Did Jesus Say he was God?

[patg]

springbreeze:

If Jesus had openly said ‘I am God’ at the beginning, during and towards the end of His ministry they would have killed Him there and then, no debate

So then you’re agreeing we have no record of him saying it, since he obviously wasn’t killed until the end?

He charged many not to reveal what He had done, but still they did, so they knew by His word, His teaching, His works/miracles that He indeed was the Messiah and not the Messiah they had long desired, they despised Him and sought then to kill him, which they did…

We are not talking about works and miracles, we are not talking about what prophets said,…

BUT He rose again from the dead…no mere man can do any of this, only God can do this.

Yes, but that’s not what we are talking about - you are still trying to “prove” the divinity which is a different subject.

Jesus said He is God in many ways…

Yes, but those other ways are not what we are talking about.

In conclusion, yes Jesus did say He is God.

One quote from a synoptic gospel is not an overwhelming argument. I think it is very clear that he rarely, if at all, included this statement in his teachings and that this has nothing to do with establishing his divine nature.

 

[springbreeze]

Dear friend

What escapes you?

All that has been said here by many posters is true and you can read it for yourself in Sacred Scripture, but you are desiring to see the words from Jesus ‘I am God’ in order that you should know He is God? All of His words say He is God , you must KNOW the OT to understand that every word He says in the NT proclaims He is God, He says it from His own mouth, but you will not believe it unless you find the words explicitly, you will not find them, you will find ‘IAM’, you will find ‘I and the Father are ONE’, ‘I am the way’ ’ I am the Alpha and the Omega’ . He was persecuted,convicted, and put to death for Blasphemy, how so if they did not believe He did indeed blaspheme, if He never in the language of the Jews, that is the OT language of what the nature of God is, claimed that nature and therefore declared He is God, He would never have been put to death.

I have exhausted myself quoting for you and exhausted myself reasoning with you. If you declare to me that the words ‘I am God’ are not in the NT therefore Jesus is not God, that is as blind as saying He is not the Alpha and Omega though He states it and He states it because He is God, none other than God can state this, but because He does not explicitly say He is God as we can only perceive, therefore He must not be…this blindness will not be reversed, the blindness does not want to see. The Jews understood this language and these phrases, it was the scripture of their faith, what God revealed of Himself to them and knew this is what Jesus claimed by His words, works, death and ressurrection.

Any man can simply say he is God, but he will not be known by simply stating he is God, the nature of God must be the nature of the man and therefore this will reveal he is indeed God…so this is with Christ Jesus, he is not any man and He is God because His nature reveals Him to be one and the same as the Father.

The question is ‘did Jesus say He was God?’ not did Jesus say ‘I am God’ explicitly. This is why i say with absolute certainty, Jesus declared in this He is God, by every word He used He explicitly stated to the Jews in what they knew of the nature of God, that Christ Jesus is God and by His life, death and ressurrection revealed the full revelation of God to humanity.

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa

 

[springbreeze]

Dear friends

The remainder of quotes to cross reference with the NT for anyone who is interested, there are sooooo many more than I have posted here to be found in the OT, but this is a few to cross reference…

Isaiah 53 ‘He was oppressed and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter and like a sheep that before its shearer is dumb, he opened not his mouth. By oppression and judgement he was taken away;…read through to… yet he bore the sin of many and he made intercession for the transgressors.’

‘Father forgive them for they kow not what they do’ Jesus
Jesus did not defend Himself at trial, but remained silent.

Isaiah 56 ‘For as the rain and snow come down from heaven and retrun not thither but water the earth making it bring forth and sprout giving seed to the sower, and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth, it shall not return empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose and prosper in the thing for which I sent it’

‘It is accomplished’ Jesus dying on the Cross

Psalm 68.19 ‘Blessed be the Lord who daily bears us up God IS our salvation, our God is a God of salvation and to God, the Lord , belongs escpae from death’

Psalm 64:5 ’ they hold fast to their evil purpose, they talk of laying snares secretly, thinking’ who can see us? who can search out our crimes? we have thought out a cunningly conceived plot’ read onto 65:10

Psalm 65:1 ‘Praise is due to thee, O God, in Zion; and to thee shall vows be performed, O thou hearest paryer. To thee shall all flesh come on account of sin.’

