This Isn’t in the Bible, but Almost Every Theologian Believes It

[@michaelshannon6558]

Doctrine determines creeds; Creeds should not determine doctrine. They are useful to help the believer remember doctrine.

[@anthonyhulse1248]

And, er.... where does the doctrine come from? Tradition and scripture.

[@DeletedShadowbanned-m5u]

@@anthonyhulse1248 ,....You are both completely wrong, are not Christians, and are the blind following the blind. Repent, and learn what the Christianity of the Bible actually is, because neither of you have any idea.

[@tedmerritt9048]

@michaelshannon6558 I take offense at the words of DeletedShadowbanned. Neither Michael nor Anthony used more than a few words, and to dismiss them both as unsaved is completely out of line. DeletedShadow gave no explanation as to why they aren't Christians, which is reprehensible. Based on what little was said by Michael, I agree completely with his remark and found it helpful. I would have to know more from Anthony as to what is meant by his insertion of tradition in determining doctrine. I'm not prepared to agree with that at the moment, but I might change my mind if I had more to go on. Kudos to Michael for this pithy and encouraging comment!

[@DeletedShadowbanned-m5u]

@@tedmerritt9048 ,...What you are offended by is the truth of Gods word that I spoke for the edification of the lost. What is reprehensible is the fake christianity of ALL the people of the church, that are ALL unsaved and are ALL nothing but the blind following the blind. Your reaction is exactly the same as the reaction your Godless, blind, lost, and deceived fathers gave to Jesus when he told them the truth. Here is a true statement,...... There are no people more Biblically illiterate, and more opposed to and offended by the truth of the Bible than are those who claim to be Christians. Repent, and learn what the truth, the gospel, and the Christianity of the Bible actually is.

[@DeletedShadowbanned-m5u]

@@tedmerritt9048 ,...What you are offended by is the truth of Gods word that I spoke for the edification of the lost. What is reprehensible is the fake christianity of ALL the people of the church, that are ALL unsaved and are ALL nothing but the blind following the blind. Your reaction is exactly the same as the reaction your Godless, blind, lost, and deceived fathers gave to Jesus when he told them the truth. Here is a true statement,...... There are no people more Biblically illiterate, and more opposed to and offended by the truth of the Bible than are those who claim to be Christians. Repent, and learn what the truth, the gospel, and the Christianity of the Bible actually is.

[@jarredm5612]

Bible only. To assume that we need creeds above the Word of God is prideful and arrogant.

[@dehsa38]

Folly to, even, consider that the tendencies of mortals compares, at all, with the Divine plan.

[@gamingterrain3703]

Creeds create a sense of unity. Sola scriptura creates division among the body of Christ since everyone has a different interpretation of what the bible is saying. Without creeds you dont have unity

[@JRRodriguez-nu7po]

Thank you for noting we do not use the original Nicene Creed and the explanation. It irritates me how few people including pastors know this. As a layman I have known this for decades but only by self study. The lack of Church History teaching in Churches and most seminaries is astonishing. I'm not sure I agree that we need creeds but they're often helpful.

[@difficultjourney3216]

The ignorance in Christianity today is not astonishing it's appalling. The contemporary Church on the whole is full of deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons. I too am self taught and it appears it's the only way to come to even a semblance of truth.

[@bernhardbauer5301]

@@JRRodriguez-nu7po Many pastors know several different creeds. But they do not know the gospel. And they do not know Christ.

[@JRRodriguez-nu7po]

@@bernhardbauer5301 On that we agree completely. The person who brought me from agnosticism to Faith 47 years ago was a mentally retarded teenager. What God requires is a broken heart pleading for His mercy; not a smug hypocrite like I am so often still am. He won't let me go though, despite how worthless I am.

[@francoisgrenier5070]

Here are some facts: - the Council of Nicaea was convened by the Emperor Constantine who wanted peace in his empire. The Trinitarians massacred the Arians, for example in Egypt by incessant skirmishes. His primary goals were political. - The bishops were already well compromised with the political power and by paganism. It was necessary to please the emperor to avoid persecutions and to give the people a belief that was close to pagan polytheism. This last tendency was perpetuated in the following centuries giving birth to the Catholic creed and its traditions (worship of Mary, prayers to the saints, ...), adding to the polytheistic tendency. This is why I have no confidence in the bishops present, all of whom came out of paganism, at the Councils of Nicaea (325) and later Constantinople (end of the fourth century)

[@trevino37]

1st-The ni en creed was created with Constantine the Great who was not a real Christian. 2nd- The trinity is not a required belief for salvation,along with church membership

[@grainiac7824]

I think Trinity is key bc the Bible is clear that all three were present during Christ's ascension. Also key gospel vs John 3:16 has father and son and is salvation message. Then Jesus says He is going so the spirit can indwell us.

[@trevino37]

@@grainiac7824 all you said is true. No one denies what you stated but the point being that not believing in the trinity does not negate what you stated but does not prove a trinity. We all believe in the deity of the Holy Spirit -as the spirit of G-d sent by Christ after his ascension. We all believe in the deity of Christ as the messiah, son of G-d and lamb for our sins. We all believe in G-d the Father. I think that is more than sufficient in believing. That is it required for us to believe in the word trinity is not required for salvation. Not so sure why so many are hung up on this concept and making it a salvation requirement.

[@trevino37]

@@grainiac7824 The trinity is the key to what? If people believe in the fullness of G-d the father as clearly stated in scripture, if people believe in Christ as the Messiah, lamb of G-d, son of G-d who ascended on the third day and now sitting in the right hand of G-d the father, whom G-d the father has placed all things under his Son the Christ and king of kings, if people believe in the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of G-d sent on Pentecost to seal us with eternal life.. what else is there anyone needs to believe? All these things are clearly written in scripture and no one denies these facts. However, the trinity is debatable because it state things not clearly stated in scripture. Fortunately, the trinity concept is not required for salvation when we still believe all things already stated. For anyone to say that is not enough is a liar bc all things stated above is already believed except for the term trinity. They in itself will not condemn anyone. So not sure why the trinity is the key to anything.. when all else clearly written is already believed

[@alanmunch5779]

The danger, as with all teaching or preachers, or other creeds, is of automatically swallowing 100% of something and switching off the mind and forgetting to test all things with Scripture. I’m no historian, but understand the Council of Nicaea introduced some significant errors, alongside doing much good by clarifying the nature of Christ. It was, after all, convened by Constantine, who was not of the calibre of the apostles; I think we can assume he was worldly minded, so this council was not comparable with the council in Jerusalem in Acts, nor with Paul’s letters that sought to resolve doctrinal and practical issues and tensions. Most figures and events in history have a good and bad side, which is not to say God cannot use them; but we need to discern, always.

[@toolegittoquit_001]

Please enlighten us as to what 'significant errors' were introduced at the Council of Nicaea 🤔

[@toolegittoquit_001]

And since man has a sinful nature, it is a given that if God uses men as the means to His ends, he MUST use sinful men, because that is all He has to work with.

[@alanmunch5779]

@@toolegittoquit_001 I was referring to Constantine's hatred of Jews and desire to disconnect the Church from anything Jewish, hence part of Nicaea was to enforce changes with things like Sunday, Easter, communion, the calendar... and to bring in punishments for anyone not following his line. This had a major impact, perhaps still to today.

[@anthonyhulse1248]

@@alanmunch5779 where is this in the creed?

[@anthonyhulse1248]

the Council of Nicaea was called by Constantine but not run or directed by Constantine. In fact, 80% of the Bishops at the beginning of the council were Arians, following the heresy of Arius. Orthodoxy won the day. And you can thank Santa Claus for part of that victory!

[@petermillist3779]

The Creeds were based on Scripture. A clarification of theology

[@DeletedShadowbanned-m5u]

Wrong! Everything that claimed to be, and claims to be the church/Christianity was/is not based on scripture but was/is based on a total perversion of the scriptures.

[@DeletedShadowbanned-m5u]

Wrong! Repent!

[@bernhardbauer5301]

@@petermillist3779 It is not enough to base our faith on scripture. We need revelation. John 6:63: It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh profits nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. We should becone able ministers of the new covenant; not of the letter. because the letter kills, but the spirit gives life.

[@Must_not_say_that]

@petermillist3779 That is just man's pride. The meek hear God by His word for themselves.

[@AVoiceCryingintheDesert-tq4vw]

All creeds are nothing but a perversion of the scriptures. Anyone holding to ANY creed is not a Christian. Christians hold to what the Bible teaches and to nothing else. All the manmade creeds are for all the fake christians that cannot understand the Bible and thus turn to man for what they should believe. They are all the blind following the blind.

[@Bad_Llama]

The Council of Nicea comes up so often when speaking to both Jehovah's Witnesses and Muslims. Can you please do a video on the texts from that time that we have copies of which explain what happened so we can show receipts on why the Council did not "create" trinitarianism? Being able to point people to resources is so much better than simply trying to convince them it's true with no proof. Love the videos. Please keep making them.

[@orangeandslinky]

Did the Holy Spirit move upon any of the creed makers you speak of? …20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture comes from one’s own interpretation. 21For no such prophecy was ever brought forth by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

[@Obnyr]

Don't ask him; ask the Holy Spirit.

[@orangeandslinky]

@@Obnyr Why? The Holy Spirit does not testify of Himself at all.

[@jamesmcdonald3054]

John 8;19 - They said to him therefore, “Where is your Father?” Jesus answered, “You know neither me nor my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also.”

[@michaelperigo6746]

Holy Tradition preceded Scripture. Indeed, Holy Tradition formed the orthodox canon of the books of the Bible. Sola Scriptura is unbiblical.

