The Nicene Creed

[tomwebster]

Hammerstone;
you may, and probably will take this the wrong way but Im going to speak for anyone else here that believes in sola scripture. I'm more than twice your age have been a studying born again christian for 10 years longer than you have been alive. You're risking turning your forum into joke in the eyes of mature Christians. Its clear you have issues making decisions, this is the second time you have asked for public advice recently. Your understaffed, in fact I think your only staff member is a Universalist and your now asking about accepting a creed that pays exclusive homage to the catholic church. You can't get or keep staff so the entire forum can't be kept with in any kind of parameters in the first place. Let alone knowing what direction that may be, this is evident by this post. My opinion is, if you can't make a decision about the basic concept here with out asking you are probably easily influenced as well. In that case the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Those that buddy up and expect to have your ear will have there way. And you are well on your way down that path.

You need to make a decision and stick with it. Maybe then you'll have a forum with more than a hand full of active members at anyone time. You'll actually attract "christians" that more closely share a common faith. Instead of siding with the majority or the ones you like or what ever your basis of operations are today. Decide what you believe the proper boundaries should be, you can't simply let people openly slander the bible and expect to operate a Christian forum that welcomes every whim and doctrine that comes down the pipe. Your catholic or protestant If you want both support universalism but tell people that. If thats want you want then say we believe what ever you believe,welcome, and well let you teach it here as well just don't argue. But don't get upset when your one size fits all doesn't resolve endless arguments. You'll simply keep running people off and banning people as well. What a soap opera call it, as the religions turn .
I guarantee your forum will grow no matter what you decide. Just decide. And stick with it.

So tj, go somewhere else. Start your own forum then you can make the rules. All you have done here is complain and argue.

 

[whirlwind]

Its clear you have issues making decisions, this is the second time you have asked for public advice recently.

A "mature Christian" has nothing to do with age. As for having a problem with "making decision,"....did you ever consider that Hammerstone was opening the thread to discussion...not particularly soliciting advice from others?



.

 

[Thankful 1]

The word "Catholic" whether with a small "c" or a capital "C" both mean "universal. The Orthodox Church, the Anglicans and some of our Protestant brothers uses the word "catholic." Others who have a problem with it changed it to the word "christian."



Hello Thankful,

No, the Apostle's Creed is very short. The Nicene Creed was written in the fourth century at the Council of Nicea.

In Christ,
Selene
[/quote
That is strange I guess the nuns that taught me just got it wrong. I said the Apostles Creed so many times that I had it memorized. It was always started as the Apostles Creed. But what is in a name?

 

[Templar81]

What do you think of the Nicene Creed? Is this something that outlines Christianity - IE: points we can agree on or what?

I consider it neccessary as a statement of faith and just as tre now as it was in 325 (and 381).

I know a lot of people avoid using anything but the scriptures themselves but scripture can be difficult if younread it on your own and can lead to many questions, like; is Jesus half man and half deivine or was jesus only adopted as God's son when he was baptised (there were many who believed this in the early church).

But without the Nicene creed western Christianity (and eastern too for that matter) would be very different to what it is today as it woudl not be unified. I know it isn't today but more or less every western (as well as orthodox) Christian that is trinitarian can look at the Nicene Creed and find nothing unscriptural or contradictory to scripture.

 

[jacobtaylor]

So tj, go somewhere else. Start your own forum then you can make the rules. All you have done here is complain and argue.

In that case the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Those that buddy up and expect to have your ear will have there way. And you are well on your way down that path.

 

[Selene]

The word 'catholic' simply means 'universal.' In other words, believers everywhere they're found. When the word 'catholic' was used in the early Church they had no concept of eastern church and western church or Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. It was simply believers everywhere.



Do you believe that the 'original' version, which omits the filioque clause, is correct as over against mama Rome?

Hello Nomad,

If you had read that filioque controversy.weblink that you provided, it says that the Catholic Church had accepted the Eastern Orthodox version. The Council of Lyons and Florence did not require the Orthodox Christians to insert the filioque. Instead, what we asked our Orthodox brothers is to accept the Catholic's doctrine of including the filioque.

