Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Research it and see.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?)
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.
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.
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
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.
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'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.
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,
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.
I guess the words triggered my thinking, in general.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 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?
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.)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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?