[@kalabalakrishnan1484]

Shalom. Sharing. John 14: 28 .............because The FATHER is greater than I . But all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Yeshua, Matthew 28 : 18. I have put aside all church traditions n doctrines, that includes the nicene creed.

[@srich7503]

Well, not really. The Bible itself you quoted above is a Tradition which came into existence AFTER the beginnings of the Trinity doctrine and the Nicene creed… History shows us that Jesus didn't leave us a bible, - the apostles didn't tell us which books belong in the bible, - the church fathers never agreed on the 27 books of the NT through the 4th century and ONLY the 27 books, - not only did they not agree but their individual lists of would-be NT canons were GROWING during this time. Therefore, if it wasn't the Catholic/Orthodox church, guided by the Holy Spirit, that compiled the 27 books of the NT in the 4th century, just 65 years AFTER the council of Nicaea which began the Trinitarian doctrine and subsequent councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and preserved these scriptures by laboriously hand copying them over and over throughout the centuries before the invention of the printing press, the “rule of faith” for many, please tell us who did? And if this church no longer exists today, what good is the text which came forth from her if she couldn't sustain herself? Peace!!!

[@DeletedShadowbanned-m5u]

You are 100% correct to throw out ALL church doctrines, teaching, beliefs, and traditions as they are ALL false, manmade, and unbiblical. However, the savior's name is Jesus not Yeshua. Yeshua is the Hebrew name for JESUS. Are we speaking Hebrew? No, we are not! Is the New Testament written in Hebrew? No, it is not! Either speak English, or speak Hebrew, the language of those who God has blinded, accursed, and who 100% reject Jesus.

[@srich7503]

@@DeletedShadowbanned-m5u if you are going to throw out ALL church doctrines, teaching, beliefs, and traditions then you must throw out the Christian Bible also OR you will have to develop a different history than what has been presented over the last 2k years as i narrated above.

[@murphcallahan5892]

@@srich7503 That's really messed up. John was written centuries before the Nicene Creed. The 27 books of the NT were written by the apostles (the exception being two Gospels written by two adherents of the two apostles, Peter and Paul) and were in circulation during the First Century and (with a couple of exceptions) were accepted by the churches as having apostolic authority, i.e., they were written by those who had known (and knew) Jesus. It didn't take a Council nearly 400 years later to "choose" what books were canon. The council merely affirmed what was believed by the churches.

[@srich7503]

@@murphcallahan5892 i never said they were not “in circulation”. I said there was not 100% agreement in the church. 2 main points you really need to understand in history - 1) that the church fathers never agreed on the 27 books of the NT through the 4th century, and 2) that not only did they not agree on the 27 books but that their individual would-be canons were GROWING during this era. Im sorry if that “messes up” your faith but you cannot hide from history no matter how ugly it is, so we Catholics have been told.

[@BlakeRatliff-h8b]

John 14:7 and Colossians 2:9 reconcile this debate rather easily.

[@larrymcclain8874]

Depends on how you interpret those verses. The Bible is full of hyperbole, which, unfortunately, some can't quite understand.

[@lionelscout]

I agree with you. @larrymcclain8774, please tell us how YOU interpret these 2 verses.

[@larrymcclain8874]

@@lionelscout Mark 1:9-11; Matthew 3:16-17; Matthew 28:18-20

[@maryloulongenbaugh7069]

Fruit of creeds-Love unity and orthodoxy-hoorah for the creeds!

[@Must_not_say_that]

Clarly then you do not have the Spirit. Only by the Spirit can any have the frjuit of the Spirit.

[@DeletedShadowbanned-m5u]

You have spoken in total ignorance and have shown that you are NOT a Christian. Repent!

[@maryloulongenbaugh7069]

The creeds are distilled scriptural doctrine. They serve as a quick cliff notes reference to measure other teachings. Grateful for the creeds. Begotten-not made.

[@Must_not_say_that]

How deceived can you be? There is absolutely no need for the Creeds because we have the Scriptures. They water down the Scripture and contradict Scripture. You cannot possibly know or understand Scripture if you do not know this.

[@lionelscout]

@@Must_not_say_that There is no actual need for creeds but they 'bullet point' important truths found in scripture. When the time comes that I have to defend my faith before earthly tribunals the Nicene and Apostle's Creeds will be easier to recite than the entire Bible and will prove to any thinking being that I belong to God.

[@stepheneickhoff4953]

@@Must_not_say_that The creeds are for statements, not for learning. Stop being obtuse.

[@Must_not_say_that]

@@stepheneickhoff4953 Why not rther learn from the Scriptures? Surely it is you who is being obtuse, as you put it? Since the Scriptures make it plain we are to hear God, indeed faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God then the Creeds as man's words are in direct opposition to and contradiction of the Scriptures. Besides the Creeds are seriously deficient and different ones contradict each other. What a crock! So many confident in a merely intellectual "faith" that do not hear God. Nothing more "obtuse" than that!

[@Must_not_say_that]

@@lionelscout That is plainly nonsense. No Creed can have more authority than God's word! Christ only used the Bible, and only did or said what the Father gave Him. You think you can do better??? Without the Spirit you probably would have difficulty with the whole Bible. Christ did not, and neither any led by the Spirit.

[@empese1127]

Creeds and cofessions are important, the problem is when they are put over scripture, which happens quite a lot. Westminster and London are riddled with ideas born of covenant theology, ideas like a covenant of works which are logical, but completely absent from scriptures and which add quite a lot to it.

[@somethingtothinkabout167]

Why then is God so angry about our lack of obedience and repentance?

[@empese1127]

@@somethingtothinkabout167 He is our creator, obedience is due to Him in light of that He graciously created us. Simple as that, no covenant is needed. The idea that Adam was promised a "confirmation" in perfection if he obeyed perfectly (meaning that he would've obtained his justification by his own works) is absent from the Bible. I concede, it is a pretty logical deduction, there's nothing irrational about it, but Biblical it is not. Blessings

[@somethingtothinkabout167]

@@empese1127 not sure you answered the question, but what then do you make of the so called 10 commandments?

[@toolegittoquit_001]

Which other theology you would recommend over Covenant Theology. And don't even think about bringing up silly Dispensationalism; a foolish concept first conceived by a Jesuit

[@empese1127]

@@toolegittoquit_001 I suggest all you need is an indomitable attachment to a literal, grammatical, historical hermeneutic. To understand as much as possible what the author meant. Call that whatever name you will.

[@PInk77W1]

44 “In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever” Dan. 2:44 The Roman Catholic Church

[@johnngatho6520]

Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory. 1 Timothy 3:16, ESV

[@stephenfoster9009]

The only one statement bothers me in the Nicene Creed. 1:2-2 states that in times past, God spoke through the Prophets, but has now spoken to us through the Son. The creed states of the Holy Spirit that He speaks to us through the prophets. This is backward speech opposed to Hebrews 1:1-2

[@jmp6943]

The idea that the IF the Son shares the same substance of the Father, THEN the Son cannot be "subordinate to" the Father, is both scripturally and logically false. 1st: Logically, because my son shares the same substance and nature of humanity that I do. That does not mean his place or function in the home is the same as mine. There IS a distinction in ROLE. I am the father in my house. My son is, therefore, in terms of function, subordinate to myself in that regard. 2nd: 1 Cor 15 is explicitly clear that the Son in His resurrected, glorified state has the "name above every name EXCEPT the Father who gave Him that name". And that the Son will reign UNTIL He has destroyed the last enemy and THEN THE SON WILL BE SUBJECT (Subordinate) TO the Father. Scripture, therefore, while affirming the Son IS God, expressly teaches the Son is nevertheless subordinate to the Father in the Trinity. There IS a hierarchy within the Trinity.

[@Afriqueleblanq]

The creed already contradicts John 1

[@DeletedShadowbanned-m5u]

Everything that has anything to do with the church 100% contradicts the Bible.

[@lionelscout]

How?

[@DeletedShadowbanned-m5u]

@@lionelscout ,...If you do not understand how and why everything about the church contradicts everything in the Bible, it is because you remain unsaved, and spiritually dead and blind. Cry out to God for mercy. Ask God to raise you from your spiritual deadness and to open your blind eyes. No man can show you what the truth of the Bible is, only God can do this if it is his will to do so. What the world knows as the church has nothing whatsoever to do with the truth, the gospel, nor the Christianity of the Bible. It is all a manmade antichrist fraud. All those who belong to Jesus know this, and all those who do not, do not, and become deceived by the apostate church and by its counterfeit (antichrist) christianity.

[@stepheneickhoff4953]

@@DeletedShadowbanned-m5u You don't know what the word "church" means.

[@DeletedShadowbanned-m5u]

@@stepheneickhoff4953 ,...Actually, I do know what the word church means. And the fact is, everything that has to do with what the world and church knows as the church is apostate and sells a 100% counterfeit (antichrist) christianity. Jesus's church is a spiritual church and has nothing whatsoever to do with what the world and church believe to be the church. The few actual Christians that exist are a spiritual gathering, not a physical gathering. They are scattered all across the plane of the earth, one here, and one there. Everything known as the church is an unbiblical, manmade, Godless abomination. And this is why Jesus referred to the church that you know, and think is the church as the abomination of desolation as all the people snared into all of the churches have been left desolate as they are all going to find out on judgement day. Repent!

[@brucermarino]

Nicely done. Thank you!

[@davidwestfall4336]

Concise and thorough. Excellent! Q: Do you think Islam could be Arian extremism?

[@rufuspatrick2764]

What is the point?

[@frankmckinley1254]

Yet to this day the protestors don't consider Scripture alone. Yes no creed but the Bible!

[@bickabraham2397]

What is this talking about? Man's wisdom vs the Bible😩😩

[@DeletedShadowbanned-m5u]

Mans ignorance and ungodliness vs the Bible!