In Christ,
Selene

 

[Selene]

actually you are wrong. the capital 'c' catholic word refers to teh r.c.c. institution whereas the small 'c' catholic means universal church.




i believe that the nicene creed is taken from 1 cor. at least paul covered it in one of his epistles, i am just going by memory here.

Hello archaelogist5,

The word "Catholic" regardless of whether it is a small letter "c" or a capital letter "c" means "universal". That is what "catholic" means. We are not an institution. We are an assembly of people. We are a Church (assembly).

The Nicene Creed was written in the fourth century at the Council of Nicea.

 

[archaeologist5]

Hello archaelogist5,

The word "Catholic" regardless of whether it is a small letter "c" or a capital letter "c" means "universal". That is what "catholic" means. We are not an institution. We are an assembly of people. We are a Church (assembly).

The Nicene Creed was written in the fourth century at the Council of Nicea.

i am not going to get into a war over the meaning of one word but the RCC has been trying to justify its false doctrines and its desire to be the one true church for millenia now. the act of putting the word 'roman' in front of 'catholic' limits the scope of the reach of the latter word and does NOT include any other church organization that is NOT a member of the institution of the r.c.c.. the r.c.c. is NOT a christian church, is not the true church and it does NOT have apostolic succession nor does the pope speak ex cathedra as his position is NOT scripturally based nor sanctioned.

there may be a few adherents who are truly christian within its memership but the majority are not and are being greatly deceived.

 

[Rach1370]

Hammerstone;
you may, and probably will take this the wrong way but Im going to speak for anyone else here that believes in sola scripture. I'm more than twice your age have been a studying born again christian for 10 years longer than you have been alive. You're risking turning your forum into joke in the eyes of mature Christians. Its clear you have issues making decisions, this is the second time you have asked for public advice recently. Your understaffed, in fact I think your only staff member is a Universalist and your now asking about accepting a creed that pays exclusive homage to the catholic church. You can't get or keep staff so the entire forum can't be kept with in any kind of parameters in the first place. Let alone knowing what direction that may be, this is evident by this post. My opinion is, if you can't make a decision about the basic concept here with out asking you are probably easily influenced as well. In that case the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Those that buddy up and expect to have your ear will have there way. And you are well on your way down that path.

You need to make a decision and stick with it. Maybe then you'll have a forum with more than a hand full of active members at anyone time. You'll actually attract "christians" that more closely share a common faith. Instead of siding with the majority or the ones you like or what ever your basis of operations are today. Decide what you believe the proper boundaries should be, you can't simply let people openly slander the bible and expect to operate a Christian forum that welcomes every whim and doctrine that comes down the pipe. Your catholic or protestant If you want both support universalism but tell people that. If thats want you want then say we believe what ever you believe,welcome, and well let you teach it here as well just don't argue. But don't get upset when your one size fits all doesn't resolve endless arguments. You'll simply keep running people off and banning people as well. What a soap opera call it, as the religions turn .
I guarantee your forum will grow no matter what you decide. Just decide. And stick with it.

Jacob, after you PM me, I came and read this topic, just to see what you were talking about. I'm still unsure why you sent me a message, really, but here's my take of this thread.

Hammerstone is not commending or condemning the Catholic church. When the Nicene Creed says catholic church, it only means the church as a whole...the bride of Christ. Saying that it's supporting the "Catholic" church, would be a bit like criticizing the name of Jesus, just because some off the wall church decides to take His name in their title!
Because here's the deal...there are different denominations, Protestants and Catholics, but if we are born again, we all belong to God's church...we are all His children. And that's all it means when it says "catholic church".

As far as Hammerstone 'asking' for help with his decisions...I think it's fairly clear he was just opening up a conversation. In fact, my guess would be that in light of the arguments that have been waging on this thread, he was attempting to remind us of what we all have in common....which is a really worth while goal, don't you think?? Because when it really comes down to it, shouldn't we gather around our love for Christ?

 

[jacobtaylor]

Jacob, after you PM me, I came and read this topic, just to see what you were talking about. I'm still unsure why you sent me a message, really, but here's my take of this thread.

