The Nicene Creed - line by line

[ViaCrucis]

Perhaps we should start another thread on this, we may be straying off topic. However to answer your question, the letter was written by the Prophet who spoke Gods words to the Churches. So that seems evidence that the first Church would have this Revelation. I cannot see Paul, Peter, John and James not having this prophecy. They must have had it.

Do you also accept the Apocalypse of Peter or the Shepherd of Hermas as Scripture? Both present themselves a divine revelation from God.

Should we assume therefore that the Church Christ started accepts these and any church which doesn't must be in error?

Why or why not?

If you'd like to start a new thread for this, feel free to do so.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Willie T]

In just the last couple of days, I've read at least three versions of the Nicene Creed. Are you guys all talking about "one", and if so, is it the "We believe..." or the "I believe..." one? And, then which one of each of THOSE?

 

[WisdomTree]

Perhaps we should start another thread on this, we may be straying off topic. However to answer your question, the letter was written by the Prophet who spoke Gods words to the Churches. So that seems evidence that the first Church would have this Revelation. I cannot see Paul, Peter, John and James not having this prophecy. They must have had it.

Dude, Saint John the Apostle was not a Prophet, but an Apostle of Christ. If I am not mistaken, I do believe that Christ was the last Prophet of God.

When analysing the era of the Apostolic Age and up to the Nicene Age of the Church, we have to remember to not look at it in the perspective of having a Bible as we know it in front of us. There was no Bible that was bounded into one single volume. There several scrolls that were in circulation thus shared by the various communities where some were more prevalent than others. The only thing that every Church had at any given time was probably the Gospels as every bishops were required to have a copy.

Also, the reason the Saints Paul, Peter, and James did not write any Apocalyptic materials (though Peter allegedly did by some) was most likely because they were martyred. Saint John the Apostle was the only member of the original twelve to have died of natural causes.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

Dude, Saint John the Apostle was not a Prophet, but an Apostle of Christ. If I am not mistaken, I do believe that Christ was the last Prophet of God.

When analysing the era of the Apostolic Age and up to the Nicene Age of the Church, we have to remember to not look at it in the perspective of having a Bible as we know it in front of us. There was no Bible that was bounded into one single volume. There several scrolls that were in circulation thus shared by the various communities where some were more prevalent than others. The only thing that every Church had at any given time was probably the Gospels as every bishops were required to have a copy.

Also, the reason the Saints Paul, Peter, and James did not write any Apocalyptic materials (though Peter allegedly did by some) was most likely because they were martyred. Saint John the Apostle was the only member of the original twelve to have died of natural causes.

You are preaching to the choir brother, i know we didn't have the NT bound together in one book but we still had the NT in the 1st century none the less. I can separate my NT into separate books and have exactly what they had in the 1st century, so the argument isn't relevant. And its clear that John who wrote Revelation was a prophet, just as paul also was. (Ephesians 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets;.. for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ)

So we clearly see that John was a prophet, he did write Revelation, and surely Peter, Paul, James and John had this same book of Revelation.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

Do you also accept the Apocalypse of Peter or the Shepherd of Hermas as Scripture? Both present themselves a divine revelation from God.

Should we assume therefore that the Church Christ started accepts these and any church which doesn't must be in error?

Why or why not?

If you'd like to start a new thread for this, feel free to do so.

-CryptoLutheran

I've never read anything outside the NT and OT

 

[Tzaousios]

You are preaching to the choir brother, i know we didn't have the NT bound together in one book but we still had the NT in the 1st century none the less. I can separate my NT into separate books and have exactly what they had in the 1st century, so the argument isn't relevant.

I am curious as to how you would go about separating the books if all of them were not around at the same time in the first century.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

I am curious as to how you would go about separating the books if all of them were not around at the same time in the first century.

They were around in the first century. The gospels were written by eye witnesses who lived in the first century and witnessed Christs ministry, they would have been dead in the 2nd century, so the Gospels were written in the 1st century. The letters also were written in the first century by men who only lived in the 1st century. Revelation also was written in the first century.

 

[Willie T]

They were around in the first century. The gospels were written by eye witnesses who lived in the first century and witnessed Christs ministry, they would have been dead in the 2nd century, so the Gospels were written in the 1st century. The letters also were written in the first century by men who only lived in the 1st century. Revelation also was written in the first century.

Do you know what the letter my cousin wrote me last year says? Why not? It was written just a year ago, and you are alive now.