[@deezynar]

God has no substance.

[@devinwaggoner702]

Believing in the catholic church is where you err!

[@lionelscout]

"catholic" means "universal". It has NOTHING to do with the Roman Catholic Church. One version of the Nicene and Apostle's Creeds substitute universal for catholic to avoid such confusion.

[@PInk77W1]

Jesus started one church The Roman Catholic Church

[@devinwaggoner702]

@@PInk77W1 sorry, but he did no such thing. With all that had to happen to bring the the catholic church into existence, it could not have started till about the 4th century....much too late to be the church christ founded!

[@PInk77W1]

@@devinwaggoner702 44 “In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever” Dan. 2:44 The Roman Catholic Church

[@PInk77W1]

@@devinwaggoner702 the church Jesus started with the 12 apostles grew into the Roman Catholic Church. “Wherever Jesus Christ is There is the Catholic Church.” St Ignatius of Antioch 107ad.

[@berniepenner6204]

he still is not using the words of the Apostles to declare How it IS that JESUS was full deity.

[@deezynar]

The bible is the source of the information that good creeds express. So not utilizing a creed does not bring vulnerability to a church as long as the teacher uses the bible passages that generated the good creeds.

[@53puffin]

A true believers's creed is the Word of God without addition, subtraction or "enhancement", by the ever fallible word of man !!! History teaches us that man in his fallen prideful state believes that he must improve on everything !!! Well meaning, but doubting clerics, with a frightening lack of faith in the sufficiency of the Word of God, and the unmitigated hubris to place man's "opinions", "clarifications", and "observations", on, or even near the level of the Word of God, are decieving themselves and their flocks with their insistence on the elevation and chanting of human creeds as essential !!! Teach and exposit the Word of God, but If you must chant, chant the Word of God !!! If you are going to stand for, live for, or die for, something, God's Word alone is essential and totally sufficient !!! God's Word stand's securely alone and does not need the explanation, protection, or amplification of man !!! To say that the Words of fallible man, not sanctified and delivered by the Holy Spirit as the Word of God, are absolutely essential to believers is to demonstrate an incredible and lamentable lack of Faith in the Word of God, which is God's unalterable truth !!! 2nd Peter 1:20 1st John 2:27 Psueo- intellectual musings of man, especially in his self- "hallowed" halls of academia are no substitute, prelude or postlude to the Word of God !!! Teach your flock the Word of God, not the expressions of man !!! RAL

[@berniepenner6204]

@5:50 , the term Equality does not refer to "equal persons" or "equal Beings" (Re: Phil 2:5)

[@walkinlove930]

This is Philippians 2:5 “Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,” ‭‭Philippians‬ ‭2‬:‭5‬ ‭ESV‬ I am a simple thinker, not well educated, so I read the verse Philippians 2:5 and I’m not sure I understand your point, please clarify for me? Thank you🙏

[@kurtn652]

So then there are 3 equalities in the Trinity or persons?

[@scottleigh2434]

Creeds are doctrinally descriptive seeking to prescribe thought, whereas the doctrine itself is prescriptive and seeks to describe itself. Its own best interpreter, not a creed. That's the difference. Creeds are one way streets hopefully accurate but fallibly so from men lead to blind alleyways. The Word though, from God, is a Super Duper High Way flying in all directions at once sees all. Alleys come in handy, just don't use them for daily travel.

[@Must_not_say_that]

As you say, but it is much worse than that. The Creeds are in oppositon to and contradiction to the Bible. We are to hear God. We hear God through His word. There is much more that can be said that slay the Creeds and show them harmful.

[@scottleigh2434]

@Must_not_say_that Creeds CAN be in opposition or completely in agreement. I wrote my church’s creed snd well it was in agreement. 😇 I get that false creeds like false gospels exist. A creed is just describing the Bible if done right. A commentary series of sorts is a long creed. Calvin, etc.

[@Must_not_say_that]

@@scottleigh2434 Creeds and commentaries are but men's words and opinions and appeal only to the mind. They are in essence opposed to the true faith which is hearing God. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Furthermore men get things wrong and advance their own thoughts, and draw others after them, as for example Calvin whom you cite. Besides they all disagree with each other. What a crock! What foolishness! How can any know if what they say is true except they first hear God? Peter knew Christ to be the Christ, the Son of the Living God by revelation and Christ commended both Him and revelation. He didn’t know because men told him but because he heard God. It is better to hear five words from God than ten thousand words from men. You say you wrote your church’s creed and you think it agrees with Scripture but clearly it does not because everywhere Scripture enforces hearing God and not man. You are thereby fundamentally wrong. The purpose of a Biblical teacher is to make himself redundant by teaching each to hear God for themselves, then they no longer need a teacher. We are to live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God, not by creeds and commentaries, not by men’s words. Since God’s word is truth, it is pure, not only cannot it therefore not be distilled it is foolish to replace it with man’s words, man’s interpretations etc. All issues can be easily addressed by reference to God’s word and seeking to hear Him. Does not God know what is appropriate for each person? The Lord GOD hath given me the tongue of the learned, that I should know how to speak a word in season to him that is weary: he wakeneth morning by morning, he wakeneth mine ear to hear as the learned. The Lord GOD hath opened mine ear, and I was not rebellious, neither turned away back. Creeds and commentaries prevent that and serve only as Job’s comforters, actually hindering the person from hearing God for themselves and from the right word for each person. It is a serious error which whilst it appeals to the lazy or impatient mind of man and man's pride, interferes with hearing God. How can any hear God while they are hearing men? This is the the true faith once delivered to the saints, to hear God through His word. The history of the churches is broadly to depart from that. Hearing God through His word is what we should be aiming for and not allow men and their words and opinions to interfere with that.

[@billydavis4252]

So are we supposed to accept the decisions of men hundreds of years after Christ as to how to interpret the Bible? Thus sounds like "some people decided to interpret things one way and we are foolish to question those men." Oddly Jesus did just that when he challenged the Pharasee.

[@anthonyhulse1248]

Shock!!! They gave you the bible at the very same time.

[@billydavis4252]

@@anthonyhulse1248 We are at the mercy of people who sought to recall what was originally said. The Bible is mostly written by third and fourth parties and assembled by people long after.

[@kb27787]

@@anthonyhulse1248 Hundreds of years later? I'm not aware of any Scripture being written then.

[@bernhardbauer5301]

@@billydavis4252 Thus says the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusts in man, and makes flesh his arm, and whose heart departs from the LORD.

[@bernhardbauer5301]

@@billydavis4252 No! We are at the mercy of Christ! It is not the letter, it is the Spirit of Christ. We in Christ and Christ in us. 2 Corinthians 5:17: Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creation: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

[@tuppence144]

This was very helpful.

[@JeffreyPigott]

I love this!!!

[@atulofau9006]

We should never add our interpretation to what it is in the bible. Let's completely surrender to God to guide us. There not supposed to be any ism, as if they produced their own opinion about it. Our opinion could be wrong. God is always true. Leave it to God to whatever it is written in the bible teach us.

[@bernhardbauer5301]

So we have unity now? The creed, which has been shown to be changed is not biblical. Christ gives something much better than creeds and doctrines. That is the SPIRIT!This only would I learn of you, Received you the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

[@walkinlove930]

How many creeds are there in the fairh

[@FLDavis]

BULL TO CREEDS! John : 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. Joh 5:17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. Jesus Is Equal with God Joh 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. The Authority of the Son Joh 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. Joh 5:20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel. Joh 5:21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. Joh 5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: Philippians 2: 5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Colossians 1:15-20 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. The Rider on a White Horse Rev 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. Rev 19:12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. Rev 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. Ephesians 3: 4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) 5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; 6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: 7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power. 8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; 9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Hebrews : 1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; 3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; 4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. If one prays for wisdom and understanding before reading the Bible; Christ will open their mind to understanding. And after reading give Thanks to The Father through Christ; Amen!

[@anthonyhulse1248]

Explain in your own words how ANY scripture contradicts the Nicaean Creed. Note, especially since the council of Nicaea gives us both the Canon of Scripture and the Creed.

[@FLDavis]

@@anthonyhulse1248 I believe God The Father is The Holy Spirit and the Word was with Him in the beginning. The Word came into the world as a perfect human. Received Holy Spirit at baptism. I feel Holy Spirit is The Power of our Holy Father and His Son The Christ. I think you can see you can see I don't believe the trinity!

[@Afriqueleblanq]

I say bull to creeds, to the altered Bible, to the different gospel Christianity has been preaching for 1700 years.

[@Must_not_say_that]

@@anthonyhulse1248 That is very simple. We are to hear God and we hear Him through His word. The Creeds stand in opposition to and contradiction of the Scriptures. But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Christ never did anything of Himself. All He did and said was given Him of the Father. We can do no better - He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked. There are many Scriptures that slay the Creeds but I have given you two or three rather obvious witnesses. The pride of man is just so abominably awful.

[@billcynic1815]

​@anthonyhulse1248 Clearly the Nicene Creed contradicts Scripture because Arius was right. The fruits of Protestantism.

[@Kookaburger]

Sola scriptura is all over the Bible, from the Old Testament where God gave Moses the ten commandments written down, and the Torah also written down that was a guide for the ppl of Israel…to the New Testament where the Bible says study to show urself approved a work man who is not ashamed rightfully dividing the word of truth, here the Bible is extolled as the authority…if there is no sola scriptura, then there is no authority in any Christian doctrine, just the mere opinions of men

[@davidbur2790]

Sola scriptura is individual interpretation by men. Every egomaniac who reads the Bible starts a different church. That egomania is the hallmark of the Reformation. Man controls God.