Hammerstone is not commending or condemning the Catholic church. When the Nicene Creed says catholic church, it only means the church as a whole...the bride of Christ. Saying that it's supporting the "Catholic" church, would be a bit like criticizing the name of Jesus, just because some off the wall church decides to take His name in their title!
Because here's the deal...there are different denominations, Protestants and Catholics, but if we are born again, we all belong to God's church...we are all His children. And that's all it means when it says "catholic church".

As far as Hammerstone 'asking' for help with his decisions...I think it's fairly clear he was just opening up a conversation. In fact, my guess would be that in light of the arguments that have been waging on this thread, he was attempting to remind us of what we all have in common....which is a really worth while goal, don't you think?? Because when it really comes down to it, shouldn't we gather around our love for Christ?

Then why isn't this rule enforced? And staff members also start topics that question the bible as being the word of God? http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/13419-the-word-of-god/page__view__getnewpost__fromsearch__1

Blasphemy will not be tolerated. This forum is intended for a Christian audience. Those who are not of the Christian faith are welcome to sign up but will be relegated to private forum discussion with staff members only. Any derogatory remarks about God (including the Son and Holy Spirit) will be removed. The same goes for remarks about Christianity. Do not hold the Bible to be the Word of God? We are not interested, then.

 

[Selene]

i am not going to get into a war over the meaning of one word but the RCC has been trying to justify its false doctrines and its desire to be the one true church for millenia now. the act of putting the word 'roman' in front of 'catholic' limits the scope of the reach of the latter word and does NOT include any other church organization that is NOT a member of the institution of the r.c.c.. the r.c.c. is NOT a christian church, is not the true church and it does NOT have apostolic succession nor does the pope speak ex cathedra as his position is NOT scripturally based nor sanctioned.

there may be a few adherents who are truly christian within its memership but the majority are not and are being greatly deceived.

Hello archaeologist5,

The word "Roman" only means that it is located in Rome. The Roman Church is the Church in Rome. The Corinthian Church was the Church in Corinth, and so on. However, this does not mean that the Roman Catholic Church is limited only to Rome. The Catholic Church is actually world wide in union with Rome. As a matter of fact, there are 22 Eastern Catholic Church that are in union with Rome. Catholic regardless of whether it is captalized or not means "universal."

And yes, we do have apostolic succession, and we are indeed Christians. After all, who did you think were the ones who wrote the Nicene Creed?

We are not the only ones who have apostolic succession. The Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Church also have apostolic succession. The Roman Catholic Church can trace its lineage to the Apostle Peter. The Russian, Hungarian, Romanian, Slovak, Orthodox Churches can trace their lineage to the Apostle Andrew. The Armenian and Georgian Orthodox Church can trace their lineage to the Apostles Bartholomeu and Judas Thaddeus. The Syrian and Chaldean Church can trace their lineage to the Apostles Matthew and Thomas. These are historical facts and our history. Just as any American can trace who founded their country and determine who was the first President of the United States, so all these Churches including the Roman Catholic Church can trace their lineage to an Apostle of Christ in the first century.

In Christ,
Selene

 

[archaeologist5]

Hello archaeologist5,

The word "Roman" only means that it is located in Rome. The Roman Church is the Church in Rome. The Corinthian Church was the Church in Corinth, and so on. However, this does not mean that the Roman Catholic Church is limited only to Rome. The Catholic Church is actually world wide in union with Rome. As a matter of fact, there are 22 Eastern Catholic Church that are in union with Rome. Catholic regardless of whether it is captalized or not means "universal."

http://hebrew4christ...ossary_-_j.html

We are not the only ones who have apostolic succession. The Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Church also have apostolic succession. The Roman Catholic Church can trace its lineage to the Apostle Peter. The Russian, Hungarian, Romanian, Slovak, Orthodox Churches can trace their lineage to the Apostle Andrew. The Armenian and Georgian Orthodox Church can trace their lineage to the Apostles Bartholomeu and Judas Thaddeus. The Syrian and Chaldean Church can trace their lineage to the Apostles Matthew and Thomas. These are historical facts and our history. Just as any American can trace who founded their country and determine who was the first President of the United States, so all these Churches including the Roman Catholic Church can trace their lineage to an Apostle of Christ in the first century.