Psalm 78:41 ‘They tested him agin and again and provoked the Holy One of Israel, They did not keep in mind His power or the day when He redeemed them from the foe’

Jesus invites all people to Himself, He does not force them it is up to us to choose, everyone is free to choose and no-one can make anyone choose. The choice is free.

God Bless you and much love and peace to all of you

Teresa

 

[whowantsumadebo]

patg:

One more time: "Did Jesus himself ever say he was God?"

Ok, so does this question of yours correlate to how trustworthy the Gospels are as preserving the actual words of Jesus?
Is your contention that the authors inserted the ‘I AM’ phrases into Jesus’ mouth to make a point to the readers?

 

[Jimmy_B]

patg:

And you are apparantly not concerned with (or are unaware of) the topic of this thread or how the ideas I have presented relate to it.

patg, I started this thread, so I know the topic of this thread. I was responding to what was posted here by yourself and others.

Read this Catholic Answers article:

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0105fea1.asp

patg,

It appeared to me, from reading all of your posts, that you were casting doubt and attempting to confuse the issue of the divinity of Jesus Christ, the bible and the Doctrine of the Catholic Church. That is what I was responding to.
Here are examples:

Originally Posted by patg

Quotes by patg

1. “The authors included a lot of words and stories to convey their concept that Jesus is God but we know that many of those are later interpretations of events retold in the light of a post-resurrection experience, not eyewitness news reports.”

2. “I totally agree that the emphatic words were deliberately put there by the author to tell the reader that Jesus is God. But again, that is not the question we are discussing. The authors included a lot of words and stories to convey their concept that Jesus is God but we know that many of those are later interpretations of events retold in the light of a post-resurrection experience, not eyewitness news reports.”**

3. “John is widely recognized as a late development by a group bordering on gnosticism and with a very highly developed Christology and theology. The Jesus presented in John is a totally different person than the one presented by the earlier synoptic gospels. There is very little relationship between the John and the synoptics and the Jesus of John is presented in a radically different manner. Scholars tell us that John is a very poor place to go if you are looking for what Jesus may have actually said.”

4. “I agree you could push this to be a reference to the “I AM” words of the O.T. but it is pretty weak”

**Are you trying to say that your above quotes are consistent with Catechism of the Catholic Church? You don’t believe that your statements were an attempt to “cast doubt”? ****

 

[Lost_Found]

The first time we see this declared directly are the words of Thomas the apostle following the resurrection in John 20:28-29

28 Thomas replied, “My Lord and my God!”
29 Jesus said to him: “You believe because you can see me. Happy are those who have not seen and yet believe.”

Jesus accepts the worship. Naturally there are those who will twist the Greek interpretation to “oh my God!” or whatever they wish.

As Jimmy and springbreeze have shown so thoroughly, there are many statements and actions from Jesus that could only mean one thing if taken in context.

 

[patg]

whowantsumadebo:

Ok, so does this question of yours correlate to how trustworthy the Gospels are as preserving the actual words of Jesus?
Is your contention that the authors inserted the ‘I AM’ phrases into Jesus’ mouth to make a point to the readers?

Absolutely! There is no reason or requirement to believe that every word attributed to Jesus in the gospels was actually uttered by him. This “contention” is in complete accordance with the Church’s writings on biblical interpretation. The basis of all four gospels is to teach the reader what the author believed about Jesus - they were never intended to be literal biographies.

 

[patg]

patg
, I started this thread, so I know the topic of this thread. I was responding to what was posted here by yourself and others.

Then I think maybe you are not really interested in a serious discussion about what Jesus actually said about himself. Most of your qutotes were not Jesus himself saying anything. Its OK if you want to discuss biblical statements affirming the divinity of Jesus but that is NOT the question you posed.
**

Are you trying to say that your above quotes are consistent with Catechism of the Catholic Church?

---

Yes. But then the catechism speaks very little about biblical scholarship and interpretation.
**

You don’t believe that your statements were an attempt to “cast doubt”?

**

No - my statements are fully in line with recent papal writings on gospel interpretation.