[@billcynic1815]

@@Kookaburger What Scripture did God give Adam? Noah? Abraham? Were the prophets' words only authoritative when written down? When Christ references that the Pharisees sit on the Seat of Moses, where is that in the Old Testament? Did the 1st Century Christians practice _sola scriptura?_ In the Council of Jerusalem, why didn't the Apostles appeal to Scripture for their authority? Did the Apostles have any authority beyond appealing to Scripture?

[@Kookaburger]

@@billcynic1815 how can u use the Bible as a reference for truth without sola scriptura? In other words how do u know that Adam Noah and Abraham even existed at all, how do u know that Jesus ever said that about the Pharisees, if the Bible is not the authority on truth? How do u know for sure that Jesus is the son of God? How do u know the Bible isn’t completely wrong about everything? Without sola scriptura the entire Bible makes no sense as a reference for truth, the Bible is either the authority and everyone should reference it or it isn’t the authority and everyone should disregard it, u can’t have it both ways It is a logical contradiction to use the Bible to prove that the Bible doesn’t support sola scriptura, that makes no sense

[@Kookaburger]

@@billcynic1815 how do u know that Adam Noah and Abraham even existed? How do u know that Jesus ever said that about the Pharisees?

[@billcynic1815]

@Kookaburger You have shifted the goal post. You claimed that _sola scriptura_ is all over the Bible. It is not. For example, Moses knew who Abraham was before the Law was delivered to him. Your question implies we do not view Scripture as an authority. We do. It was the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church who faithfully compiled, copied, taught, and handed down the Scriptures for thousands of years. We simply say, as the Scriptures themselves attest, that Scripture is not the sole authority which should bind our conscious. When St Paul said to hold fast to the traditions taught whether by word or epistle, he meant what he said; that there are both written and unwritten Traditions, both of which we are commanded to hold fast to. Your presuppositions assume a society of mass literacy and mass dissemination of writing, which has not been the case for the vast majority of human history.

[@yuryhabrus]

As far as I'm concerned it Athanasius of Alexandria (not s9meAlexander), who opposed Arius. Probably mistake?

[@JerryUpchurch-f2o]

Nothing in the Creed disputes the Bible Jesus said I and the Father are one.

[@Steelblaidd]

The channel Transfigured does a very detailed video The Development of Trinitarian Doctrine that reviews the statements of the anti-nicene streams of doctrine.

[@holdthewinds]

If it does not match the Bible, which it doesn't, it needs to be thrown out. Period.

[@aussiebloke51]

What a silly statement.

[@toolegittoquit_001]

At least you didn't use all caps

[@anthonyhulse1248]

The Council of Nicaea gave us both the Creed AND the Bible. Who'da thunk it!

[@srich7503]

@@anthonyhulse1248 technically that is not true but the sentiment is still the same… This is important to note that the Trinity came well BEFORE the Bible as we know it today, OR without a Bible, through the church 👍🏻 History shows us that Jesus didn't leave us a bible, - the apostles didn't tell us which books belong in the bible, - the church fathers never agreed on the 27 books of the NT through the 4th century and ONLY the 27 books, - not only did they not agree but their individual lists of would-be NT canons were GROWING during this time. Therefore, if it wasn't the Catholic/Orthodox church, guided by the Holy Spirit, that compiled the 27 books of the NT in the 4th century, just 65 years AFTER the council of Nicaea which began the Trinitarian doctrine and subsequent councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and preserved these scriptures by laboriously hand copying them over and over throughout the centuries before the invention of the printing press, the “rule of faith” for many, please tell us who did? And if this church no longer exists today, what good is the text which came forth from her if she couldn't sustain herself? Peace!!!

[@mebobbygillis]

The Church supplied the Scripture.

[@P.H.888]

The Inspired Hebrew Scriptures point us to The Eternal Word of God The LORD JESUS CHRIST. His Promised New Covenant ✝️🩸🕊️👑

[@KarunanithiNramachandran-qw8xi]

The Nicene Creed is an adulterated teaching of the Word of God . This was not the only creed determined by the Nicene council overtime of which most are anti Word . Like the pope a sinner usurping Christ position in the Bible . There is no teaching in Bible that says that Peter was the first pope . There is no person who can stand in the Lord Jesus place . Jesus said " I am the truth , the way and the life " , not the pope .

[@TheElizabethashby]

AMEN

[@alharris1508]

Amen!

[@anthonyhulse1248]

Explain exactly how and where the Nicaean creed adulterates the Word...

[@KarunanithiNramachandran-qw8xi]

@@anthonyhulse1248 They did change the sabbath from Saturday to Sunday . Christmas is the birthday of the sun god not Christ .

[@KarunanithiNramachandran-qw8xi]

Say three hail Marys and your sins are forgiven . Catholic priests have the power to forgive sins , are you kidding me .Men called of God were ordained to preach the Word not men who studied in theology . Praying to Mary to intercede for one's sins and grant prayers .

[@chrisbranton65]

The creed is wrong because it ties baptism to salvation. Baptism doesn't save you. If you are going to say that is not what they meant. It's not a physical baptism but spiritual baptism. Then you just shown how a creed outside the Bible has lead folks to error.

[@tonyb408]

As one protestant to another, What you just recited was not the creed that was agreed upon in the council. The filioque is a western addition that cannot be supported exegetically, or even with theological consistency. I will stop short of calling it heresy as the east does, but you should at least adopt thr position of Philip Cary: If you are going to recite the creed, you should do so without the filioque clause, even if you believe it since it was not agreed upon by the whole church.

[@TommyNitro]

Jesus breathed out the Holy Spirit in John 20:20. In Galatians 4:6 the Holy Spirit is called "the Spirit of His Son". There was a really good article on it on clearlyreformed that discusses the history of the filioque, how it was added, why it was added, why it was contested, the differences in viewpoint between East and West, and the attempt at reconciliation over it. Quite interesting, but in my opinion a secondary issue.

[@Bravedog2017]

Destroy all doctrines and stick to the Bible text only. Never add to Gods words or you will be a liar. No creed will ever be superior to Gods words. - Our Lord is God and he inherits all from his father, all power has been given to him so the father is the head of everything. What makes me angry is when Christians believe that the father and the son are one person (they are not).

[@glstka5710]

Good but I needed to increase the speed to 1.5.

[@Must_not_say_that]

Ha! But you would be better off not hearing him at al and rather hearing God.

[@anthonyhulse1248]

That's a poser... Maybe the Church that gave you the Nicaean Creed (and the Bible BTW) is the right church.

[@BugattianVeyronian]

In actuality, the Nicene Creed does nothing in defending the biblical truths. Most Christians cite it without examining it. Those who do not believe it simply disregard it. The creed was able to "defend" the biblical truths because the Council of Nicaea was authoritative. It means that if you go against what it says, you will face the consequences of being a heretic. If you are a reformed Christian, you would not be able to explain the source of its authority because the Council of Nicaea is a Roman Catholic body and it is heretical itself. I think the Nicene Creed is a doctrinal summary that anybody should be able to come up with on their own after studying the bible. The bible defends itself.

[@maryloulongenbaugh7069]

The Catholic church formed an identified separate identity from the whole church many centuries after the Nicene Council. Nice try.

[@BugattianVeyronian]

@@maryloulongenbaugh7069 pls elaborate

[@THISWEEKINHUMANdotcom]

Why is not the full history, including that spreading of the trinity doctrine at the tip of the sword and aflame on a stake. The fruit of the Nicaean tree is state churches literally killing the "heretics" through laws that made it criminal to teach, posses, or support the Bible teachings of the one true God. The Bible doesn't need a creed that was written and spread with a very violent spirit. Bishop Nicolas attaked Arius for his biblical stand...that is violence and a breaking of God's Law. What about the Apostle's Creed? It is strictly biblical, and doesn't stray away from the Messiah's own creed "Here O Israel, the Lord our God (Messiah's God too) is one Lord." Jesus said "this is eteranl life, that they may know thee the only true God, and Jesus Messiah whom thou hast sent." The Nicean creed has more than one God, and the trinity is more than one God. If you have three "whos" in one "what" that means there are three persons, individuals. Then one of the "whos" himself has two "whos" who make up the one Messiah adding to the thrinity in a reasonable mind. Jesus and the Aposltes never taught Nicean dogma, but rather were very much montheist. Jesus said the one true God is the Father. (John 17:3) Jesus told Mary Magdalene to tell his brethren that he (Messiah) goes to his father and our father. His God and our God. (John 20:17). In 1 Corinthians 15, it is very clear that when all things are put under Messiah's feet, then Messiah will give up the Kingdom back to the Father, and will himself be subject to the Father. In Revelation 3, Jesus uses the statement when talking to John, "...the temple of my God..." '...I will write the name of my God on them..." "...and the city of my God..." "and the new city Jerusalem, will come down out of heaven from my God." (Revelation 3). The Niceans add to the gospel of the Kingdom, and steal the crowns of the people by making it a requirement to embrace the Nicaen creed or you are anathema. Yes, the only creed is Scared Scripture, as it already has given us the Faith once for all delivered to the saiints...not Nicea.

[@francmittelo6731]

But, what does God have to say in all this? From the Bible, it makes more sense that God is One and not three persons. The fact that a creed was developed to counter what the Bible intuitively teaches proves my point.

[@PInk77W1]

God is one, in three persons. The church has a job mandated by Jesus to teach. The church teaches the Trinity is true.

[@francmittelo6731]

@@PInk77W1 ---- Is a person an entity? The definition of entity I am using is "a thing with distinct and independent existence." ---- So, what do Trinitarians mean when they say person?

