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.
Sorry, I didn't mean to cause a jump-ahead; Kylissa said not to.
I was only examining the Church that is mentioned in the Creed. I dont think it will turn into a debate because its clear that the Church referred to in the Creed is not the RC but is the universal Church that the apostles established. I only posted the RC link because that's where i found the definition of the word catholic.
I wanted to head off discussion about the Papacy. It's off topic here.
Hi everyone: A couple of things: First, if memory serves, the Nicene Creed was formulated at one Ecumenical council and confirmed a short time later at another one. So I definitely agree with Kylissa, let's leave all the denominational baggage at the doorstep and take a look at this Creed as "Christians" only.
Second, an interesting point to remember as you look up the Scriptural references for this Creed is this, the NT did not exist when this Creed was written (well, not in the form we have it in today anyway). So I have a question, does anyone know if the Nicene Creed officially references/quotes anything beyond the OT and 27 books of what would become the NT? And how about the Apocrypha? Were any of its unique verses quoted or referenced in this Creed's formulation?
Thanks!
--David
The Apostles' Creed begins with "I", but I've noticed that the Nicene begins with either "We" or "I". Does it make a difference, and if so, how/why?
Thanks!
--David
Not to get away from your point, but i heard a preacher talk about this tonight, he said we didn't have the NT until the 2nd or 3rd century, but this cannot be accurate because its clearly obvious that the Gospels were written by eye witnesses who couldn't have been alive after the 1st century. So the gospels must have been written in the first century. Likewise the epistles and Revelation were clearly written in the first century. So we did have the NT in the first century.
I believe the "We" utilized in the Nicene Creed was used as a declaration by the universal church to respond to the rampant Christological heresies of the time. It's something that was, and still is, expressed collectively by the church when they meet together. So I think in essence it's meant to convey solidarity in affirming the truth of the Creed's substance.
I actually wanted to do this several months ago but I was concerned about the "fallout".
Not to get away from your point, but i heard a preacher talk about this tonight, he said we didn't have the NT until the 2nd or 3rd century, but this cannot be accurate because its clearly obvious that the Gospels were written by eye witnesses who couldn't have been alive after the 1st century. So the gospels must have been written in the first century. Likewise the epistles and Revelation were clearly written in the first century. So we did have the NT in the first century.
He was likely referring to the fact that the scriptures weren't canonized into a collective text until that time. Until that point the epistles and gospels were not widely dispersed and difficult for every community to come by.
That is correct. What the writers of the Nicene Creed didn't have at the time was an official NT "collection" of books to use as their authoritative reference. They had the 27 books, of course (as this was already the early 4th Century), but they had many more books that they could have referenced as well. I believe however that they did not go outside the OT and the 27 books that would shortly and officially make up the NT in writing the Creed, which is something I find both interesting and remarkable.
--David
I believe the "We" utilized in the Nicene Creed was used as a declaration by the universal church to respond to the rampant Christological heresies of the time. It's something that was, and still is, expressed collectively by the church when they meet together. So I think in essence it's meant to convey solidarity in affirming the truth of the Creed's substance.
He was likely referring to the fact that the scriptures weren't canonized into a collective text until that time. Until that point the epistles and gospels were not widely dispersed and difficult for every community to come by.
Yes i understood. However wouldn't it be mere speculation to suggest what was was widely dispersed and what wasn't?
Not really, since while the four Gospels were widely dispersed, texts such as the Revelations of St John was not as evident by the older Syrian canons lacking it as well as it being the only texts not used as part of the Byzantine liturgy.
I was referring to pre cannon times
Byzantine liturgy didn't use revelation. Interesting
It applies then as well. A lot of the canonical build up was as a result of what they had access to and what they didn't at the time. That's why there's no absolute uniformity in the Eastern Churches, especially the Oriental Orthodox Church today.
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?