 

[springbreeze]

patg:
Then I think maybe you are not really interested in a serious discussion about what Jesus actually said about himself. Most of your qutotes were not Jesus himself saying anything. Its OK if you want to discuss biblical statements affirming the divinity of Jesus but that is NOT the question you posed.

Yes. But then the catechism speaks very little about biblical scholarship and interpretation.
**

No - my statements are fully in line with recent papal writings on gospel interpretation.

Dear friend

I find your signature (“If Christ were here now there is one thing he would not be–a christian.”- Mark Twain) an interesting reflection of what you assert in the general tones of your posts. Christ Jesus is a Catholic dear friend, not a jew, not a pentecostal, not a baptist, not salvation army etc etc He created His Church and it is Catholic both Eastern and Roman Rite those that are in full communion with Rome.

I in no way mean to patronise you, but you interpret the bible as you see fit, whereas we interpret the bible as the early church Father’s have laid down since Christ formed His Church and all the explanations you have received here are that of the Catholic church.

I do believe you want to cast doubt, not on faith, but on the Catholic church and it’s teachings which are the teachings of Christ Jesus…who do you think wrote the bible? who do you think compiled it together and gifted the bible to the whole of humanity and every other Christian denomination? what do you think the catechism of the Catholic church is drawn from? (clue Scripture AND tradition) who therefore do you think is going to have authority on it’s translation and interpretation?

No-one here has deceived you nor lied to you…it is as it is. It is the truth.

What you do with the truth is up to you.

What exactly is the point you are trying to make when you do not understand Sacred Scripture nor appear to be willing to understand and learn how to interpret Sacred Scripture?

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa**

 

[Jimmy_B]

patg:
Then I think maybe you are not really interested in a serious discussion about what Jesus actually said about himself. Most of your qutotes were not Jesus himself saying anything. Its OK if you want to discuss biblical statements affirming the divinity of Jesus but that is NOT the question you posed.

Yes. But then the catechism speaks very little about biblical scholarship and interpretation.
**

No - my statements are fully in line with recent papal writings on gospel interpretation.**

**Jimmy B. -

**Q. “You don’t believe that your statements were an attempt to “cast doubt”?

****patg -

******A. **“No - my statements are fully in line with recent papal writings on gospel interpretation.”

**patg, **

**Are you saying that your quotes below are, **“fully in line with recent papal writings on gospel interpretation?”

*1. *

“The authors included a lot of words and stories to convey their concept that Jesus is God but we know that many of those are later interpretations of events retold in the light of a post-resurrection experience, not eyewitness news reports.”

2. “I totally agree that the emphatic words were deliberately put there by the author to tell the reader that Jesus is God. But again, that is not the question we are discussing. The authors included a lot of words and stories to convey their concept that Jesus is God but we know that many of those are later interpretations of events retold in the light of a post-resurrection experience, not eyewitness news reports.”

**
3. “John is widely recognized as a late development by a group bordering on gnosticism and with a very highly developed Christology and theology. The Jesus presented in John is a totally different person than the one presented by the earlier synoptic gospels. There is very little relationship between the John and the synoptics and the Jesus of John is presented in a radically different manner. Scholars tell us that John is a very poor place to go if you are looking for what Jesus may have actually said.”
**
4. “I agree you could push this to be a reference to the “I AM” words of the O.T. but it is pretty weak”**
**

 

[Jimmy_B]

**Patg, **

Here is my response to your quotes:

QUOTES -

Patg QUOTES:

***1. ***“The authors included a lot of words and stories to convey their concept that Jesus is God but we know that many of those are later interpretations of events retold in the light of a post-resurrection experience, not eyewitness news reports.”

2. …"The authors included a lot of words and stories to convey their concept that Jesus is God but we know that many of those are later interpretations of events retold in the light of a post-resurrection experience, not eyewitness news reports.”