[@PInk77W1]

@@francmittelo6731 I don’t know exactly Something to do with “Full reality” or equal reality. God in himself didn’t just do things He does them to such a degree that he is Them. God the Father sent the Son But he did it in such a perfect way that The Son is equal to the father eternally. The love between the father and Son Is so perfect, that it is eternal and equal to The father and Son. I’m no expert But something like that. Aquinas wrote about it Augustine wrote about it Anselm wrote about it.

[@berniepenner6204]

Nah.... I thought this guy was going actually tell some Biblical, Apostolic truth... he missed it.

[@recoveredcalvinist]

Amen!

[@JasonChristner-vr3sq]

Baptism for forgiveness of sins?

[@aussiebloke51]

If baptism isn't about forgiveness of sins, then what is it about? What was your own baptism about then?

[@aussierob7177]

Yes.

[@stewiegreen]

​@@aussiebloke51 The nicene creed doesn't say baptism is ABOUT the forgiveness of sins, it says baptism is FOR the forgiveness of sins. Most evangelicals would disagree with that point, and often interpret it as you did, "about" when the early church clearly meant it to be literal "for".

[@aussiebloke51]

@stewiegreen I take your point. The creed is quite clear that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins. Scripture is clear "Repent and be baptised for the forgiveness of sins." I agree with you that modern evangelicals are wrong on this point and depart from the teaching of scripture and the early church.

[@toolegittoquit_001]

​@@aussiebloke51Just as the Roman church has done since Trent

[@BalaamsAss51]

Sola Scriptura does not mean that one may not use other sources. Sola Scriptura means that the Bible is the only infallible source of truth, and that all other sources must fall under it. The controversy you talk about is a straw man argument.

[@snaphaan5049]

There is no trinity. There is definately a duality... God the Father and God the Son. It is present almost through the whole Bible and even creation itself! According to the Bible and even the truth as revealed through the creation of God, the one stands as a testament to the other. But there is no three. For example: night and day, male and female, cold and warm. Then there is truth and lies, something and nothing, spirit and matter. In the Bible we have the old and new testament; the two money bags of Joseph's brothers (rerring to the price of the old, namely the sacrifices, and new testament, Jesus blood), the extra oil of the 5 virgins, the doubling of the talents, the two spies from Jericho, Aaron and Moses send to Egypt, the two olive trees, etc. The Holy spirit has been forced into a trinitarian characterization where it does not belong. Even James White's stunning book The Forgotten Trinity just falls flat when trying to justify the Holy Spirit as part of the trinitarian idea.

[@simonskinner1450]

The Nicenean Creed is precise but not accurate, many heresies are accurate to the NT, and creeds just protect vested interests from the truth of the law of Abraham.

[@JonathanRedden-wh6un]

Thank you for this excellent summary which clarifies what can be a very confusing study.

[@berniepenner6204]

@13:32 Watts would be an Apostolic Oneness..

[@berniepenner6204]

@@rhondae8222 so he succumbed to the false doctrines as imposed by the Emperor in 325 AD?

[@darinbracy8433]

Interact with a Mormon and they cannot wait to beat you over the head with the Nicene Creed. They have been taught that Nicene trumps the Bible. They are quickly disarmed when I state that I do not use creeds, I have the scriptures as my sole authority and I can show the Trinity without the use of the Nicene Creed. Yes at one time Creeds served a purpose because of the lack of Bibles and the ability to read. That is not a problem today, we have Bibles and high rates of literacy and we can demonstrate Jesus fully by the means He Himself used the Scriptures.

[@stevemarks9820]

Trinity not biblical. Even though it appears that way.If GOD WAnted it in the it would be there. Are you saying human belief over GODs. However JESUS IS GOD.

[@stevemarks9820]

Have they not read JOHN 1:1

[@darinbracy8433]

@@stevemarks9820 they have no problem with John 1:1, they have a problem with Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 43:10, 44:6, and Mark 12:29. These guys are polytheistic, and they just avoid those text each time I ask them.

[@stevemarks9820]

@@darinbracy8433 Deut. 6:4. Is one of my greatest believes. Any place HE says.I am The Lord there is no other.

[@berniepenner6204]

@4:20 'substance: is another non-Apostolic concept..

[@Niko-zg6uq]

Yk what else isn't an Apostolic term? Trinity

[@TheFightingSheep]

"who being the effulgence of his glory, and the very image of his substance" - Hebrews 1:3 ASV

[@tongakhan230]

Since the apostasy took control after the first Century, all teachings after the first Century would be suspect. The Trinity being the worst of all. Acts 20:30. Paul counselled Christians to stick to what was written in God's word. 1 Corinthians 4:6.

[@stepheneickhoff4953]

Found the Pentecostal!

[@tongakhan230]

@@stepheneickhoff4953 :???????🙄

[@gamingterrain3703]

Interesting how you have people in this comments section claiming sola scriptura who both affirm and deny the trinity. Very interesting ...

[@tongakhan230]

@@gamingterrain3703 : If we pay attention to how these go about 'proving' a Trinity, it is all about twisting some verse to make Jesus into God. That actually isn't a Trinity, though these claim it to be. The Trinity is about THREE. Twisting some scripture to make the Holy Spirit into God is another ludicrous exercise. Paul prophesied about teachings such as the Trinity coming in. (Acts 20:30) and from AMONG YOU yourselves men will rise and SPEAK TWISTED THINGS to draw away the disciples after themselves. Try and ask a Trinity believer to explain what the Trinity is. We will get his opinion. Because of access to the Bible today, the apostate Roman church's concept of the Trinity is no longer believed.

[@gamingterrain3703]

@tongakhan230 most non-Catholic denominations believe in the trinity, even protestant ones so i dont think you can make the claim that it "no longer is believed" when most Christians still believe it. Those who deny it are a small minority. But still there are some who claim to only go off of what the bible says and still come to a trinitarian understanding. You're making the assertion that its all about twisting verses but thats just your opinion. The whole idea of sola scriptura is just one man's opinion vs another so why should i believe your opinion over the others that have come to the conclusion of the trinity? What makes your opinion more authoritative over others? You're both saying "this is what the bible says" but claiming different things so who can i trust? Who's really "sola-scripturing" properly here?

[@anthonydewayne712]

lol just as the Bible says the doctrine of men. Just read your Bible nothing more needed

[@yunowot]

Oh Goodie! I can go do anything I like. Yessssss!!

[@somethingtothinkabout167]

Do what you like and like what you do, for you will be judged by the consequences of the nature of all things, men and God regardless.

[@yunowot]

@@somethingtothinkabout167 thanks for the reminder.

[@daniellennox8804]

12:05 “we believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic church” It’s incoherent for Protestants to recite the Nicene creed but reject apostolic succession. The Church is “apostolic” not just because she teaches the deposit of faith from the apostles. But also because the bishops are successors to the apostles. The fathers of the councils have this in mind when referring to the Church as apostolic. The Creed cannot be properly understood without this article. Due to the fact it was bishops who attended the Council of Nicea (318 bishops) and Constantinople (150 bishops).

[@toolegittoquit_001]

Bishops are NOT successors of the Apostles. The RCC is apostate and anti-Christ

[@Nashvillain10SE]

The apostles were the example of sharing the Good News--that's what "apostolic church" indicates. It has nothing to do with "apostolic succession" which is completely non-scriptural. WHO is spreading the word is not important; only THE WORD is important.

[@daniellennox8804]

@@Nashvillain10SE is that what the fathers at these councils meant by “apostolic”? The Creed itself is part of Tradition and comes to us by the bishops of the Church. Apostolic does refer to the apostolic teaching but also apostolic authority.

[@ngdavid3925]

@@daniellennox8804 I beg to differ. The apostle Paul described the church of CHRIST like a building built upon a fixed foundation. Eph.2:19-22 No other foundation should be laid since the real foundation has been laid by the prophets (O.T.) and the apostles (N.T.). 1Cor.3:10-11 The foundation of the church is JESUS CHRIST or the Revelation of JESUS CHRIST. It is also called as the Gospel of the Son of GOD and the Testimony of JESUS. Gal.1:12, 16 ; Rev.19:10 ; Matt.16:16-17, 18 JESUS said that He would build His church upon the ROCK, and it is the Revelation of the Son of GOD, not some man made creed. Eph.4:13 (and of the knowledge of the Son of GOD) The building itself represents a temple which is the Doctrine of CHRIST. 2Jn.9-10 ; 1Tim.6:3 The Doctrine of CHRIST is holiness and righteousness and it came from GOD. Jn 7:16-18 The doers of the Will of GOD abide in the Doctrine of CHRIST.

[@Nashvillain10SE]

​@@daniellennox8804 There is no authority other than the word.

[@KarunanithiNramachandran-qw8xi]

The interpretation of the Word always comes through one man , a prophet chosen by God , and has never come through an organization of men . When the disciples chose Thomas to replace Judas , the didn't seek God's will but determined on their own through a vote . Guess how many times Thomas was mentioned in the Bible .

[@danc1579]

Thomas didn't replace Judas it was Matthias Acts 1v26. The purpose of the Spirit of God in the Acts was to show how Peter was the principal apostle. However, this then changed to Paul as the Gospel moved away from the Jews as a result of the stoning of Stephen. The lack of reference to Matthias and the others in the New Testament does not reflect negatively on how God used them elsewhere in the world.

[@walterbrown8694]

Judas' replacement was chosen as one of two men who had accompanied the disciples and Jesus from the time of His baptism until His resurrection. The 2 men were Joseph (aka Barsabbas) and Mattias (Matthew). After the disciples prayed for God to show them which of the 2 was to replace Judas, they cast lots, and MATTHEW was chosen. The entire process for choosing Judas' replacement is clearly and thoroughly described in Acts 1:15-26.

[@KarunanithiNramachandran-qw8xi]

@@walterbrown8694 Yes ! So far you are the only one who has corrected me .

