|
|
|
Post by ronhall on Jun 7, 2009 8:34:38 GMT -5
Even though I believe Jesus is the Son of God, I can also see him as God in the flesh since there is so much of God in him.
Now that I am older, and my own father has passed on, it is amazing how many times older folks, mostly, address me with my father's name. I rarely correct them. I'm sure they know who I am and that my father is dead, but the resemblance is strong and my father's name is most familiar to them. It just slips out.
Concerning the Lutheran version of the Nicene creed, I believe it is quite accurate. I also know there are others who take a different point of view, that I believe is less accurate. But rather than making an issue of this to the point of erecting a communication wall between us, I allow myself to see it from where they stand, on occasion. That way we can view our Lord and God together in harmony for a time. When the time is right, my new friend may come to where I normally view things and enjoy a fuller understanding then.
I remember some years ago, an older lady professed and was assigned to the meeting I attended. For close to a year she would pray for a new refrigerator to replace one that was old and noisy, pray for more clients at her insurance business, pray that her son would find a better paying job and pray that her daughter's professor would give her a good grade in college.
The elder was asked privately why he didn't set her straight on the issue of praying for natural things. His response was that this is the what she sees as her need now, but the Lord will reveal to her, her true need in due time. It is our responsibility to be patient and let the Lord do his work. In that way we can each be a true friend. In time she learned to pray for her spiritual need.
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Jun 7, 2009 9:06:27 GMT -5
That was a beautiful post, ronhall.
fs
|
|
|
Post by electbygrace on Jun 7, 2009 9:21:34 GMT -5
This is the Apostle's Creed which is the one I have most often heard recited at Lutheran funerals. There is just one line that I'm not sure I could repeat with real belief. << He descended into hell. >> Can someone prove this to me from scripture? Further to what Cherie wrote, the place where scripture tells that Jesus went after his death on the cross and before the resurrection is called 'sheol' in Hebrew. It is like a holding place for dead souls. Abode of the dead, or underworld. Jesus' visit there seems to have been triumphant, pronouncing or preaching to the souls there that he had conquered Satan (John 12:31) and thus that their salvation (those who had died in faith) was now guaranteed. Other relevant scripture is Ps 16:10, Acts 2:24-31 and 1Peter 3:18-20
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jun 7, 2009 13:14:37 GMT -5
Wonder how Irvine and the early workers viewed the
Nicene Creed?
Apostles Creed?
Anastasius' Creed??
|
|
|
Post by ronhall on Jun 7, 2009 18:28:39 GMT -5
Right or wrong doctrine -- the issue I was attempting to describe was that it is sometimes good for me to put aside strict adherence to belief in some doctrine in order to create an environment of friendship. In the way this incident was handled, the newly professing lady kept her dignity and those in the meeting were able to understand her, visit her and become real friends. Turned out she was in such a financial condition that anything natural she prayed for would have never been noticed on her net worth, plus or minus. Obviously, not all are so fortunate in this respect.
That brings up another aspect -- there are those who are truly needy naturally, even in our fellowship. Once when I was in the Army in another area, a man after meeting gave me a sealed envelop and asked me to give it to another man in another area where I was going, but to not tell him who it was from. I did this without thinking much about it. But now many years later after both parties have been dead a long time I realize that one man who had an excess at the time was praying for another man who was suffering financially. I was the answer to his prayer to not let the left hand know the dealings of the right.
Yes, God cares about all our needs. Maybe on another thread you wouldn't mind describing the specific natural need that God was pleased to answer your prayer about.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jun 7, 2009 19:22:13 GMT -5
This verse: 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. indicates to me a "unity" rather than a "trinity" but that too is mere semantics. freespirit Seems God's whole point is to extend the unity of the "trinity" to a family. (That seems to be what Jesus is telling us in John 14,15 (the promise of the "Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost") and in John 17.)
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Jun 7, 2009 19:24:51 GMT -5
This verse: 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. indicates to me a "unity" rather than a "trinity" but that too is mere semantics. freespirit Seems God's whole point is to extend the unity of the "trinity" to a family. (That seems to be what Jesus is telling us in John 14,15 (the promise of the "Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost") and in John 17.) What a nice little thought. fs
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jun 7, 2009 21:36:55 GMT -5
This verse: 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. indicates to me a "unity" rather than a "trinity" but that too is mere semantics. freespirit Seems God's whole point is to extend the unity of the "trinity" to a family. (That seems to be what Jesus is telling us in John 14,15 (the promise of the "Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost") and in John 17.) I completely agree. You would think we have been listening to the same people or something!
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jun 4, 2010 16:44:00 GMT -5
Here's the Trinity thread what mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jun 4, 2010 16:58:46 GMT -5
Why was the poll locked?
|
|