Clivedurdle

Please read this and look at it carefully.

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 The only historical reference is to Pontius Pilate.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?

Malachi151

Aside from the creed business, this is what I have been saying all along. The "mythicist case" is closer to traditional Christianity than the secular historicist case.

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.

Gamera

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?

Clivedurdle

Because it is a summary statement of beliefs, that was very well argued about!

mountainman

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

spin

What makes you think that you understand "the purpose of the gospel texts"? What specific evidence do you have to support your view that the gospel texts went "into the historical details of Jesus"? Assuming conclusions doesn't make them right.


spin

mountainman

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

Gamera

(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.

Gamera

Yeah, beliefs, not narrative elements. Creeds by defintion involve what one believes, not the narrative that results in the belief.

mountainman

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:
'There was a time when he was not;' and
'He was not before he was made;' and
'He was made out of nothing,' or
'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or
'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'
— they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.

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.