[@garymckee1287]

God chose Paul

[@TheElizabethashby]

BAPTISM DOES NOT SAVE YOU FROM SINS

[@toolegittoquit_001]

Discuss 1 Peter 3:21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, ...

[@theeternalsbeliever1779]

Ofc baptism doesn't save anyone from sins. The purpose is to openly declare one's commitment to living God's way of life and putting away the self that is hostile towards that way of life. Christ explicitly and very plainly told Nicodemus that in Jhn 3 that a person will NOT be in God's Kingdom without being properly baptized. That is NOT negotiable. He got baptized as an example for His future followers to follow.

[@danc1579]

@@theeternalsbeliever1779 Where is the mention of baptism in John 3? "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Jn 3v5. Paul says in Titus 3v5 "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;" It is a spiritual cleansing not a physical association with water such as baptism.

[@garrettfornea1088]

AMEN

[@DarlowMaxwell]

Then you don’t believe in certain passages in the Bible.

[@rafaelo2215]

why do people defend the doctrine of men over and above what jesus and paul teach? ... it is because of religion ... the religious jew in the time of jesus hand over jesus to be killed by rome hand to keep their power of authority for them self over the people instead of believing in christ ... that the first beast of revelation ... the second beast is the catholic church who killed people because they didn't believe the way the catholic church believe ... and the daughter church which came out of them teaches the same doctrine of men ... why can't people believe what jesus said ... that the father is the only god and his father and his god is our father and our god ... paul said in ... 1Cor 8:6 (KJV) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. this is what paul believe one god the father why can't no one believe like jesus the apostles and paul? and as jesus being created he himself tell you that he is the beginning of the creation of god ... the beginning of the creation of god started in day 1 of creation ... the light

[@peterdavis9403]

You are right about the Father and Jesus. But the two beasts in Revelation is not the Catholic Church. It and the rest of the 'Creed Breed" of Christendom are a part of the world empire of false religion, Babylon the Great who sits on many waters meaning peoples and tribes and tongues, and who is riding on the wild beast that will soon turn on her and devastate her.

[@johnirish989]

Not in the least convincing. But my favorite argument against the trinity, which no one has yet to muster the faith to answer let alone refute, is that of the late Ernest L. Martin: In all his salutations in all his epistles not once does Paul mention the holy spirit. The one time he does mention it at the end of 2nd Corinthians it's merely the COMMUNION of the holy spirit. Gee Paul, how disrespectful. The silence always reminds of the passage in Mark during the storm when Jesus says to the disciples, Why are you so timid? How is it that you have no faith?

[@johnirish989]

We make the distinction between theologians and believers, in favor of the latter, of course. Read in Wikipedia the treatment of Arius by Athanasius and Co. Church fathers or fathers of the Inquisition? God is love. And man is hate.

[@johnirish989]

G3 just looks so freemasonic.

[@DeletedShadowbanned-m5u]

@@johnirish989 ,...g3 is 100% masonic! As is the entire 100% apostate church.

[@jeremyrothrock6163]

Romans 8:16 [16]The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God,

[@DeletedShadowbanned-m5u]

@@jeremyrothrock6163 ,....Do you have any idea how many hundreds of millions of people are going to say on judgement day when they are rejected by Jesus, that they were so sure that they were children of God? The fact is 99% of the worlds population and 100% of the churches population are all going to be rejected by God/Jesus on judgement day.

[@DarlowMaxwell]

Very good video.

[@alharris1508]

But baptism doesn't forgive sins, so that part of the Nicene creed is wrong

[@toolegittoquit_001]

Discuss 1 Peter 3:21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

[@danc1579]

@@toolegittoquit_001 The answer is in your own quote. Baptism is "... (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh ...)" which is the wickedness of sin. Baptism cannot do that, only faith in Christ accomplishes full salvation. However, the New Testament teachings do not envisage a true believer who hasn't been obedient to the outward show of the inward change. Peter is not advocating 'baptismal regeneration' in this verse but that baptism is so inextricably linked with a believer's confession of faith. In the context, the picture of Noah being saved by the water, his salvation was already assured by building and entering the ark before the waters came flooding in.

[@anthonyhulse1248]

proof from scripture please.

[@hike2024]

The Trinity doctrine has extremely damaged the Christian movement. The Nicene Creed DID NOT originate from scripture.

[@chromebull884]

I thought the orthodox church was Aryan. Glad to know i was right.

[@aussiebloke51]

The three Bishops - Basil and the two Gregorys - who finally brought the divisions together were Eastern bishops. When this was all decided there was only one Church. It was before Rome claim sole supremacy. The problem was half the church spoke and thought in latin and the other half of the church spoke and thought in greek. The Eastern Orthodox Church does not hold to Arianism - a quick look at their liturgical texts will clearly show you this

[@chromebull884]

@@aussiebloke51 saying that tho Holy Spirit is only sent by The Father is Arianisim

[@aussiebloke51]

@chromebull884 Are you talking about the procession of the Holy Spirit within the Trinity or the sending of the Spirit at Pentecost? The Creed is speaking about the former.

[@chromebull884]

@@aussiebloke51 yes

[@aussiebloke51]

@@chromebull884 In that case you would have agree that the Western Church was Arian up until the 9th century when the filioque became normative.

[@TheElizabethashby]

WE DONT NEED CREEDS WE HAVE THE BIBLE

[@kurtn652]

Then don't read any Christian books either. 😂

[@fuuzug777]

@@kurtn652 Funny how fundamentalist hate the idea of Creeds. This was not alien to even the children of Israel as very early on they had the "Shema". Even in Paul's writings we see the use of credal statements such as the Carmen Christi in Philippian Chapter 2. I would go as far as to argue that to put creeds aside is in itself unbiblical.

[@neverpc4404]

@@fuuzug777I’m not taking a side here but you make an unfair assumption and accusation that he is a fundamentalist. You are using that as a pejorative. One can be considered a fundamentalist or considered themselves one for many reasons. My point is that you should make your argument from an intellectual standpoint vs. name calling. This person is a brother in Christ and you are demeaning him because he proclaims the authority of the Bible. I’m sure you agree with him on that so just keep your defense of creeds to an intellectual argument, not an attack on him personally. Especially when you appear to be attacking an undefined group you place under the undefined term of fundamentalist.

[@anthonyhulse1248]

well... News Flash - you can thank the Council of Nicaea for the Bible.

[@neverpc4404]

@@anthonyhulse1248 I think a sovereign God preserved His word via numerous people over time.

[@lisagill7968]

How does one adopt views like that from just reading the Bible? I don't know if I've ever read any creed that I can remember, but i have never picked up such heretical beliefs.

[@MrJetmech]

another foolish fallacy based on a myth fiction called the Bible. Apparently God is unable to get it right the first time. The "Holy Spirit" is unable to settle disagreements among believers. Total self contradictions.

[@peterdavis9403]

It actually fulfills Jesus prophetic illustration of the wheat and the weeds. Instead of uprooting that poisonous weed it was left to grow until the conclusion of the system of things which is in our day.

[@MrJetmech]

@@peterdavis9403 no, it doesn't. But you fulfill the fact that whenever someone wants the bible to say whatever they want they turn to 1st Rationalizations to support their wish.

[@DarlowMaxwell]

Catholics say “I” not “we”.

[@kiwi-xl1vl]

@@DarlowMaxwell if every Catholic recite Nice Creed as "I", it results to " We", the mystical body of Christ.

[@berniepenner6204]

The concept of "substance" is a misnomer,

[@ricorodi7085]

Christ established His Church and commanded it to spread the good news and baptize. The Bible is authoritative because the Church says it is. The Bible is a product of the Church and not the other way around. It’s the same with the Creeds. They are authoritative because the Church says they are. Even if there was no Bible the Church would still carry out its mission of salvation. The Bible without the Church is insufficient, as you so eloquently put it in the video. The “Bible is my Creed” approach can still lead to error. But not the Creed. The Bible needs the Creed (the Church’s teaching) to point the reader to the Truth. The Creed can stand on its own, without the Bible, because it expresses what the Church teaches. The Creed is the traditional teaching of the Church. It’s called “sacred tradition” because it is what Jesus taught and commanded His Church to pass on. So, you need all three: the Church, the Bible, and Sacred Tradition, not to fall into error. And there can’t be any contradiction between the three.

[@timothymcdonald7407]

The reformers also believed Mary was a perpetual virgin. Not in the Bible, don’t believe it, bro.

[@normchristopherson5799]

Which reformers taught that? That is a catholic doctrine not a Christian doctrine.

[@timothymcdonald7407]

@@normchristopherson5799 how about Luther, Calvin, Swindooley, for starters. Learn your history please.

[@timothymcdonald7407]

@@rhondae8222 Marty thought she was sinless. So we just pick and choose what we want from the reformers, how convenient.

[@bradleybunk6463]

Whether or not she was a perpetual virgin has no bearing on my faith in Jesus and the apostles’ teaching.

[@toolegittoquit_001]

​@@timothymcdonald7407Learn some history yourself 😂

[@Tm91studies]

Trinity is the mother of all errors. All creeds are tradition of men. Bible is a true Christian’s only creed.

[@debbiedmeades3805]

Arian heresy, same as JWs today - Creed is correct

[@toolegittoquit_001]

'The' Bible is not a summary, it is the complete embodiment of the Word of God that has been given to us. Creeds, catechisms and confessions are handy summaries that merely encapsulate (some aspects) of the Bible

[@srich7503]

The Bible is a Trinitarian book… History shows us that Jesus didn't leave us a bible, - the apostles didn't tell us which books belong in the bible, - the church fathers never agreed on the 27 books of the NT through the 4th century and ONLY the 27 books, - not only did they not agree but their individual lists of would-be NT canons were GROWING during this time. Therefore, if it wasn't the Catholic/Orthodox church, guided by the Holy Spirit, that compiled the 27 books of the NT in the 4th century, just 65 years AFTER the council of Nicaea which began the Trinitarian doctrine and subsequent councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and preserved these scriptures by laboriously hand copying them over and over throughout the centuries before the invention of the printing press, the “rule of faith” for many, please tell us who did? And if this church no longer exists today, what good is the text which came forth from her if she couldn't sustain herself? Peace!!!

