Perhaps the no.1 reason the Nicene Creed is heretical is "it is not fit for purpose". In making a building the materials must be "fit for purpose". If the cladding on a skyscraper is so badly designed it does not fulfil the very function it is used for, the whole thing can go up in flames. In a similar way the Nicene creed mentions "the church" but does not mention "the gospel by which we are saved" that brings about the church in the first place. By sidestepping the issue of what he good news that actually saves a person's soul is, the Rom,an Catholics and Orthodox Churches have kept a blindfold on the so called laity for centuries.
The Creed issue is incredibly complex because of its connection of those who wrote it and the proof of that, a historical subject that is very difficult. This essay will therefore be expanded later.....
Let us see if the so called "Creeds" of the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Religion are what the bible teaches. If not even these very creeds themselves are proof Orthodoxy is not the original church, a church they claim was full of idols, uniforms, repeated prayers, monasteries, monks, nuns, gold plated bishops, liturgical worship, man made clockwork calendars, swinging baskets of incense and sacerdotalist priestcraft. They are deceived, it was not, and it is not now. The gates of hell have not prevailed against the church of Jesus, because the Evangelical born again Christians are still with us all here today, despite nearly 2,000 years of persecution from the Roman Catholics and Orthodoxy.
THE NICENE CREED
INITIATED BY THE EVIL MASS MURDERER
EMPEROR CONSTANTINE THE GREAT
The First Council of Nicaea was a council of pharisaical pseudo bishops convened in the Bithynian city of Nicaea (currently called Iznik, Bursa province, Turkey) by the mass murderer the Roman Emperor Constantine The Great in AD 325.
quote from the official Orthodox website:
It was the definition of the council which the Emperor Constantine called in the city of Nicea in the year 325 which was ultimately accepted by the Orthodox Church as the proper Symbol of Faith. This council is now called the first ecumenical council, and this is what it said:
Says that Constantine brought about the council to create the creed, because Christians were killing each other over doctrine. The possibility is still there, if you ask me, that this might mean the true pacifist Christians were being murdered. Constantine is said to have tried to rewrite history about Maxentius. He and the later self styled Orthodox and Roman Catholics had a reason to hide to the first Christians were peaceful. The violent sycophants of their murderous Emperor wanted to form a statement of Faith that excluded a qualifying gospel, to hide the fraud of their beliefs, which perhaps the Christians who were being killed before the Creed was created might have pointed out was one of their errors or deceptions, a deception modern Greeks and Russians seem to be unaware of the significance of to this day. The same documentary gives the theory that Constantine delayed his baptism purposely until the end of his life because he wanted to wash away the blood thirsty sins later on that being Emperor might entail. The story seems to have the same contradictory twists and turns as the purported spiritual life of Henry VIIIth, who tortured and murderer the Protestant martyr Anne Askew in his later years just before he died. If the traditions of Orthodoxy are supposed to be "on a par with scripture" and it is proven Saint Constantine was not even a Christian at all, but a user, and a manipulator, just how many traditions must crumble into dust before the Orthodox idea crumbles about their traditions?
The Nicene Creed
a formal statement of Christian belief which is very widely used in Christian liturgies,
based on that adopted at the first Council of Nicaea in 325. (O.E.D,)
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth,
and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God,
the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages.
Light of Light; true God of true God; begotten, not made;
of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made;
(partial confirmation of Trinity.)
who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven,
and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man.
And He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried.
And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures;
and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father;
and He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead;
whose Kingdom shall have no end."
This is not called "the gospel". However the church it is largely associated with is verifying a murderer (Constantine) as Christian. But that does not prove all believers in the Empire were in some unity together. This is where it gets complex and needs a lot of study (I never completed this yet)
Following the controversy about the Son of God, the Divine Word, and essentially connected with it, was the dispute about the Holy Spirit. The following definition of the Council in Constantinople in 381, which has come to be known as the second ecumenical council was added to the Nicene statement:
And [we believe] in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life,
who proceeds from the Father;
who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified;
who spoke by the prophets.
In one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.
I look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
I have noticed three different renderings of part of this creed online, "came down from the heavens (plural), "And ascended into the heavens" (plural) "I confess one baptism" (not acknowledge) "And the life of the age to come. Amen." (not world). If you are going to boast you believe a specific ancient so called creed, stick to it or admit it is altered. I have yet to fully research the precise wording to prove which is the original.
