Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Soul Invictus · 05-18-2007, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The creed signed by the attendees at Nicaea,
after the "I believe in this and that" had the
following disclaimer ...

But for those who say:
"There was a time when he was not," and
"He was not before he was begotten" and
"He was made from that which did not exist," and those who assert that
he is of other substance or essence than the Father, or that
he was created, or
he is susceptible of change.'
the holy Catholic and Apostolic church anathematizes.

These are the words of Arius, on account of which
we are told by some, that Constantine called the
Council of Nicaea.

OH! You were talking about that disclaimer! I am aware of that...it's just that the disclaimer isn't part of the declarative of beliefs, and while I understand why it was added, all it does is say that if you question the creed you are banished - end of story. I am looking for the explanation of those asserted belief statements.

mountainman · 05-19-2007, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soul Invictus

OH! You were talking about that disclaimer! I am aware of that...it's just that the disclaimer isn't part of the declarative of beliefs,

On the contrary it very much is part of the declaration of beliefs.
It was not a physically annexed document.
It was (the disclaimer) an integral part of the Nicaean Oath.
Constantine collected signatories of alliegance against the document.
The disclaimer was part of the oath.

Quote:

and while I understand why it was added,

Why do you think it was added?

Quote:

all it does is say that if you question the creed you are banished - end of story.

Does it not also advise us what specifically those questions
were which should not be asked?

Quote:

I am looking for the explanation of those asserted belief statements.

Mainstream opinion has been doing the same since Nicaea.
However we have to consider that the explanation of those
asserted belief statements dwell textually and politically within
an environment that also houses certain specific limitations.

Freedom involves ascertaining the nature of these limitations.
It is not impossible that the disclaimer represents the reaction
of the Hellenic Roman empire (predominantly of the East, 325 CE)
to the implementation of a fiction and a pseudo-history.

Soul Invictus · 05-20-2007, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

On the contrary it very much is part of the declaration of beliefs.
It was not a physically annexed document.
It was (the disclaimer) an integral part of the Nicaean Oath.
Constantine collected signatories of alliegance against the document.
The disclaimer was part of the oath.

I didn't mean to imply that it was physically annexed. I can't quite explain it, but what I meant was that it's like the "fine print" for contract law. The 'outs' so to speak.

Quote:

Why do you think it was added?

To cover the critical positions that people might argue that would impair the argument of the claims that the creed made.

Quote:

Does it not also advise us what specifically those questions
were which should not be asked?

Yes. It does this specifically. What I wrote is the interpretation of that. The hard questions can't be asked, but ones that don't make a difference or that can be explained away are permissible.

Quote:

Mainstream opinion has been doing the same since Nicaea.
However we have to consider that the explanation of those
asserted belief statements dwell textually and politically within
an environment that also houses certain specific limitations.

Freedom involves ascertaining the nature of these limitations.
It is not impossible that the disclaimer represents the reaction
of the Hellenic Roman empire (predominantly of the East, 325 CE)
to the implementation of a fiction and a pseudo-history.

Even though there may be limitations, the culture had to have definitions or solid concepts as to what constituted a god and a lord, otherwise they could not and would not have invoked those ideas by using those terms. I want to know what their distinction is between the two.

Febble · 05-20-2007, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soul Invictus

The source I'm using is the Catholic Encyclopedia. Their version states:

"We believe (I 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 only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen."

Maybe those with Greek can assist, but can someone address my issues?

1) When the creed states:

We believe (I 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,

What is the Greek definition of "God", or a "god" as compared to the Greek definition of a "Lord" or "lord" and what would be the distinction between the two types of concepts? There are some problems that I'm seeing with this, and I wanted some clarification before I proceed further.

I think the punctuation is confusing.

Credo in unum Deum - I believe in one God [comprising:]
Patrem omnipotentem,

Dominum Jesum Christum, son of the Father

Spiritum Sanctum, who proceeds from both

At least that's what I always assumed.

mountainman · 05-20-2007, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soul Invictus

Even though there may be limitations, the culture had to have definitions or solid concepts as to what constituted a god and a lord, otherwise they could not and would not have invoked those ideas by using those terms. I want to know what their distinction is between the two.