[@aussierob7177]

It does not have to be in the Bible. The living teaching office of the Church (Magisterium) whose task it is to give as authentic interpretation of the word of God, whether in its written form (Sacred Scripture), or in the form of Tradition. The Magisterium ensures the Church's fidelity to the teaching of the apostles in matters of faith and morals.

[@toolegittoquit_001]

Sola Scriptura not Sola Ecclesia God's Word is the highest authority. And no, please don't pray the rosary for me 😒

[@anthonypassalacqua3330]

The whole history of the R.C.C. is filled with perversion, lies, and corruption and you want us to believe in "Magisterium" Please read the history of your church by some one other than a Roman Catholic. Try Shaft's or Newman's, or Roman Catholicism by Loraine Boettner.

[@bjornlarsen7440]

There is so much more depth of theology in Eastern Orthodoxy. You sound like you are reading from a teleprompter and have no clue what you are really reciting. Go back to the original church brothers and sisters and see what they said themselves, it’s a deep and rich substance, Christianity did not begin with G3 or the reformers. God bless you all.

[@markmoore3530]

Trinity, false doctrine The trinity doctrine is pagan, a man-made doctrine. Anyone who teaches that Jesus is fully God and yet fully human is a liar. The incarnation taught by men, defined as God becoming flesh is a lie. When a deceiver teaches the doctrine of the trinity you will ALWAYS notice that God and his Son take the 5th amendment; you NEVER hear their testimony or claims as to who they are......What is the testimony of God himself? Isaiah 44:8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any. (read the whole chapter)Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good? Hosea 11:9 I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee: and I will not enter into the city. What about his Son? He claimed to be the Son of God, over and over. 1 Corinthians 8:5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. Paul is telling you that there is one (1) God and one (1) Lord. Why does he say Jesus Christ, by whom are all things? How did God create the heavens and earth? He spoke them into existence. When you read Johns' gospel how does it start? In the beginning, ever heard this before? A Hebrew/Jew understands that if a scriptural text is referenced then the listener needs to be fully cognizant about the refenced text, as it will have bearing on the meaning of what is being said. John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John is telling you that God was the "orator". God was speaking the creation into existence. This is the reason that Christ is called the word of God; this is his origin. Hebrews 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; (He made the worlds through Christ, God spoke them into existence) Ephesians 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ. (He made/created/spoke all things through Christ) Revelation 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God. (Christ testifies of himself that he was the beginning of the creation/ he is the word of God/which was given a flesh body, Hebrews 10:5/Psalm 40:6-7) Further in 1 Corinthians we find: 1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. (appears we have a chain of command, not equality) John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. (God is supreme) Further in 1 Corinthians 15:27-28 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. (Christ is in subjection to his Father) Zebedees' wife asked if her sons could sit on the right and left of Christ in the kingdom. His answer: Matthew 20:20-23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father. (Christ is deferring to his Father, because it is his Fathers' decision) Matthew 24:35-36 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. (Christ said the temple (called heaven and earth by the Jews) would be destroyed. But why didn't he know the day and hour? Because the scripture states it had an appointed (kairos) time to happen, and the Father is the one who appointed that time. Mans' doctrine of the incarnation: God came down and took on flesh is a lie, nowhere taught in the scriptures, nowhere. The scriptures doctrine of the incarnation: 1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. (God sent his son, not himself) John repeats this doctrine in 2 John 7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Can God be tempted by evil? The answer is no, James 1:13. Was Jesus Christ tempted by evil? The answer is yes, in every way, Hebrews 4:15. Do you see the lie? God sent himself to the earth, became a flesh man, pretended/acted as if he could be tempted, when in all reality he can't be tempted........the gospel becomes a farce, laughable. Just a side show people, nothing to see here...... God sent his Son, this message is sent in love, your friend

[@somethingtothinkabout167]

Not sure the word "pagan" refers to anything other than the accepted and major beliefs of the dominant religion. Hence if you beleive otherwise, then it may be better to call yourself a pagan. I personall think you are missing the point and clearly being very selective in the verses you quote. Now it may be reasonable to imagine or my image, presnce and my words whether they are written or spoken are not essentially me. However if you do not respect them you do not respect, me for I am one and the same. My flesh may well be in subjection to me, but make no mistake, to injure or crucify it is to crucfy my. My words, deeds and flesh may seem inferior to the totality of their being representations of the ture and only me, but they are me. How much more it is possible for the omnipresent God to do such things? In the end I would have thought it was more pagan to merely set up an idol of stone and imagine it was impossible for our creator to walk amongst us and speak to us face to face as it were.

[@anthonypassalacqua3330]

These 3 verses refute your presuppositions Titus 2:13, "Looking for that blessed hope and glorious appearing of the Great God an our Saviour Jesus Christ." In this passage out Great God and Saviour are one, proving that Jesus is God. 1st Jn. 5:20, "And we know that the Son of God is come, and has given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life." Here we have the Son of God who came to this world and is the true God , not a mode or a verbal expression but a person, and he is said to be God. 2 Cor. 5:20, "To wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself...." Here we have two persons sharing the same essence. Both accomplishing the work of redemption on the cross. Can God be tempted by evil? Temptation is only sinful if it is indulged in. God the Father allowed Jesus to be tempted because he was the son of man and therefore needed to experience every thing that humans experience except without sin. As a man Jesus overcame the power of sin by the power of the Holy Ghost thereby making it a legitimate test.. The temptation was real because Jesus was fully human. If you fail to understand that Christ was fully human and fully God then it is understandable why you think the whole thing is a fake test. .Christ was allowed of the Father to suffer every human frailty, suffering, and temptation in order that Heb. 2:17 "He might be a merciful and faithful high priest...." 1 Tim.3:16, "And without controversy great is the mystery of Godliness: God was manifest in the flesh,(in the person of his Son Psalms 2:7,8) justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."

[@markmoore3530]

@@anthonypassalacqua3330 Greetings, this message is sent in love. Men teach doctrines of men. God called men gods in the scripture. A title does not confirm the essence of an entity. Please read your bible, please. Let's make this very simple. When you get to heaven are you going to see two (2) separate and distinct entities? One being the Father, who is described multiple times, what he looks like, not to mention his own testimony of who he claimed to be, which was that he was the only one, and are you going to see Jesus Christ? This is two (2). your friend

[@anthonypassalacqua3330]

@@markmoore3530 Yes you are right there are two distinct entities in heaven and both are worshipped in the exact same way. Rev.5:13, "Blessing and honour and glory, and power be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever." Both share the same throne. Also both share the same essence Jn 17:20, "That they all may be one; as thou Father art in me, and I in thee." This doesn't mean that the saints share the same incommunicable attributes as the Father and the Son. John reinforces the same essence doctrine as well. Jn. 1:18, "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father(i.e.present tense).he hath declared him." They have the same attribute of omnipresence Jn.3:13, "And no man has ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." Jesus said to Philip, Jn. 14:10, "Believest thou not that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works." Jesus also said in Jn. 10:30 "I and my Father are one." Yes there are two but they mysteriously share the same essence. All this does is further reinforce the doctrine of the trinity. I'm sure you know all these verses and you have evidently made up your mind that there are two god's.tell me how this squares with Isa. 45:5, "I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God besides me." Also 45:21, "Tell me and bring them near; yea let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? Have not I the Lord and there is no God else besides me; a just God and Saviour there is none besides me." Notice this is Yahweh speaking saying there is no God our Saviour besides him, so where does this second God come from?

[@markmoore3530]

@@anthonypassalacqua3330 Greetings, this message is sent in love. Men teach doctrines of men. You answered your own question. There is only one (1) supreme, above all, God. He has a son, that was begotten. Read Isaiah 19 and tell me who is coming on the clouds and who is the saviour sent?

[@nageldev]

"So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter." 2 Thessalonians 2:15 ("word of mouth" = TRADITION)

[@danbrown586]

So what did one of the apostles teach that isn't recorded in scripture?

[@nageldev]

@@danbrown586 Visit your local Orthodox church and find out. Plenty of things the Church has been doing for 2000 years passed down through each generation.

[@bradleybunk6463]

Would not word of mouth mean verbal account or spoken testimony? Santa Claus is traditional.

[@gregb6469]

Everything Paul taught the Thessalonians by word of mouth that they (and all Christians) needed to know found its way into the New Testament. There are no true doctrines or dogmas not found in Holy Writ. There is nothing in extra-Biblical Tradition which anyone needs to believe to be saved or to grow as a Christian.

[@theeternalsbeliever1779]

Everything the apostles taught by word of mouth DIDN'T contradict the Bible. When Paul says "word of mouth", he is clearly referring to what the apostles taught in person. He did NOT mean that the apostles made up doctrines or traditions on their own authority. The only ways they could communicate with the congregations were either in person or by letter. The technology didn't exist for them to broadcast messages over the internet, radio, or TV.

[@simonskinner1450]

Jesus was the Holy Trinity not God, he was the Godhead bodily, imbued by the Spirit to do miracles, and impersonating his Father as the revealed image of his Father.

[@4r5tgrftgrtrftgrhbet]

Then why did he pray to the father instead of to himself.