---

---

3. “John is widely recognized as a late development by a group bordering on gnosticism" … "The Jesus presented in John is a totally different person than the one presented by the earlier synoptic gospels. "

---

RESPONSE-

RESPONSE:

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

II. INSPIRATION AND TRUTH OF SACRED SCRIPTURE

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."70

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71

107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living”.73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."74

 

[Jimmy_B]

**Patg, **

Here is my response to your quote:

Patg QUOTE:

Patg QUOTE:

---

4. “I agree you could push this to be a reference to the “I AM” words of the O.T. but it is pretty weak”

RESPONSE -

RESPONSE:

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

590 Only the divine identity of Jesus’ person can justify so absolute a claim as “He who is not with me is against me”; and his saying that there was in him “something greater than Jonah,. . . greater than Solomon”, something “greater than the Temple”; his reminder that David had called the Messiah his Lord,371 and his affirmations, “Before Abraham was, I AM”, and even "I and the Father are one."372

594Jesus performed acts, such as pardoning sins, that manifested him to be the Savior God himself (cf. *Jn *5:16-18). Certain Jews, who did not recognize God made man (cf. *Jn *1:14), saw in him only a man who made himself God (*Jn *10:33), and judged him as a blasphemer.

206 In revealing his mysterious name, YHWH (“I AM HE WHO IS”, “I AM WHO AM” or “I AM WHO I AM”), God says who he is and by what name he is to be called. …

207By revealing his name God at the same time reveals his faithfulness which is from everlasting to everlasting, valid for the past (“I am the God of your father”), as for the future (“I will be with you”).12 God, who reveals his name as “I AM”, reveals himself as the God who is always there, present to his people in order to save them.

208 …13 Before the glory of the thrice-holy God, Isaiah cries out: "Woe is me! I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips."14 Before the divine signs wrought by Jesus, Peter exclaims: "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord."15 But because God is holy, he can forgive the man who realizes that he is a sinner before him: "I will not execute my fierce anger. . . for I am God and not man, the Holy One in your midst."16 The apostle John says likewise: "We shall. . . reassure our hearts before him whenever our hearts condemn us; for God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything."17

209 Out of respect for the holiness of God, the people of Israel do not pronounce his name. In the reading of Sacred Scripture, the revealed name (YHWH) is replaced by the divine title “LORD” (in Hebrew Adonai, in Greek Kyrios). It is under this title that the divinity of Jesus will be acclaimed: “Jesus is LORD.”

 

[Jimmy_B]

RESPONSE:

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

590 Only the divine identity of Jesus’ person can justify so absolute a claim as “He who is not with me is against me”; and his saying that there was in him “something greater than Jonah,. . . greater than Solomon”, something “greater than the Temple”; his reminder that David had called the Messiah his Lord,371 and his affirmations, “Before Abraham was, I AM”, and even "I and the Father are one."372

594 Jesus performed acts, such as pardoning sins, that manifested him to be the Savior God himself (cf. *Jn *5:16-18). Certain Jews, who did not recognize God made man (cf. *Jn *1:14), saw in him only a man who made himself God (*Jn *10:33), and judged him as a blasphemer

"I Am who I Am"

Moses said to God, “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you’, and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?” God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, "Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you’. . . this is my name for ever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations."10

 

[Jimmy_B]

**CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC **CHURCH

**CCC. 468 **After the Council of Chalcedon, some made of Christ’s human nature a kind of personal subject. Against them, the fifth ecumenical council, at Constantinople in 553, confessed that “there is but one *hypostasis *[or person], which is our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Trinity.” Thus everything in Christ’s human nature is to be attributed to his divine person as its proper subject, not only his miracles but also his sufferings and even his death: “He who was crucified in the flesh, our Lord Jesus Christ, is true God, Lord of glory, and one of the Holy Trinity.”

---

**CCC. 469 **The Church thus confesses that Jesus is inseparably true God and true man. He is truly the Son of God who, without ceasing to be God and Lord, became a man and our brother:

“What he was, he remained and what he was not, he assumed”, sings the Roman Liturgy. And the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom proclaims and sings: “O only-begotten Son and Word of God, immortal being, you who deigned for our salvation to become incarnate of the holy Mother of God and ever-virgin Mary, you who without change became man and were crucified, O Christ our God, you who by your death have crushed death, you who are one of the Holy Trinity, glorified with the Father and the Holy Spirit, save us!”

