The Nicene Creed - line by line

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Nope, I meant Kanook. That's what someone told me a Canadian is called, and I have been (very recently) shown that it is acceptably unnecessary to research anything to see if it is the truth, or not. (Or did I misread you?)

Research it and see.

 

[Willie T]

Research it and see.

To quote someone: "I'll take your word for it."

 

[MoreCoffee]

Every church I know used the "I" version until the mania of "liturgical reform" hit town during the Hippie/Vietnam/Sexual Revolution era when everything conventional had to be tampered with. Then, of course, "we" seemed more meaningful.

The "I" version is more in line with the Greek & Latin. The "we" is, as you observed, a 1970s sort of thing.

 

[MoreCoffee]

aren't there technically two versions of the creed officially? A 325 one and another at 381? It seems like the second one was meant to clarify even more and promote church unity.

The one in 325 AD was expanded in 381 AD.

The creed was born out of controversy. The controversy was about who Jesus was. Some said he was God and some said he was just a creature. The creed asserts that he is God.

A long fight for influence and power in the church and in the empire followed the council in 325 AD. It's still being fought today long after the empire disappeared. We have Jehovah's witnesses contending that Jesus is just a creature and the orthodox side of Christianity contending that Jesus is God.

Those of us writing in this thread are orthodox Christians; we believe that Jesus is God and not just a creature.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I didn't want to derail a thread, not that you seem to mind that at all, but it's not something that I often do.

I think he meant canuck

No, I don't mind side conversations that come up, or even evolving into something else entirely once the topic is covered.

There are those who would seem to "disrupt" a thread on purpose sometimes, and I'd put that in a different category. I'm starting to see the difference. Though in some cases, it can be harder to tell them apart.

You're fine though.

 

[seeingeyes]

Shall we proceed?

I believe in one God, Father Almighty, Creator of
heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,

Our Lord, our Shepherd, the one that we follow. He leads by example, and we follow exactly in his footsteps.

 

[Chesterton]

Our Lord, our Shepherd, the one that we follow. He leads by example, and we follow exactly in his footsteps.

Heh. Nice segue.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

I'd like to jump back to the Father Almighty line.

There is scripture that alludes to the Father being greater than the Son.

Is this line affirming that the Father is Almighty and has greater power/glory than the the other persons of the Trinity?

 

[MoreCoffee]

I'd like to jump back to the Father Almighty line.

There is scripture that alludes to the Father being greater than the Son.

Is this line affirming that the Father is Almighty and has greater power/glory than the the other persons of the Trinity?

No, it is affirming the Fatherhood of God and it is affirming that God is almighty. It is soon followed by asserting that Jesus Christ is "God from God, light from light, true God from true God". The creed exists as a direct contradiction of the heresy of Arius, a priest from Alexandria, who taught that Jesus Christ is just a creature, the greatest and first creature but a creature nonetheless. The creed exists to say that Jesus Christ is God.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I'd like to jump back to the Father Almighty line.

There is scripture that alludes to the Father being greater than the Son.

Is this line affirming that the Father is Almighty and has greater power/glory than the the other persons of the Trinity?

I'm going to hope you get some more complete replies here, but the simple answer should be no - the Father should not be said to have greater power/glory than the Son and/or the Holy Spirit.

The three persons of the Trinity are all co-equal. They are all God. One God in three persons.

I am thinking the Scripture you mention may be Christ Jesus speaking to His disciples as a human, saying that the Father is greater. But that one needs to be verified by someone else - I'm not sure that's the reason He said that. It also becomes easy to confuse Who Christ Jesus was if I've said that wrongly, because you don't separate Jesus the Man and Jesus as God into two "halves" or "persons" ... at least Chalcedonian Christians don't ... if I've gotten all that right.

(Forgive me everyone - I'm not trying to be a know-it-all, I'm kind of testing myself and doing so publicly so I have a little accountability for my words.)

But this is all my best info - someone else please correct me if I'm wrong, and you might want to hang around and make sure no one does.

 

[Targaryen]

No, it is affirming the Fatherhood of God and it is affirming that God is almighty. It is soon followed by asserting that Jesus Christ is "God from God, light from light, true God from true God". The creed exists as a direct contradiction of the heresy of Arius, a priest from Alexandria, who taught that Jesus Christ is just a creature, the greatest and first creature but a creature nonetheless. The creed exists to say that Jesus Christ is God.

I was going to say, it's general orthodox Christian thought that each person in the Trinity is co-equal to each other.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Shall we proceed?

I believe in one God, Father Almighty, Creator of
heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,

This part affirms that we have one Lord (I wonder if it calls Christ that because it was He who was incarnate?), and names Him.

Jesus Christ - Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν (Iisoún Hristón)

Jesus being His name (in English) and I believe Christ refers to Him being the Anointed One - meaning the Messiah

We're still in the same sentence ... I believe in God ... and Jesus Christ. So I went back and looked at the "believe" to make sure of the meaning.


Πιστεύομεν is listed in Strong's as believe (in), have faith (in), have confidence in, entrust

So at this point in the Creed, I'm reading it that we place our faith and trust in the Father, and in our Lord Christ Jesus ...

Truly, if all three Persons of the Trinity deserve our worship, ought they not also deserve our faith and trust in them?

 

[Albion]

I think he meant canuck

No kidding.

 

[Willie T]

I find the "and" an interesting choice of words here.

I wonder why it was not worded, "I believe in the manifestation of Jesus... who IS ALSO GOD." The way it reads tends to direct the reader toward a marked distinction between God and Jesus. And, I happen to think that is a distorted and disrupted view we bring into our assumptions of how the Trinity works.

I used to read of how Jesus "looks like" God, (except, "kind"). Yet, the more I study, not only am I reading that God looks like Jesus, (if you see Jesus, you see God), but, I am also seeing less and less distinction between them.

(Read that paragraph a couple of more times..... It probably didn't really sink in the first time.)

We all jump on the bandwagon of saying they are "one", but our speech (and probably "thinking", too) doesn't often reflect that idea of true singular unity.

I think many of us still see God as the angry punisher, and Jesus as our rescuer from that vindictive deity.

 

[seeingeyes]

I find the "and" an interesting choice of words here.

I wonder why it was not worded, "I believe in the manifestation of Jesus... who IS ALSO GOD." The way it reads tends to direct the reader toward a marked distinction between God and Jesus. And, I happen to think that is a distorted and disrupted view we bring into our assumptions of how the Trinity works.

I used to read of how Jesus "looks like" God, (except, "kind"). Yet, the more I study, not only am I reading that God looks like Jesus, (if you see Jesus, you see God), but, I am also seeing less and less distinction between them.

(Read that paragraph a couple of more times..... It probably didn't really sink in the first time.)

We all jump on the bandwagon of saying they are "one", but our speech (and probably "thinking", too) doesn't often reflect that idea of true singular unity.

I think many of us still see God as the angry punisher, and Jesus as our rescuer from that vindictive deity.

This is true. If you see the son, you see the Father.

I wonder if that is a translation issue, or if the "ands" are just a way to keep the pace going. The creed seems quite insistent on putting the Father, Son, and Spirit on the same plane, and indeed, that was the whole point of the creed to begin with!

But I see what you mean about the wording (through the eyes of our current culture, of course), that it divides the Father, Son, and Spirit more than the Father, Son, or Spirit ever did.

 

[Willie T]

This is true. If you see the son, you see the Father.

I wonder if that is a translation issue, or if the "ands" are just a way to keep the pace going. The creed seems quite insistent on putting the Father, Son, and Spirit on the same plane, and indeed, that was the whole point of the creed to begin with!

But I see what you mean about the wording (through the eyes of our current culture, of course), that it divides the Father, Son, and Spirit more than the Father, Son, or Spirit ever did.

I guess the words triggered my thinking, in general.

I think if you asked most Christians to describe God, they would paint an entirely different picture for you than if you asked them to describe Jesus.

Don't you think that is quite odd, since we keep making the statement that "we believe" they are one, and the same?

 

[Albion]

I think if you asked most Christians to describe God, they would paint an entirely different picture for you than if you asked them to describe Jesus.

Don't you think that is quite odd, since we keep making the statement that "we believe" they are one, and the same?

Not in the least. Christ, the Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth is the only one of the persons of God to have assumed a human nature. It seems almost too obvious that he would appear differently to us from the Father and the Holy Ghost.

 

[Willie T]

Not in the least. Christ, the Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth is the only one of the persons of God to have assumed a human nature. It seems almost too obvious that he would appear differently to us from the Father and the Holy Ghost.

Yet, we, doctrinally, stress that they are to be seen as one. (BTW.... for any "sharpshooters" out there who may be focusing their scopes on me..... I DO believe they are one.)

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Looking at the Nicene Code as a whole what was just covered previously was the section about who the Father is. Three lines in total. Then the next twentythree lines are about the Son then six lines about the Holy Spirit, four lines describing the church and three with it's functions.

And in ONE Lord Jesus Christ, means to me that for starters He is Lord of my life.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I find the "and" an interesting choice of words here.

I wonder why it was not worded, "I believe in the manifestation of Jesus... who IS ALSO GOD." The way it reads tends to direct the reader toward a marked distinction between God and Jesus. And, I happen to think that is a distorted and disrupted view we bring into our assumptions of how the Trinity works.

I used to read of how Jesus "looks like" God, (except, "kind"). Yet, the more I study, not only am I reading that God looks like Jesus, (if you see Jesus, you see God), but, I am also seeing less and less distinction between them.

(Read that paragraph a couple of more times..... It probably didn't really sink in the first time.)

We all jump on the bandwagon of saying they are "one", but our speech (and probably "thinking", too) doesn't often reflect that idea of true singular unity.

I think many of us still see God as the angry punisher, and Jesus as our rescuer from that vindictive deity.

You bring up some VERY GOOD points, that I didn't ever see in the Creed until you mentioned it.

First, I agree that many see God as punisher and Jesus as rescuer from God. It ought not be that way, IMO, but essentially that's really what I believed. And I may have listened to the teachings of various churches through that lens, so it might not be their actual position, but one of the reasons I am in the church I am in now - one of the greater reasons - is that they completely changed my thinking on this and let me REALLY see God as a good and loving God, and won't let me forget it. Not a sugary-sweet kind of "good" that says "it's ok, do whatever you want, I love you!" But a fiercely loving kind of "good" that is gentle when I need Him to be, but Who was willing to step down from heaven and clothe Himself in base human flesh and die a torturous death in His determination to change me from what I once was to be once again clothed in Him and be remade in His image, toward the restoration of all things.

Wow, sorry, that was only supposed to be a quick "I agree."

As far as the wording of the Creed, I don't know, but I see what you mean. I'm quite sure that confusion wasn't the intent.

I wonder if it's meant to be understood as

I believe in One God:
- The Father Almighty, Creator of all things
- One Lord Jesus Christ, (Who for us men and our salvation ... )
- The Holy Spirit, Lord and giver of Life

I'm not sure. But that's kind of how I understand it when I read it?