HERESIES OF THE NICENE CREED
HERESY no. 1
1) It was initiated by the mass murderer, and false Christian, false saint, and true heretic, Constantine the Great. Emperor Constantine was nearer to a demon than he was to a saint. The Christian imposter Emperor Constantine has been not only "made" a saint by Orthodoxy (all Christians are saints - Romans 1) by the heretical false process of canonization, but further given the status of quote "Equal-to-the-Apostles" by the Eastern Orthodox Religion (a daughter of the Mother of Harlots). This butcher and mass murderer is the heretic who introduced "the sacrlet and purple heresy" prophesied about the Whore of Rome (Rev 17:4), that is the combining of Political (purple) and Religious (scarlet) power, and whose reign was a role model for the later Catholic Popes, who used this unbiblical power to start the Crusades, Holy Inquisition, witch burning and heretic burning and more. He also forced people into "converting" to a false form of Christianity, and also introduced the idea of "the enforced conversion heresy" later used by the Popes and Orthodox false saints like Stephen I of Hungary (969 – 1038). This "forced conversion" throughout history often meant killing, torturing or imprisoning (among others) all Evangelical Christians who will not submit to salvation by works and by the priestcraft salvation idea of the sacraments. He also caused a split between any real believers, who refused to kill in wars, and the apostates who followed Constantine and his army. His other heresies will be discussed later.
HERESY no. 2
2) This heretical creed is imposed upon converts to confess, to be recognized as part of the Orthodox church, which creed is a mixture of three things, firstly undoubted truths like the Holy Trinity, secondly deep doctrinal issues unnecessary to confess for salvation (and thus an imposition upon babes in Christ) such as an outright commitment on the Filioque controversy, and thirdly utter heresy. Nowhere is the confession of creeds imposed upon a person being baptized, or being saved, or as some false "proof" of belonging to or being accepted as part of the body of Christ in the new testament, and neither (of course) is the acceptance of the false gospel of Orthodoxy come to that. One is a member of the body of Christ when you believe in Jesus (which means in Greek - to trust in and rely upon him) Christ crucified, buried and resurrected (that is to repent and believe the gospel Luke 24:44-48, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, John 3:16) and though baptism by full immersion in water will naturally follow, that baptism has nothing to do with salvation itself (1 Cor 1:17) and may sometimes by cicumstances happen long after salvation by belief has been obtained as a gift from God. Ironically this creed and its evolution is proof in itself the Orthodox claim to be identical to the first church is false, as how could its confession be imposed upon believers to confess to be seen as part of the first church, when a) it never existed yet, and b) it is in places heretical (as I will prove). To put it in colloquial terms, the men with the big hats on in church are in charge of whether you are part of the church, not God, and this Creed is used to fake that. But the bible makes it clear that after your acceptance of the gospel you are part of the church, and God's loving acceptance is immediate and all embracing. The Nicene Creed is being used as a submission tool to subject you to the authority of modern day Pharisees.
HERESY no. 3
3) The Holy Spirit....... who proceeds from the Father;
Unknown to many Evangelical Christians, this subject has cause a giant rift between Rome, the so called Holy Mother Church (Mother of Harlots), and her rebel daughters the various Orthodox churches. The subject under discussion is called "The question of the Filioque" and centres around the question: "Does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father only, or from the Father and Son?" Not necessarily an easy question to answer. My doctrinal stance on this is simple, I have no doctrine on it, because it is entirely not essential for salvation to have a definite belief or teaching on it, neither is forming a doctrine on it a prerequisite to being accepted as part of the body of Christ, the church. It does not matter whether the Orthodox stand, from the Father only, is biblical or not, what matters is that it is an unnecessary imposition on a person just entering the Faith.