 

[Jimmy_B]

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

206 In revealing his mysterious name, YHWH (“I AM HE WHO IS”, “I AM WHO AM” or “I AM WHO I AM”), God says who he is and by what name he is to be called. This divine name is mysterious just as God is mystery. It is at once a name revealed and something like the refusal of a name, and hence it better expresses God as what he is - infinitely above everything that we can understand or say: he is the “hidden God”, his name is ineffable, and he is the God who makes himself close to men.11

207 By revealing his name God at the same time reveals his faithfulness which is from everlasting to everlasting, valid for the past (“I am the God of your father”), as for the future (“I will be with you”).12 God, who reveals his name as “I AM”, reveals himself as the God who is always there, present to his people in order to save them.

208 Faced with God’s fascinating and mysterious presence, man discovers his own insignificance. Before the burning bush, Moses takes off his sandals and veils his face in the presence of God’s holiness.13 Before the glory of the thrice-holy God, Isaiah cries out: "Woe is me! I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips."14 Before the divine signs wrought by Jesus, Peter exclaims: "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord."15 But because God is holy, he can forgive the man who realizes that he is a sinner before him: "I will not execute my fierce anger. . . for I am God and not man, the Holy One in your midst."16 The apostle John says likewise: "We shall. . . reassure our hearts before him whenever our hearts condemn us; for God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything."17

209 Out of respect for the holiness of God, the people of Israel do not pronounce his name. In the reading of Sacred Scripture, the revealed name (YHWH) is replaced by the divine title “LORD” (in Hebrew Adonai, in Greek Kyrios). It is under this title that the divinity of Jesus will be acclaimed: “Jesus is LORD.”

 

[Jimmy_B]

Deacon Tony560:

Did you really have to ask?

Deacon Tony

Deacon Tony560, post sums it up best!

 

[Uracan]

JimmyB,

I’m curious, did you ever get past the part in my post, where you thought I was talking about you? If so, did you actually read what I wrote in my post regarding “trinities” and series of “three”. Maybe you can tell me what part of that argument you disagree with and why? Can you back up the “facts” that you have cited in your post with some sort of material or reference I can look at or research to try and understand why you have reached the conclusion you have. It’s hard for me to respond to, “historical facts”, if you don’t list your source(s).

Search for ‘Arian Heresy’, ‘Athanasius’, Arius, or ‘Pagan Trinity’. For a very basic explanation of the origins of the concept of the Trinity, read ancienthistory.about.com/cs/godsreligion/p/aa082499.htm

I also recommend Julian, a fascinating novel by Gore Vidal which immerses the reader in political and religious controversies of the years soon after the Council of Nicea.

 

[Jimmy_B]

JimmyB,

I also recommend Julian, a fascinating novel by Gore Vidal which immerses the reader in political and religious controversies of the years soon after the Council of Nicea.

Uracan,

**Here is some information regarding Gore Vidal, the author of the book “Julian” that you recommended I read. No Thanks! I’ll stick to the Catholic bible, The Catechism of the Catholic Church and “approved” Catholic Books for my information. Thank you for providing “sources” that you apparently use to form your opinions on Catholicism, they speak volumes. **

In 1964, after a decade away from the novel, Vidal published Julian. A historical fiction, thick with research that fascinated and engaged readers, it recounts the life of the Roman emperor Julianus II, known to history as “Julian the Apostate,” who tried, during his short reign that began in 361 A.D., to forsake the emergence of Christianity and return the old religions of Greece and Rome to his empire. A phenomenal bestseller, it also earned almost uniformly positive reviews. So Vidal had re-established himself as a prominent and best-selling novelist, and he would continue producing novels rather prolifically for the rest of his career.

Excerpts from an interview with Gore Vidal

by Harry Kloman (1991)

Vidal, who has always called himself something resembling a liberal, but who is no less critical of liberalism than he is of any other political philosophy.

Vidal maintains that The System has failed the American ideal of democracy and freedom, …
KLOMAN: You wrote in 1966 that “in a civilized society, law should not function at all in the area of sex, except to protect people from being interfered with against their will.” You included prostitution on the list. In 1991, we feel we’re more enlightend about prostitution, we know what leads so many women to prostitution. Any thoughts on that?