[@simonskinner1450]

@@4r5tgrftgrtrftgrhbet we have to be careful reading John, as it was written to witness Jesus was the Messiah, when he spoke the word of God he was impersonating his Father, but many times he spoke for himself like when he prayed to his Father in heaven. The terms of Deuteronomy 18:18 tells us the Father was to raise the Messiah from his people, so Jesus was witness to his Father and vice versa, when he said "I am" in John he spoke as his Father.

[@somethingtothinkabout167]

The word "Impersonating" suggests He was masquerading or mimicking God much like satan might want to do.

[@somethingtothinkabout167]

​@@4r5tgrftgrtrftgrhbet the first point to note is, that we know of His having done so, was for our benefit not His, for Christ made it clear that when we pray, we are to go in to our room and close the door. Hence His praying out loud was a demonstration much like our thinking out loud, and as such does not suggest any difference in His being equally devine in nature, for if God is Spirit and ominpresnt, it is not out side the realm of possibility that Christ was in God, and God was in Christ. Self talkis a thing even if i this case the viice of the omnipresent Father is made audible for others and not for Christ alone.

[@simonskinner1450]

@@somethingtothinkabout167 Jesus was the revealed image of his Father, when they saw him they were supposed to see the Father, so impersonate is a good word, better than mimicking.

[@lonecar144]

If the Word is Jesus then from the beginning he had not learned to be obedient to himself until 2,000 years ago, and was fearful according to the following verses, 7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; 8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; Heb 5:7-8 (KJV) And why would God not know to refuse the evil and choose the good? 16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. Isaiah 7:16 (KJV) Everyone knows this cannot be. 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but WAS in all points TEMPTED (in contradiction to 13 … for God CANNOT be tempted with evil, …James 1:13 (KJV)) like as we are, yet without sin. Heb 4:14-15 (KJV). Two separate wills mean two separate beings. 42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. Luke 22:42 (KJV) And 30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. John 5:30 (KJV) 30 I and my Father are one. John 10:30 (KJV) simply mean that Jesus and the Father are working for the same end, the salvation of man. John 17:21-22 (KJV). 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the WORD (not son), and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 1 John 5:7 (KJV) Jesus is a man that was given the Word and taught to be obedient to it and thereby perfectly giving us an example to follow and live by the Word in the flesh, becoming our savior and the author of our salvation through deed and script (the New Testament). And Jesus was given the position of high priest and “Lord of Lords and Kings of Kings” because of his perfected obedience to the Word. And he was made God over us by the same principle that Moses was made God over Pharaoh Ex 7:1 (KJV). There is only the FATHER that gave us his WORD (law, the ten commandments and their principles) to be our lord and God that we are commanded to love with all our heart, soul, strength, and mind. There is only the FATHER that sends his HOLY GHOST to work all things together for the good of those that love the lord their God. By God’s righteousness he cannot create man with a free will without a plan of salvation knowing that man will give into the lusts of the flesh and be servants of death. From the beginning (John 1:1 (KJV)) that plan is the Word (God’s law) that entails a savior that completes or finishes the law (Word). Jesus was chosen to be that savior (the Word made flesh). The Word is not Jesus, but Jesus is a part of the Word. 6 By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. Psalms 33:6 (KJV) “Jesus Christ came 2,000 years ago at the end of the fifth day and beginning of the sixth day and brought the New Testament which gives true meaning to the laws of God in the Old Testament and is a way of making it possible for all people to understand. The teachings of Christ in the New Testament finished the laws of God which are in the Old Testament (confirming those laws, not doing away with them as most people believe) St. John5:36, St. Matt.5:17, and His teachings in the New Testament of the bible is His spiritual blood, St. John6:63 and St. Mark14:23-25. He did not change any laws of the Old Testament. He repeatedly refers to the Ten Commandments which were given in the Old Testament. It is there one must study the laws to truly understand the breakdown and true meaning of all laws. Jesus Christ said He came not to destroy or change, but to fulfill and finish the laws, St.John4:34, 17:4, 19:30.” ~ #2 143,999+1 Don’t take my word for it, or any bodies for that matter. Come to the bible (KJV) with a clean slate and with sincere want for truth, and not to consume it upon your lusts, but that you may do true worship and obedience to God, with a repentant heart, and with reason and logic the spirit of God will teach.11 … in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Acts 17:11 (KJV) And for Jesus to be God, his sacrifice would be a mockery, “see I can do it, now you do it” knowing that he cannot die. Jesus is man just like the men and women he shows the way to live according the word in the flesh: 21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should FOLLOW HIS STEPS:...1 Peter 2:21-24 (KJV). The government that gives life consists of the “Father” who gave us his only begotten son, the word(law, “all mighty God”) and sent to this world his “Prince of peace”, our High Priest, lord, king, and mediator Jesus Christ. All glory to God. Amen

[@voicecryinginthewilderness]

So if Jesus was a man then how did he create the heavens and the earth and all that is in them from nothing? And how was He able to exist with the Father before there was a heaven and earth? He only became a man when He was born into this world about 1600 years after he created it when His Spirit was placed in the baby Jesus which the Virgin Mary delievered so He could pay the price for the sins of the elect! Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God. Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. Joh 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

[@lonecar144]

@@voicecryinginthewilderness The problem is that both theists and atheists alike are under the assumption that the bible (KJV) teaches that this earth is God's first and only rodeo. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made >THAT WAS MADE

[@voicecryinginthewilderness]

@@lonecar144 I just read the following verse: 1Jn 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. And the Spirit prompted me to see if there was a response to my comment. So you think the world is very old. Perhaps you believe in evolution. But back to the original question so you believe that Jesus was just a man. Like the Mormons? Joh_4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. Jesus being the Son of God makes Him a Spirit as His Father is a Spirit. Joh 6:62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. Joh 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. Joh 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. Consider Joh 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. By the way Jesus is the Word! Rev 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. You need to quit trying to forse the Bible to say what you want it to say and let the Holy Spirit show you what God is speaking to you. You are the student not the instructor!

[@voicecryinginthewilderness]

@@lonecar144 1Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

[@peterdavis9403]

@@voicecryinginthewilderness The phrase "and these three are one" was added to the KLV, it was not in the Biblical source material.

[@nageldev]

How did the Church exist for several hundred years without a Bible? Holy men of Tradition compiled the Bible hundreds of years after Christ. Sola Scriptura is utter nonsense.

[@Graceissaving]

They had the writings it just wasn’t put together in one book.

[@tuppence144]

The new testament was in the old concealed and the old in the new revealed. The Word of God has been with us since the beginning of creation.

[@Faithful247]

They literally fought over the the meaning of the text… from the sole authority😂😂😂

[@tuppence144]

@@Faithful247 Yes, it started with Eve. Satan then already twisted God's words but our sovereign God is watching over His Word and made sure we get to read His words to this day.

[@rich1147]

Sola Scriptura is self refuting. Scripture doesn't make that claim and even gives examples proving Sola Scriptura false. Furthermore how can Baptists affirm the Nicene creed? They don't believe in "one baptism for the forgiveness of sins".

[@garrettsawyer3363]

Can you provide those examples? Examples that actually show that the word of God is not the highest authority?

[@rich1147]

@@garrettsawyer3363 The Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. Clearly the Church had authority here.

[@tedroybal5231]

​@rich1147 Thank you. Yes, but in step with the Holy Spirit. "For it has seemed good* to the Holy Spirit and* to us* to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements." Acts 15:28

[@phieble]

​@@rich1147 2 Timothy 3:16-17 teaches sola scriptura. God could not use Scripture to equip his people to do EVERY good work if some of what we need is lacking from the text leaving us having to depend on extrabiblical doctrine and traditions. The church only has authority to teach Christians everywhere to obey all that Jesus taught (including upholding the Old Testament as canon) and to apply discipline, up to the point of excommunication if necessary, for a member's refusal to repent of disobedience including adherence to false doctrine. The church cannot make up new commands and doctrines and enforce them, nor can they establish an interpretation of any passage that is clearly false and then enforce only that interpretation upon other members and punish them for disagreement. Traditions that are not biblical have even less weight What happened in Acts was the church leadership recognizing that Jesus' fulfillment of the Old Testament made much of the Mosaic Law defunct, thus making way for the transition into the New Testament. The rest of the New Testament is only that which comes from inspiration of the Holy Spirit, as made evident by miracles, and that which Jesus taught while physically on earth.

[@Faithful247]

@@tedroybal5231pearls before swine, my friend

[@stephenfoster9009]

At timestamp 11:42 is where the Nicene Creed departs from scripture. Our Lord was not in the grave three days. This was added to support Good Friday as the crucifixion day(it’s not) to support Sunday as the Resurrection Day in order to overturn the Sabbath. Jesus told the Pharisees I will give you one sign, the sign of Jonah- three days and THREE NIGHTS, the Son of Man will be in the earth. The Creeds ALL have only the three days verbiage. There was an earnest attack on the Sabbath at this time- this is never taught in Seminary or Bible College. Jesus was crucified on Wednesday on the Day of Preparation, was taken from the Cross, so his body wouldn’t be on the cross during Passover. The day after Passover is the feast of Unleavened Bread. This was followed by a High Sabbath, which can occur on any day of the week. Jesus rose from the dead on the Sabbath. When Mary went to the tomb immediately after Sabbath, he was ALREADY risen on the feast of First Fruits. So what we have here is an omission - the latter half of the sign our Lord gave, all to support Eusebius in changing the Sabbath. It’s a blatant, but silent manipulation of God’s word.

[@richardvoogd705]

Don't forget that in Bible times, days started at sunset, not midnight. That is why Genesis 1 speaks multiple times of Evening and Morning being a day. That is why Leviticus 23:32, speaking of the day of atonement (not the regular weekly Sabbath), speaks of the Sabbath being from evening to evening.

[@PInk77W1]

The church is the truth according to scripture