In Christ,
Selene

First lesson for you. DO NOT insult my intelligence and do not tell me what I already know. the RCC is NOT the same church, let alone denomination, as the church in Rome. two very different entities. The large C Catholic is a very restricted meaning no matter how you want to slice it and denotes the organization whose home is the vatican. it has no universal meaning to include any other church denomination that does not hold membership with that group.


second lesson: http://www.archiesar.../subpage28.html there i sno apostolic succession, that is a very weak attempt by the RCC to stake a claim to being the true church though it teaches false doctrines.. it is not a christian church and holds to very few of Christ's teachings.

third lesson: you need to learn that just because other church organizations make the claim doesn't make the process true. they assume they have those ties but none can be verified. oh and if you are going to say that they are historical facts place credible links to legitmate sources to support your claim.

we know for a fact that the RCC cannot do that since Peter was never the head of the roman church, it is disputed that he even died there

http://www.hope-of-i...rg/petdeath.htm

http://www.ichthys.com/mail-peter.htm

what RCC officials can or cannot do must be tempered by the fact that they can also fabricate for an ulterior motive.

 

[rockytopva]

.
Is doctrine spiritual light? If E = mc2 then m = E / c2.... The spiritual variety of the stuff we are created with is E (energy, warmth, motivation) and c2 (faith, hope ,charity). If dogma was E/c2 somebody would have figured a way to keep the church in perfect energy and light. So all these creeds may be mentally correct there is no spiritual connection with them at all. You get the spiritual stuff from a relationship with Jesus Christ! Without this relationship the spiritual man is in the state of n = z/d (nothing = absolute zero / darkness) and there is not a thing dogma can do for you.

for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. - 2 Cor 3:6

 

[Selene]

First lesson for you. DO NOT insult my intelligence and do not tell me what I already know. the RCC is NOT the same church, let alone denomination, as the church in Rome. two very different entities. The large C Catholic is a very restricted meaning no matter how you want to slice it and denotes the organization whose home is the vatican. it has no universal meaning to include any other church denomination that does not hold membership with that group.


second lesson: http://www.archiesar.../subpage28.html there i sno apostolic succession, that is a very weak attempt by the RCC to stake a claim to being the true church though it teaches false doctrines.. it is not a christian church and holds to very few of Christ's teachings.

third lesson: you need to learn that just because other church organizations make the claim doesn't make the process true. they assume they have those ties but none can be verified. oh and if you are going to say that they are historical facts place credible links to legitmate sources to support your claim.

we know for a fact that the RCC cannot do that since Peter was never the head of the roman church, it is disputed that he even died there

http://www.hope-of-i...rg/petdeath.htm

http://www.ichthys.com/mail-peter.htm

what RCC officials can or cannot do must be tempered by the fact that they can also fabricate for an ulterior motive.

Hello archaeologist5,

First of all, the Church in Rome is the Roman Catholic Church. Do you know of any other church in Rome that is much older than the Catholic Church there claiming to be that Roman Church? No, of course not.

Secondly, the Roman Catholic Church does say that we are God's true Church, but we never said that the other churches are fakes. If you really wanted to know what the Catholic Church says about the other churches, you should go to a Catholic website rather than a non-Catholic website. As a matter of fact, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that all Christian Churches that are not in union with Rome are joined together with her. The fact that the Catechism says this is proof that we never said that other churches are fakes. We recognize that the Orthodox Church are valid and legitimate Churches. We recognize that the Orthodox Church have apostolic succession like us. Protestant Churches, on the other hand, are viewed more a eccesial communities. Below is what our Catechism says:

CCC #838 The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."[sup]322[/sup] Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."[sup]323[/sup] With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."[sup]324[/sup]

CCC #819 Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"[sup]273[/sup] are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."[sup]274[/sup] Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,[sup]275[/sup] and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."[sup]276[/sup]

As you can see, if you had gone to a Catholic website or even to our Catechism, it says that Christians who are not in union with Rome are joined together with us. Why? Because the Body of Christ is ONE. We all make up the entire mystical Body of Christ. Our Catechism even says that we recognize the same elements of sanctification and truth in other Christian churches.