VIDAL: Well, men too. Prostitution is a great necessity, and should…

**KLOMAN: But sociology points to the fact that so many prostitutes were abused or sexually molested… **

VIDAL: …So many wives, too. Prostitution is a natural thing, and in a world made more dangerous with AIDS, [we need] legalized prostitution …
**KLOMAN: The women’s movement has made some progress, the civil rights movement has made progress. The gay rights movement seems not to be makinq as much progress… **

**VIDAL: …Well, AIDS put a big cramp into that, of course. It’s helped demonize it all over again. **

**KLOMAN: Will it ever happen that the gay rights movement will make the advances that women’s rights and civil rights have made? **

**VIDAL: Oh, sure. **

**KLOMAN: How long will it take? **

VIDAL: Who knows, who knows. I’m all for militant action and changing the laws.

**KLOMAN: How militant? Some see outing as militant. Revealing people in positions of influence? **

VIDAL: Yeah, but you know, a man is married, he has four children, and occasionally he goes out with a Boy Scout. But what is he? He’s a married man, he’s a father, he’s bisexual like everybody else. What’s the big deal? It’s of no interest at all what anybody does, nor should it be of any interest. It carries no moral weight.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Uracan,

Here is information regarding your second “source”.

N.S. Gill is a homeschooling mother and freelance writer who, has lived in the Twin Cities since 1970.

Experience: Former editor of the Minnesota Homeschoolers Alliance newsletter, she has been published in local gardening papers, Minnesota Parent, Pioneer Press and Star Tribune.

Education: As an undergraduate, N.S. Gill studied classics at The University of Chicago and The University of Minnesota. She continued with Latin in graduate school at the University of Minnesota.

From N.S. Gill: "As a bi-coastal American I have the perspective of an outsider, but one who has lived, attended college, and raised a family in the Twin Cities. I hope to share my appreciation for living in a climate with a one hundred-twenty degree temperature range and a culture where people are so

At The First Council of Nicea: The first council of Nicaea came to an end on August 25, 325 A.D. Lasting two months, and held in Bithynia, the First Council of Nicea was attended by 318 Church Fathers.

Opposing Images of God: Trinitarian Church fathers Bishop Alexander of Alexandria and his deacon Athanasius believed there were three persons in one god. The Trinitarians were pitted against the Monarchianists, who believed in only one indivisible god, and included Arius, Presbyter in Alexandria, and Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia.

Anniversary of the Nicene Creed: August 25, 2000 marked the 1675th anniversary of the creation of a controversial document cataloging the basic beliefs of Christians – the Nicene Creed

 

[Jimmy_B]

Uracan,

I don’t know what point you are trying to make? I’m not going to agree with an anti-Catholic, heretical view-point because you might find someone who does. There are all sorts of people, who have opinions that conflict with Catholicism. I try not wasting my time reading material contrary to my faith. I do so only when necessary to use as a reference to defend my faith.

**Anniversary of the Nicene Creed:**August 25, 2000 marked the 1675th anniversary of the creation of a controversial document cataloging the basic beliefs of Christians – the Nicene Creed

N.S. Gill

**CATECHISM OF THE **CATHOLIC CHURCH

CCC - 2089 **(**Heresy)

*Incredulity *is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "*Heresy *is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; *apostasy *is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; *schism *is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."11

185 Whoever says “I believe” says “I pledge myself to what *we *believe.” Communion in faith needs a common language of faith, normative for all and uniting all in the same confession of faith.

**Among all the creeds, two occupy a special place in the Church’s life: **

194 The Apostles’ Creed is so called because it is rightly considered to be a faithful summary of the apostles’ faith. It is the ancient baptismal symbol of the Church of Rome. Its great authority arises from this fact: it is “the Creed of the Roman Church, the See of Peter the first of the apostles, to which he brought the common faith”.13

195 The Niceno-Constantinopolitan or Nicene Creed draws its great authority from the fact that it stems from the first two ecumenical Councils (in 325 and 381). It remains common to all the great Churches of both East and West to this day.

196 Our presentation of the faith will follow the Apostles’ Creed, which constitutes, as it were, “the oldest Roman catechism”. The presentation will be completed however by constant references to the Nicene Creed, which is often more explicit and more detailed.

197 As on the day of our Baptism, when our whole life was entrusted to the “standard of teaching”,14 let us embrace the Creed of our life-giving faith. To say the Credo with faith is to enter into communion with God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and also with the whole Church which transmits the faith to us and in whose midst we believe: