If you read the Nicene Creed, that which refers to Jesus:
"We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven, was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became truly human."
It continues: "For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he arose again and in accordance with the scriptures, he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end."
Note what it says about Christ in the Nicene Creed: "For our sake he was crucified."
The fact that Jesus was crucified isn’t going to save anyone. He had to pay in full the penalty of death that his own infinite justice demanded for sin and neither of these creeds make that clear.
This is not the gospel that Paul preached. Furthermore, the Apostle’s Creed — The apostles never heard of the Apostle’s Creed. It was written after they were all gone from the earth.
This is a vehicle for ecumenism. It is a watered down, condensed deviation from the gospel that all can accept.
Because All can accept the Apostle’s Creed, they believe they must be Christians. No one can become a Christian through the Apostle’s Creed or the Nicene Creed.
These creeds are now used as a device to gather all the undiscerning around.
It’s not totally biblical, it does not include the gospel of Jesus Christ, the apostles never heard of it. The Nicene Creed — Counsel of Nicea was called by Constantine the emperor; All he wanted was to unite his empire. They were divided on whether Jesus was God. It doesn’t make clear why he died. "He was crucified for our sake," but what does that mean?
It has been brought down to the least common denominator and has left out that which is essential for our salvation.
If you turn to creeds, it prevents your knowing what the gospel is, - what the Bible says.
Norbert Brox wrote on the heresy of docetism, the heterodox doctrine that the phenomenon of Jesus, his historical and bodily existence, and above all the human form of Jesus, was mere semblance without any true reality. Broadly it is taken as the belief that Jesus only seemed to be human, and that his human form was an illusion.
It is, or should be common knowledge that Emperor Constantine was a monster, not a saint. He had his sons and wife murdered long after he started promoting Christianity as an official state religion. He used the popularity of the new faith in an attempt to consolidate his crumbling empire.
Christianity does not rise or fall based on the beliefs or actions of Constantine.
He was not baptized until on his death bed, obviously hedging his bets.
rumitoid wrote:
Why do you always pull off this charade about me not answering your questions? No matter. Let me see, you want verses in the Bible that speaks out against a false doctrine not expressed for centuries after the New Testament? Curious. Try this for a beginning in defeating this apostate belief. This video accurately shows how the idea of the trinity had similar pagan roots like Easter and Christmas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bThWd1HgnTY You, Texacan, are falling for an ancient heresy.
Norbert Brox, a professor of church history, confirms that Constantine was never actually a converted Christian: “Constantine did not experience any conversion; there are no signs of a change of faith in him. He never said of himself that he had turned to another god . . . At the time when he turned to Christianity, for him this was Sol Invictus (the victorious sun god)” ( A Concise History of the Early Church, 1996, p. 48).
When it came to the Nicene Council, The Encyclopaedia Britannica states: “Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed . . . the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council . . . Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination” (1971 edition, Vol. 6, “Constantine,” p. 386).
With the emperor’s approval, the Council rejected the minority view of Arius and, having nothing definitive with which to replace it, approved the view of Athanasius—also a minority view. The church was left in the odd position of officially supporting, from that point forward, the decision made at Nicaea to endorse a belief held by only a minority of those attending.
The groundwork for official acceptance of the Trinity was now laid—but it took more than three centuries after Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection for this unbiblical teaching to emerge! Read the rest here, if you dare:
https://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/is-god-a-trinity/the-surprising-origins-of-the-trinity-doctrineWhy do you always pull off this charade about me n... (
show quote)