Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
03-19-2007, 09:59 AM | #1 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London UK
Posts: 16,024
|
Why is not the nicene creed game set and match about mythicism?
Quote:
What do we have? We have descriptions of three parts of the godhead. The second one is called God of God, Light of Light. The only historical reference is to Pontius Pilate. The rest to be honest are holy ghost stories, commencing with the repetition of "we believe." We also have "was made man." What is this wild goose chase after a historical jesus? Why is this not a post enlightenment idea? No confessing xian will accept he was a rebel leader or whatever, it is all or nothing for xians, why do atheists and agnostics and scholars want a historical jesus? Please respect the very clear statements of faith. I see no conflict between a mythical Christ and Christianity - my pentecostal upbringing supports this conclusion, especially my understanding of Hebrews. I think confessing xians are historicist out of habit - it is not needed, and probably this is a habit introduced by non believers. Does anyone believe Adam existed? Why then does anyone think the second Adam existed? |
|
03-19-2007, 10:05 AM | #2 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 8,674
|
Quote:
As I have said here many times, of the three basically explanations for who Jesus Christ is: 1) The Son of God 2) A mortal man who became mythologized 3) The fictional embodiment of a theological idea Explanations 1 and 3 are the closest to the same and have more in common, while explanation 2 is the one that actually has the least support and makes the least sense. |
|
03-19-2007, 12:34 PM | #3 |
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Palm Springs, California
Posts: 10,955
|
Why would you expect a creed to go into the historical details of Jesus, which was the purpose of the gospel texts, and specifically not the purpose of a creed?
And why exactly are you privileging the Nicean Creed, above, say, the numerous church fathers who reference Jesus's historicity as part of their understanding of Jesus? |
03-19-2007, 01:15 PM | #4 |
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London UK
Posts: 16,024
|
Because it is a summary statement of beliefs, that was very well argued about!
|
03-19-2007, 03:46 PM | #5 |
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
|
We have a very late version of the creed, for which
the poster failed to provide references. The above text (I'll only guess) came from a later council. Try Socrates Scholasticus, or the others The original Nicaean creed contains the Arius Disclaimer. And IMO this Arius disclaimer is an historical comment by Arius. Thus the nicene creed is not game, set and match about mythicism. In fact, it opens up the politics of absolute power, and the turbulence and discontinuities in history. Have a little light read through the letters issued by "bullneck" immediately before and after his "supremacy party", and you may be edified to discover a common theme and phrase used -- notably -- the fear of god |
03-19-2007, 03:51 PM | #6 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
|
Quote:
spin |
|
03-19-2007, 04:25 PM | #7 |
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
|
Anyway, the word "CREED" is inappropriate since signatures
were taken from those who subscribed to it. In legal terms it should be apparent that we are not dealing with a "creed" but in fact "an oath". And to "bullneck" c.325 CE |
03-20-2007, 02:32 PM | #8 | |
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Palm Springs, California
Posts: 10,955
|
Quote:
(A) because Luke, for one, tells us his purpose. (B) because they take the form of the genre of the biography, and we have many examples of the genre from antiquity. |
|
03-20-2007, 02:34 PM | #9 |
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Palm Springs, California
Posts: 10,955
|
|
03-20-2007, 04:17 PM | #10 |
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
|
Have a squizz at the Wiki entry: Comparison between Creed of 325 and Creed of 381
Those of you who read greek will find the greek also tabulated. The creed quoted in this post is not that of Nicaea. The earlier and original creed (actually an oath) has the following disclaimer-conclusion: But those who say:The condemnation has been strongly associated with political persecution since the year 325 CE of the oath, and the historical record of this persecution extends through the subsequent centuries. In fact, it is this condemnation and persection which marked the rise of christianity and its ultimate dicatorial supremacy over all other religions by the end of the fourth century. It did not get to be established by meekness. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|