In the third place, as I said, we can trace our lineage to the Apostle Peter. The evidence is found in the line of Bishops going back to the first century. Today the Bishop of Rome is Benedict XVI. Before him was John Paul II. Before him was John Paul I. Before him was Paul VI. We know who the 100th Bishop of Rome was, and we know who the first Bishop of Rome was as well. There are historical documents from the first to the third century stating that the Apostle Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. The weblinks that you provided left out all those documents. Now, why is that?

And finally, who did you think were the ones who wrote the Nicene Creed? The Nicene Creed was developed at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D., which was convened by Emperor Constantine (Emperor of Rome). Who attended the Council of Nicea? There were delegates in every region of the Roman Empire (except Britain) who came. It was the Catholics and Orthodox Bishops who were in the Council of Nicea and who wrote the Nicene Creed.

In Christ,
Selene

 

[rockytopva]

I believe that the church is one... However there were seven church's making up that one...


1. Ephesus - Apostolic - Scripture still before us!.
2. Smyrna - Martyr - 10 days = 10 general Roman persecutions.
3. Pergomos - Orthodox - Still alive in many parts of the world!
4. Thyatira - Catholic - Influence still large.
5. Sardis - Protestant - The influence of the Baptists is still great.
6. Philadelphia - Methodist / Pentecostal - Saved / Sanctified / Filled with the Holy Ghost!
***Is revival unique to the Philadelphian church age???*** Was this the revival of the last days?
7. Laodicea - Materialistic / Charistmatic / Educated - Influencing a lot of churches these days.


I believe that there are going to a lot of surprised people when they find many outside their faith inside of heaven. Read of John Calvin... He saw Michael Servetus in his church and immediately had him arrested as a heretic and eventually burned at the stake. What kind of love is that? It wouldn't surprise me if Mr. Know-it-all (John Calvin) would end up in hell himself wondering how everyone else got in and him shut out... It's like hello dumbo! You've go blood on your hands!

My perspective on the churches...

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=b7rTb4BJQsg

 

[revturmoil]

Archaeologist said,

First lesson for you. DO NOT insult my intelligence and do not tell me what I already know.

Selene was very nice in her reply.

First lesson.
I'll tell you what I want to tell you!

I think people avoid this forum because there are too many mean people on it!

the r.c.c. is NOT a christian church,

I guess archaeologist has issues and prejudisms and doesn't understanding the Catholic's.
Have I insulted your intelligence enough yet?

 

[tomwebster]

I believe that the church is one... However there were seven church's making up that one...


1. Ephesus - Apostolic - Scripture still before us!.
2. Smyrna - Martyr - 10 days = 10 general Roman persecutions.
3. Pergomos - Orthodox - Still alive in many parts of the world!
4. Thyatira - Catholic - Influence still large.
5. Sardis - Protestant - The influence of the Baptists is still great.
6. Philadelphia - Methodist / Pentecostal - Saved / Sanctified / Filled with the Holy Ghost!
***Is revival unique to the Philadelphian church age???*** Was this the revival of the last days?
7. Laodicea - Materialistic / Charistmatic / Educated - Influencing a lot of churches these days.


I believe that their are going to a lot of surprised people when they find many outside their faith inside of heaven. Read of John Calvin... He saw Michael Servetus in his church and immediately had him arrested as a heretic and eventually burned at the stake. What kind of love is that! It wouldn't surprise me if Mr. Know-it-all (John Calvin) would end up in hell himself wondering how everyone else got in and him shut out... It's like hello dumbo! You've go blood on your hands!

My perspective on the churches...

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=b7rTb4BJQsg

That is a historical view of the Assemblies listed in Rev 2 - 3, but there will be seven actual Israelite Assemblies.

As for your judgment of Calvin, maybe Paul will have the same fate.