Have you ever considered that those terms and those ideas
were a fabrication and a fiction of wicked men that were thrust
upon the (eastern, he had the west already) Roman empire by
a military supremacist (Constantine) who acquired absolute power
and used it at the Council of Nicaea to bind the attendees to him.

Amedeo · 05-24-2007, 09:57 AM

A slight correction in the # 6 REPLY"

In: The Nicene and Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed
http://www.thenazareneway.com/nicene...itan_creed.htm

Quote:

Greek version of the Nicene Creed

Quote:
�*ιστεύω είς ενα Θεόν, �*ατ�*ρα, παντοκράτορα, ποιητήν ουρανού καί γής, ορατών τε πάντων καί αοράτων.

Καί είς ενα Κύριον, Ίησούν Χριστόν, τόν Υιόν του Θεού τόν μονογενή, τόν εκ του �*ατρός γεννηθ�*ντα πρό πάντων τών αιώνων. Φώς εκ φωτός, Θεόν αληθινόν εκ Θεού αληθινού γεννηθ�*ντα, ού ποιηθ�*ντα, ὁμοούσιον τώ �*ατρί, δι’ ού τά πάντα εγ�*νετο. Τόν δι’ ημάς τούς ανθρώπους καί διά τήν ημετ�*ραν σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα εκ τών ουρανών καί σαρκωθ�*ντα εκ �*νεύματος ‘Αγίου καί Μαρίας τής �*αρθ�*νου καί ενανθρωπήσαντα. Σταυρωθ�*ντα τε υπ�*ρ ημών επί �*οντίου �*ιλάτου καί παθόντα καί ταφ�*ντα.

Καί αναστάντα τή τρίτη ημ�*ρα κατά τάς Γραφάς.

Καί ανελθόντα είς τούς ουρανούς καί καθεζόμενον εκ δεξιών τού �*ατρός.

Καί πάλιν ερχόμενον μετά δόξης κρίναι ζώντας καί νεκρούς, ού τής βασιλείας ουκ εσται τ�*λος.

Καί είς τό �*νεύμα τό ¨Αγιον, τό Κύριον, τό ζωοποιόν, τό εκ τού �*ατρός εκπορευόμενον, τό σύν �*ατρί καί Υιώ συμπροσκυνούμενον καί συνδοξαζόμενον, τό λαλήσαν διά τών �*ροφητών.

Είς μίαν, αγίαν, καθολικήν καί αποστολικήν Έκκλησίαν. ‘Ομολογώ εν βάπτισμα είς άφεσιν αμαρτιών. �*ροσδοκώ ανάστασιν νεκρών. Καί ζωήν τού μ�*λλοντος αιώνος.

Άμήν.

[[The annoying ?* replaced the Greek P. It starts: Pisteyo^...]]

So, the word they use for God is THEOS {in the accusative case after "I believe"}, and the word for Lord is KYRIOS. Son of God - Yios tou Theou. Since in the Gospel, Jesus is quoted saying, "Eli, Eli... [or Eloi, Eloi...]," Theos translates the Biblical Elohim or El. In fact the Greek Gospel makes a translationof the quoted Aramaic sentence: "... which means "O God, O God,....."

With reference to the Old Testament, the English word God translates ELOHIM as well as EL; the English word Lord or "LORD" translates YAHWEH, which is often orally replaced by ADONAI [= lord]; sometimes Yahweh is explicitly called Lord in the Bible, so English uses "The Lord God" in order to avoid "the lord Lord."

I think that when in the Greek Christian writings, Jesus is called Lord [Kyrios], the term translates the generic word Adonai [not Yahweh]: Jesus is being given the title of lord. (I don't have any reason to believe that the Gospel writers were directly acquainted with Genesis:2 or other pages where Yahweh is spoken of, or they assumed that "Yahweh" was another name of El.)

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.