Here you will suddenly see the enormous gulf in theology between Orthodoxy and born again Evangelical Christians suddenly open in a deep dark chasm before us, over what is a non essential issue.
a) The Evangelical perspective on Filioque: A person repents and believes the gospel (1 Cor 15:1-4), and is then born again, thus part of the body of Christ. Baptism by full immersion will then follow, but is not necessary for salvation (1 Cor 1:17). Confessing whether the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father or the Father and Son is entirely non essential to salvation, or a prerequisite to baptism, to being born again, or being seen as part of the church, either locally or globally if "the body of Christ" is seen also from a second worldwide perspective. Good works are seen as a fruit of salvation, not a part of it in any way whatever. Jesus saves!
b) The Eastern Orthodox perspective on Filioque: Repenting of your sins and believing Jesus died, and was resurrected, to wash away your sins and justify you, begins a "process of salvation" that requires over the passing years also your works, and the administration of the sacraments to you by priests (the oxymoronic process of grace administered to you by priestly works). At this point the Evangelical sees you as saved, as by accepting Christ you took him as your sole Saviour (works being only a fruit of salvation, and sacraments playing zero part in it) but the Orthodox pseudo evangelist is trying to deflect you from that, by teaching you that you are now committing yourself to a "synergy" of salvation, a "process of salvation", a "way of Salvation" that involves Christ, you and priests and bishops. (but Jesus said "I am the Way" and he meant it). This means to the Orthodox Church you are not yet accepted into "the church" as they define it. Neither are you born again. In effect you need permission to be baptized, and permission to be born again, by the bishops and priests assessing your sincerity and commitment, who administer salvation by the sacraments. A second oxymoron in this bogus salvation is, if only regenerated people can correctly discern the bible, and regeneration comes from baptism, how is the recent proselyte supposed to be definite about the issue of filioque before being born again, not empowered by that new nature?
What happens next is that you must accept and confess belief in the heretical Nicene Creed to be part of the church! Without accepting the Orthodox view of the filioque issue you are not saved, not part of the Church, and being born again or regenerated is (supposedly) withheld from you by the priests who see themselves as empowered to complete your salvation. What an ego trip. Priests weighing you up for eternal life, bishops imparting salvation to you by bapstism, and a warped baptism at that. What a power trip that these men think that by baptism, and all the elaborate add-ons of human origin, like an exorcism, and the necessity to confess the Nicene Creed, they deign you to be saved. They are on a power trip. The fact is your salvation is between you and God alone. You make a covenant with him. He saves you, not works, priests or bishops, and you dont need to know or confess if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son, or the Father only either.
4) In one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
This very innocuous looking short sentence is in fact a slick and intelligently deceptive way, to slip and slide past an unwary professor of the Nicene Creed, a positive avalanche of theology and doctrine. Half a dozen issues are glided smoothly past the new convert, who probably has no idea at all that hidden in the behind the scenes definitions of these words is the path to Hell itself, like some sleezy insurance salesman rushing you quickly past a page of small print he doesn't want you to properly understand, or you won't buy into his scheme. Let us look at some of the issues:
a) What is the church, a church, the world wide church.
b) Is the Eastern Orthodoxy a church at all?
c) Is Eastern Orthodoxy the One true church?
d) Is Eastern Orthodoxy Holy? and therefore is what it calls "the church" Holy?
e) What is the specific meaning of the Catholic Church (as it denies the authority of Romanism, that claims that for its name).
f) What is meant by Apostolic church?
g) Is the term "Eastern Orthodox" even in the bible in regards to the church?
h) Why is "I believe in" inferred not stated?
a) ONE HOLY, CATHOLIC, AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH.
b) IS EASTERN ORTHODOXY A CHURCH AT ALL?
Let us start with the word "church". A church is an assembly of saved believers, or Christians, not primarily unsaved visitors. One of the biggest deceiving factors of the Nicene Creed is it does not define "The Gospel by which we are saved" (1 Cor 15:1-4) which is salvation in Christ alone, or else he becomes a Semi Saviour not the Saviour. By simply saying "church" it therefore evades the issue of defining the "gospel by which we are saved" and the sacerdotalism heresy (salvation by priestcraft) and works salvation issues, that mean that both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox religions are not really churches at all, having never believed the gospel. Thus the Nicene Creed was written by heretics not even part of the church, who were so cunning they evaded the definition of what makes for a church in the first place.