 

[Rach1370]

Then why isn't this rule enforced? And staff members also start topics that question the bible as being the word of God? http://www.christian...__fromsearch__1

Blasphemy will not be tolerated. This forum is intended for a Christian audience. Those who are not of the Christian faith are welcome to sign up but will be relegated to private forum discussion with staff members only. Any derogatory remarks about God (including the Son and Holy Spirit) will be removed. The same goes for remarks about Christianity. Do not hold the Bible to be the Word of God? We are not interested, then.

I do not agree with what jiggyfly said...although I do wonder if he was trying to differentiate between God and the Bible. Too many Christians seem to believe that scripture is to be worshiped itself. While the Bible is holy, inspired by God and therefor true and profitable every word, it is not God itself.
Please don't think that I am in any way dismissing God's word...it is perfect and as God has chosen to reveal Himself to us in the form of the Bible, I hold it as dear to me...no changes, no deviations.

As far as the rule goes, I suspect it is not an easy line for Hammerstone to walk...needed to allow genuine debate and opinions, but to stay true to Jesus Christ. It may seem like a no brainer...Jesus of course! But if one is immediately stamped on and banned from the forum for heresy or blasphemy....how do we encourage them back to the fold?? How do we then reason with them with Biblical truth and love?

Remember the difference between heresy and blasphemy? Blasphemy is of course banned, because then people would be on here arguing for Allah and Buddha...things that really just deny the One True God. But heresy implies that the people here do believe in God, but their views differ from what is actually taught in scripture. As I said...these people need to be dealt with lovingly, showing them what the bible really says. How could we do that if Hammerstone just banned them every time they said something incorrect? I know it can be hard to see it so often...it saddens my heart every time I see it, but then I try and remind myself that Jesus died for them too...and how often did my Lord take the time to gently turn people aside from their heresies??

 

[archaeologist5]

First of all, the Church in Rome is the Roman Catholic Church. Do you know of any other church in Rome that is much older than the Catholic Church there claiming to be that Roman Church? No, of course not.

yes i do and it is an assumption that the christian church started there inthe first century is the same one touted by the RCC as their original church. we know from history that the RCC was not organized or started to about 5th or 6th centuries AD. long after the nicene council.

you should go to a Catholic website rather than a non-Catholic website

hahaha that is like an evolutionist saying to a creationist, 'you should go to the evolutionary websites to get the truth about the biblical account...' no just because a RCC website says something doesn't make it true or accurate.

The fact that the Catechism says this is proof that we never said that other churches are fakes.

except that that catechism was contradicted by our pope benedict last year i believe when he stated that the RCC was the only true church because of its false claim of apostolic succession. i do not need to read your organization's websites when your own leaders do not make the same claim.

what you say in your catechisms is not from GOD thus it doesn't matter what they say, it isn't the truth.

As you can see, if you had gone to a Catholic website or even to our Catechism, it says that Christians who are not in union with Rome are joined together with us. Why? Because the Body of Christ is ONE. We all make up the entire mystical Body of Christ. Our Catechism even says that we recognize the same elements of sanctification and truth in other Christian churches

again what your organization says doesn't matter because it is what God says that counts. Jesus said, my sheep hear my voice' which means that they do not teach false doctrines and obey the teachings of the Bible. the quote above is just a weak attempt to get falsehoods included into the true church and to lead unwary people away from salvation into heresy.

In the third place, as I said, we can trace our lineage to the Apostle Peter. The evidence is found in the line of Bishops going back to the first century.

that is not evidence andi know you can't do it for anyone can write a list and declare it it to be true. there isnot one historical piece of real evidence you can point to that suports this claim by the RCC. taking the words of a man 400 years later is NOT evidence either.

There are historical documents from the first to the third century stating that the Apostle Peter was the first Bishop of Rome

there are NO such historical documents stating such that is why they were left out. no one knows who founded or headed the christian church in rome in the first century or even the second let alone the third. you will note that when Paul wrote the epistle to the Romans, the church was already established and it wasn't by peter or he would have been addressed by Paul in the opening Rom. 1: 1-7.

the only historical document that counts, omits Peter and does not recognize him as the leader of the church in that city. nor does it recognize numbers 2 and 3 possibly 4 and 5.

