Well, I've just now read the Nicene Creed.
I expected it to be longer I suppose.
It took 56 years to get that the way it is, you know.
Not a second longer.
I find it interesting that the original called Jesus the "only begotten Son of God" while the later version changed that to "Only Son of God". Which is wrong.
I find it interesting that the there is such deifying of Mary in the first creed, where it tells us Jesus was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary.
This was later changed to say "born of the Virgin Mary".
Why didn't it say that in the first place?
I also find it interesting that the original, in 325, tells us that Jesus was "crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried, and he rose on the third day according to the scriptures".
While in 381 that was changed to:
"For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day he rose again in fulfilment of the Scriptures".
I find it all very interesting because the first version is correct in saying that Jesus was the "only begotten" son of God, in that Jesus was the only son of God that was actually born, where Adam and the Angels were created directly. Where the later version claims Jesus was the ONLY Son of God, which according to Genesis and Luke, is untrue.
The Original claims an equality of Mary with the Holy Spirit, deifying her. Which we all know to be wrong. While the later corrects it and gives Mary a far more human role.
But the part I noticed most was the third real contradiction. In that, in the original, Jesus didn't die.
He didn't die.
I find this the most interesting because of Jesus' sign he chose to give to the pharasees. The sign of the Jonah.
Jesus said that he would spend three days and three nights in the belly of the earth, just as Jonah did in the belly of a fish.
Just as Jonah didn't, Jesus never said he would die.
And I find it very interesting that the original creed supports this.
I find it even more interesting that this was changed.
I dont think I need any more argument for why the Nicene Creed is meaningless.
I keep getting told that the Nicene Creed isn't a definition of belief, when it is.
And I keep getting told that its job is to answer the questions that people fight over, which it doesn't do.
It doesn't do it because the opinion of the council changed 5 times to my knowledge over a 56 year period, on three very important points of Christianity at least, and they STILL didn't get it right.