The belief in salvation through the sacraments probably began by the - at first glance - innocuous error that baptism is involved in the salvation gospel, when it is not (1 Cor !:17), baptism is just symbolic of partaking in the benefits achieved in the death and resurrection of Christ. Thus it is not an innocuous error it is a catastrophic doctrinal blunder. From this mistake, in a sequential progression of error, a second sacrament of holy communion was added. Thus a false gospel had already evolved of priestcraft salvation, and as Rome is the Mother of Harlots it appears the evolution and crystallization of this heresy came through Roman influence, Orthodoxy being her daughters. This is logical as Israel was under Roman occupation, not Greek occupation, and as the gospel began in Israel, the first defilement of it with sacerdotalist beliefs is likely to have started through Romans, and of course Constantine was a Roman Emperor who made a bogus form of Christianity the state religion by force. Works salvation added to this made a very different definition of "the church" that modern day born again Christians or Evangelicals believe in, indeed to this day both the Roman Catholics and Orthodox so called Christians deliberately omit part of Romans 11:6 that emphasizes in a way perhaps even more clearly than Ephesians 2:8-9 that grace and works are contrary one to another. The statement of the Nicene Creed therefore really means in effect "We believe in one holy, heretical, Catholic and Apostolic Church, that is no church at all, as they have not believed the gospel by which we are saved."
it is heretical because:
1) There is no definition of quote "the gospel by which we are saved" in it.
2) It was initiated by, or at very least was involved with, the mass murderer Constantine.
3) Acceptance of the Creed is usurped upon all converts in the so called "catechumen period".
4) It forces Orthodox converts to make a commitment on the filioque issue (ironically the Orthodox and Catholics have opposite views upon it).
5) The seemingly innocuous phrase "one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church" presupposes either Orthodoxy or Catholicism is the true reflection of the early church, and thus asserts their triple salvation false gospel by covert means.
6) It asserts the heresy of "hand-me-down" powers via their use of the theological idea of their definition of "Apostolic". (Catholics had a long line of mass murderer and debauched Popes all supposedly "handing-down" power by the laying on of hands.
Homoousios & homoousian & homoousion:
Apparently in the Council of Nicaea there were three groups to settle the heretical Arian controversy that Jesus was created,
1) the Arians themselves,
2) the Orthodox type,
3) the Eusebian Group, who theologically agreed with the Orthodox type but disagreed with the use of the word Homoousious as Sabellianists heretics had previously used the word too.
(see heteroousios and homoiousios)
Every time anyone draws logical conclusions about Orthodoxy and inevitably refute it because it is so wrong, Orthodox scholars use the tactic of living in denial, deny everything, deny definitions, deny conclusions, refuse to give clear definitions, resort to sophisms (especially the Greeks who revel in them) and pronounce everything a mystery (the great tactic of Mystery Babylon and her daughters). with the inevitable big helping of logical fallasies.
The question of whether Constantine was a sun worshipper, before his "conversion" to a bogus warlike version of Christianity is interesting, as the sun is linked to calendars, and the Orthodox obsession with calendars may have sprung from this???
CONSTANTINE WAS MADE EMPEROR IN YORK in ENGLAND.
At the time the Roman Empire had been split into a rule of 4 as Diocletian created a tetrarchy. Constantine expected to inherit the rulership of the French and British parts of the Empire, but only did so after his father died in England, who had made it clear to his troops there that he preferred his son Constantine to take over after his death, which idea was being opposed. Tough opposed Constantine was recognized as Caesar of that domain.
for proof see this video:
If Constantine first ascended to power in York, England, have you ever thought that it might be the British, not the Russians or Greeks, who can best tell you about what Constantine really was? Constantine's new conversion to Christianity made him a very very shallow theology student, entirely incapable of directing or [participating in the formation of any church. What is more his conversion to the Faith was entirely counterfeit, as a man of murder, war and bloodshed. This shallowness resulted in the bringing together of sacerdotalist heretics into one united religion, who were not much more advanced than him in theology. Thus the scarlet and purple heresy of Revelation chapters 17 and 18 was born, scarlet was religious power and purple was secular power, and thus the whore religion came about that we see today in Catholicism and Orthodoxy.
Constantine had his eldest son Crispus put to death by poison, and had his wife, the Empress Fausta; killed at the behest of his mother, Helena. Fausta was left to die in an over-heated bath. Their names were wiped from the face of many inscriptions and references to their lives in the literary record were erased. Therefore do you think it is possible this man so fond of erasing things from historical records, might not also have erased from the historical records that pacifist Christians said he was a false Christian, and he had them persecuted and even killed?
THE END OF THE CREED FOR ME:
Quote - "The final editor of the Nicene Creed was Gregory of Nisa and he was a full-on Universalist." If so that is the end of the creed for me. My advice after studying Orthodoxy is to never be lured into using non biblical expressions like "of the same substance as the Father", That led to being expanded into the heresy of God having "energia and ousia" which in turn led to the ultra vain doctrine of Theosis.