And finally, who did you think were the ones who wrote the Nicene Creed? The Nicene Creed was developed at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D., which was convened by Emperor Constantine

it wasn't the RCC organization for it was formed much later in history. the nicene creed is not scripture but based upon it thus we donot have to follow it nor accept it. we have the Bible we do not need creeds. you also forget that constantine was NOT a ruler of the church, he was a secular ruler of a empire and his council did NOT establish what was scripture. the real christian church had already done that by accepting those works which were already authoritative and did not derive their authority from being included in a canon. (metzger: A case for Christ).

lastly, it is the Bible, God and Jesus who determine what the true church is and gives the criteria and guess what---apostolic succession is NOT on the list.

Archaeologist said,

Quote

First lesson for you. DO NOT insult my intelligence and do not tell me what I already know.

Selene was very nice in her reply.

First lesson.
I'll tell you what I want to tell you!

I think people avoid this forum because there are too many mean people on it!

Quote

the r.c.c. is NOT a christian church,

I guess archaeologist has issues and prejudisms and doesn't understanding the Catholic's.
Have I insulted your intelligence enough yet?

several things you need to learn:

1. mind your own business
2. you do not get to say who is insulted and who is not, you do not read minds nor know the breadth of intelligence of posters.
3. you donot get to make assumptions about what other people know or don't know..
4. you do not get to falsely accuse and distort other people's words.
5. that the RCC is not as pure as you would like it to be.

 

[Selene]

yes i do and it is an assumption that the christian church started there inthe first century is the same one touted by the RCC as their original church. we know from history that the RCC was not organized or started to about 5th or 6th centuries AD. long after the nicene council.

And so where is this Roman Church that started in the first century then? The Catholic Church did not start in the 5th or 6th century? St. Clemens was the third Bishop of Rome and he was ordained as a priest by the Apostle Peter.

hahaha that is like an evolutionist saying to a creationist, 'you should go to the evolutionary websites to get the truth about the biblical account...' no just because a RCC website says something doesn't make it true or accurate

.

If a person wants to know what the creationist think, common sense would tell the person to go to a creationist website. Therefore, if you really want to know what the Catholics say, then go to a Catholic website and hear what they say. It would not make any sense to go to a non-Catholic website when all you're going to hear are the opinions of the non-Catholics.

except that that catechism was contradicted by our pope benedict last year i believe when he stated that the RCC was the only true church because of its false claim of apostolic succession. i do not need to read your organization's websites when your own leaders do not make the same claim.

Nowhere in the Pope's speech did it say that Protestant Churches are "fakes." The Pope said, that they were NOT "churches" but "ecclessial communities" which is EXACTLY what the Catechism also says. There is a difference between the word "fake" and "ecclessial communities."

what you say in your catechisms is not from GOD thus it doesn't matter what they say, it isn't the truth.

That is only your opinion.

that is not evidence andi know you can't do it for anyone can write a list and declare it it to be true. there isnot one historical piece of real evidence you can point to that suports this claim by the RCC. taking the words of a man 400 years later is NOT evidence either.

there are NO such historical documents stating such that is why they were left out. no one knows who founded or headed the christian church in rome in the first century or even the second let alone the third. you will note that when Paul wrote the epistle to the Romans, the church was already established and it wasn't by peter or he would have been addressed by Paul in the opening Rom. 1: 1-7.

There are indeed historical documents showing that St. Peter was in Rome and was even the first bishop of Rome.

As St. John wrote in his Gospel, not everything is written in the Bible. There are many things that Jesus did and said that were not written down. Just because they were not written down does not mean that they are not important. Everything that our Lord did was important. You only know what is written down. But all the things that were written and were NOT written are the things that you will find in the Apostolic Churches (such as the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church). All Churches that are apostolic and even have the apostolic succession have those unwritten things that St. John spoke about and which St. Paul also spoke about to the Thessalonians (2 Thessalonians 2:15).

John 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

Furthermore, I noticed that you have nothing to say about who wrote the Nicene Creed.

In Christ,
Selene