The Nicene Creed

[Valerie]

Remember too, Apostle Thomas after Christ's resurrection, said to Jesus "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28) and Jesus, did not correct this.

[Valerie]

This is a subject where 99% of people are all mouth and no ear.

It's probably mute.

Technically, we are not supposed to entertain heresy. These things were established long ago, long before the Nicene Creed. We need a blue face icon.

[Josh]

Where did you get the idea that EO is not dogmatic about this, yes they teach headcovering but they definitely consider many statements here as heretical. Probably why they still recite the Nicene Creed weekly which is a couple of minutes out of their 2+ hour service. This is non negotiable.

The EO views on christology are different than the Catholic (and typical Protestant) views, which is indeed why the EO and the the Roman Catholic Church have been in schism since A.D. 1054. Generally speaking, the EO allows slightly more flexible views on christology, atonement, and so on (based on my experience with a friend who is converting to EO, another friend who already converted, and then a few friends who grew up in EO), at least compared to a typical conservative Reformed or Baptist church, which tends to have very rigid, fundamentalist style views on these things.

[Josh]

This is a subject where 99% of people are all mouth and no ear.

It's probably mute.

Technically, we are not supposed to entertain heresy. These things were established long ago, long before the Nicene Creed. We need a blue face icon.

Valerie, who defines what heresy is?

The Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic Church, and Protestants have all mutually excommunicated the others for "heresy". So who decides who is right?

[ohio jones]

This is a subject where 99% of people are all mouth and no ear.

It's probably mute.

People who are "all mouth" are generally not mute.

[KingdomBuilder]

This is a subject where 99% of people are all mouth and no ear.

It's probably moot.

People who are "all mouth" are generally not mute.

Whoops.

[Valerie]

This is a subject where 99% of people are all mouth and no ear.

It's probably mute.

Technically, we are not supposed to entertain heresy. These things were established long ago, long before the Nicene Creed. We need a blue face icon.

Valerie, who defines what heresy is?

In this OP it was over 300 previously persecuted Bishops, who were going by previous teachings of the Church. I think I can trust them more than laity today, growing up in a time dominated by personal interpretations/opinions leading to thousands of sects. But you and KB seem to be to be in the minority here among your own so perhaps this thread should die down. Obviously you can't trust those who Canonized the Bible to begin with, no where to go from hete

[HondurasKeiser]

If Trinitarianism is some kind of safeguard or proof of true Christianity, then do explain why the most murderous, gluttonous, apostate churches are the very ones who initiated and defined the "Holy Trinity".

I think this is a poor and tendentious reading of history - the murderous, gluttonous, apostate adjectives really cannot be applied to the church of the 200 & 300's but even if that's true, can we say that there is a pure church to have ever existed? It was after all this same church that only about 100 years earlier, settled issues of Canon and established what counted as scripture and what didn't.

To say that a claim of Jesus not being coequal and coeternal with Jehovah is the same as saying Jesus was some normal man is absurd presumption. Do you actually think the only two options are man or full God?
Hebrews 3 (and the entire book...) would prove a useful study to Trinitarians with a 1/2 open mind. Jesus , "the man"- the one mediator between God and man, can be "appointed by God" without just being a normal man like Moses. Scripture is exceedingly clear on this.

See my previous comment with respect to Josh; in sum, within the Christian cosmology there is Divine and there is creation. That's it. Either Jesus is divine or he is created. Even the author of the book you referenced, James Dunn, understands this and thus admits to both being a trinitarian and believing in the preexistence of the Logos.

Do you think believing in Trinitarianism is needed for salvation?

Do you believe Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians?

[PeterG]

And even on that basis, are you really so sure that nontrinitarians have a better moral track record than trinitarians?

Yes, quite sure. Nearly every non-Anabaptist church within the past few hundred years to rediscover the truth of nonresistance also began as nontrinitarian.
hmmm...

Arians were not nonresistant. Mormons are not nonresistant. Unitarians have been at the forefront of moral relativism. The relative moral merits of trinitarians and nontrinitarians are, at best, debatable.

But that's really beside the point. The religion of the New Testament is a great deal more than an ethical system. It is founded on Jesus Christ, God and man.

[KingdomBuilder]

This is redundancy at best; fruitless at worst.
If Christians cared about others temptations, shortcomings, sufferings, and burdens as much as they did their extra-biblical theological interpretation, what a Church we might be.