Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Iskander · 02-01-2012, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

It's interesting even because the original Nicene Creed doesn't actual resolve the issue of the Trinity at all.

II think the Nicene Creed aimed at achieving uniformity in the stated beliefs of Christians and it has succeeded in doing so because of the political strength of the group backing it-but it required a long and messy struggle to make it stick.

It is like the split of the communists into Bolsheviks and Mensheviks or any other illustration from politics, religion...

Duvduv · 02-01-2012, 09:15 AM

But note that the Creed of 325 doesn't actually mention the Trinity or even incorporate anything from the gospels or epistles.

Iskander · 02-01-2012, 09:26 AM

The Nicene Creed.

Quote:

The Synod at Nice set forth this Creed

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance
of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten (γεννηθέντα), not made, being of one substance (ὁμοούσιον, consubstantialem) with the Father.

By whom all things were made, both which be in heaven and in earth. Who for us men and for our salvation came down [from heaven] and was incarnate and was made man. He suffered and the third day he rose again, and ascended into heaven. And he shall come again to judge both the quick and the dead. And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost. And whosoever shall say that there was a time when the Son of God was not (ἤν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν), or that before he was begotten he was not, or that he was made of things that were not, or that he is of a different substance or essence [from the Father] or that he is a creature, or subject to change or conversion51—all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes

God, Son of god, also god,...

What is missing?

Duvduv · 02-01-2012, 09:33 AM

A three person God and not simply a God and a begotten son.
With no person of the Holy Spirit. What you copied is the later Creed, not the one from 325 if Eusebius can be believed.

sotto voce · 02-01-2012, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

The Nicene Creed.

Quote:

The Synod at Nice set forth this Creed

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance
of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten (γεννηθέντα), not made, being of one substance (ὁμοούσιον, consubstantialem) with the Father.

By whom all things were made, both which be in heaven and in earth. Who for us men and for our salvation came down [from heaven] and was incarnate and was made man. He suffered and the third day he rose again, and ascended into heaven. And he shall come again to judge both the quick and the dead. And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost. And whosoever shall say that there was a time when the Son of God was not (ἤν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν), or that before he was begotten he was not, or that he was made of things that were not, or that he is of a different substance or essence [from the Father] or that he is a creature, or subject to change or conversion51—all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes

God, Son of god, also god,...

What is missing?

The word 'persons'.

Iskander · 02-01-2012, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

The Nicene Creed.

God, Son of god, also god,...

What is missing?

The word 'persons'.

Is that all?
Why is the absence of the word “persons “important?

Chili · 02-01-2012, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Duvduv - this is the Trinity issue. There is no logical resolution.

Be careful Toto as the trinity collapsed when the "father and I are one" with the descend of the HG by way of the dove . . . and if this was not true there still would be a mystery in heaven where all is know and no secrets remain.

Though an inspired concept it may be, it does not mean that it is real in nature but only in appearance as function to humans below where all is illusion and so this is as well.

Iskander · 02-01-2012, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

A three person God and not simply a God and a begotten son.
With no person of the Holy Spirit. What you copied is the later Creed, not the one from 325 if Eusebius can be believed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Nicene Creed.
325

Quote:
The Synod at Nice set forth this Creed

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance
of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten (γεννηθέντα), not made, being of one substance (ὁμοούσιον, consubstantialem) with the Father.

One God,one Jesus Christ God of God very God of very God of one substance. Nicene creed 325

Chili · 02-01-2012, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

The Nicene Creed.

God, Son of god, also god,...

What is missing?

The word 'persons'.

Is that all?
Why is the absence of the word “persons “important?

The word person reflects 'persona' or mask wherein we have an identity other than, and beyond that which we are underneath this mask and this is where the objection to 3 persons in the trinity can be made.

Note that the persona or mask has 'no substance' about it and that is where the trinity is of the same substance with different modes of operation, and therefore have an identity of their own still inside the realm of being where now this word person is used.

So the objection here is only a qualifier to make that distinction known, and yes, One God in three Persons, can so be used.

Duvduv · 02-01-2012, 01:33 PM

Tom, from the descriptions of these disputes over ostensibly obscure theological issues it sounds as if the emperors and others really had some kind of personal commitment to a particular idea, i.e. transubstantiation, homoosious, etc. beyond the political implications of it.
It just seems incredible that they didn't argue over something more tangible and with more practical consequences even if the dispute had political implications.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Tom, so you mean that they chose to handle this through an extremely obscure issue of disagreement such that in terms of patronage and loyalty one had to declare that he believed in "homoosious" (even if he didn't) rather than something more tangible and practical?
And what pursuaded the Roman officials to adopt this belief over an alternative one such as homoios ("of one substance" versus "like")??
Was it because people were starting to have doubts about the very idea of the Trinity?

I'm saying that those particular details don't matter. The leaders of one group happened to believe in transsubstantiation or something and another one didn't and that happened to become a bone of contention between some of the leadership of those groups. The hows and whys behind that are about as relevant as the hows and whys behind how Republicans and Democrats got super-passionate about the various methods of counting hanging chads on a voting form. It benefits your group to be on a particular side of an issue and the specific details of the issue are tertiary at best.

Somebody important happened to like homoosious and somebody else important didn't, so getting it as a more core component of doctrine helped the former's group in a power struggle against the latter's. The details of what homoosious may or may not be aren't much of a concern and it's just a tool to be used.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-01-2012, 09:15 AM	#62
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	But note that the Creed of 325 doesn't actually mention the Trinity or even incorporate anything from the gospels or epistles.

02-01-2012, 09:33 AM	#64
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	A three person God and not simply a God and a begotten son. With no person of the Holy Spirit. What you copied is the later Creed, not the one from 325 if Eusebius can be believed.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.