Those letters and accounts were spread all over the countryside, and some people probably never knew a thing about any of them existing till someone hundreds of years later searched them out, and put them all together in one place.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

Do you know what the letter my cousin wrote me last year says? Why not? It was written just a year ago, and you are alive now.

Those letters and accounts were spread all over the countryside, and some people probably never knew a thing about any of them existing till someone hundreds of years later searched them out, and put them all together in one place.

My pint is this- surely Peter, Paul, James and John had those things. Surely they communicated with each other often. Surely the first Church was not without those things. And its they who taught and who ordained other men to do the same. So those things were in one place, it just takes a non partisan look in order to see it.

2 Timothy 4:13 The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.

 

[Tzaousios]

They were around in the first century. The gospels were written by eye witnesses who lived in the first century and witnessed Christs ministry, they would have been dead in the 2nd century, so the Gospels were written in the 1st century. The letters also were written in the first century by men who only lived in the 1st century. Revelation also was written in the first century.

You did not read what I said: they were not around all at the same time in the first century. That is why it is rather mystifying to declare that you could separate them out and have the same thing that "they" had in the first century.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

Speaking for "Sola" scripture. Perhaps the problem isnt in the Creed but instead its found in how some posters seem to use the creed as a sacred thing which defines all truth, yet they don't seem to hold the scriptures which the creed is supposedly built on with the same respect. How can the creed alone define all truth, but not the scriptures also, which the creed is built on?

Why did they need to use scripture to back the creeds truth? Maybe because scripture alone defines all truth?

Scripture is not always easy to understand for some people. That is why we have creeds.

Do not assume a persons connection with the Holy Spirit grants them super divining powers for scripture. spiritual gifts are not universal. Different people manifest different gifts. This is the reality sola scriptura folks refuse to admit to.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

You did not read what I said: they were not around all at the same time in the first century. That is why it is rather mystifying to declare that you could separate them out and have the same thing that "they" had in the first century.

I saw it, and i get it, and although it was not clear i assumed that's what you meant anyway. Just because i don't respond to every detail doesn't mean that i haven't considered or read it.

Clearly it doesn't matter if i lived in the 1st century does it? Relevance?

The point is that Peter, James, John, and Paul all had Revelation, the Gospel record, and their own letters too, and surely they had even more than this. And they communicated often and shared all things.

So any church lacking those things cannot claim to be the first Church.

 

[WisdomTree]

You are preaching to the choir brother, i know we didn't have the NT bound together in one book but we still had the NT in the 1st century none the less. I can separate my NT into separate books and have exactly what they had in the 1st century, so the argument isn't relevant. And its clear that John who wrote Revelation was a prophet, just as paul also was. (Ephesians 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets;.. for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ)

So we clearly see that John was a prophet, he did write Revelation, and surely Peter, Paul, James and John had this same book of Revelation.

Okay, let's say that I get my Orthodox Study Bible and butcher it up into various pieces (hypothetically, I'm not actually going to do it because it was so expensive). I then have them in circulation around a dozen cities and towns for them to be read. Would this not mean that some Churches will be missing out on some books while not on others? That is not even counting the fact that they have different dates when they were written so not all of them would have been available at one time.

When John wrote his Revelation, I don't think the other Apostles were alive (though this is speculation). So the other Apostles probably did not have this same book.

I've never read anything outside the NT and OT

You should, pretty interesting stuff out there.

My pint is this- surely Peter, Paul, James and John had those things. Surely they communicated with each other often. Surely the first Church was not without those things. And its they who taught and who ordained other men to do the same. So those things were in one place, it just takes a non partisan look in order to see it.

Most Apostles probably did communicate with each other, but probably not as frequently as they would have liked. There other Apostles who probably could not even keep in touch such as Thomas as he was busy spreading the Good News in India.

So any church lacking those things cannot claim to be the first Church.

So you're saying that there was no such as a first Church until the Apostles wrote everything we have today?

 

[Restoresmysoul]

You did not read what I said: they were not around all at the same time in the first century. That is why it is rather mystifying to declare that you could separate them out and have the same thing that "they" had in the first century.

Actually perhaps i did misread your post (poor eyesight)

To answer you question. Clearly the men who wrote the NT were only alive in the 1st century, so the NT was wrote in the 1st century. Do i understand your question correctly?

 

[Restoresmysoul]

Scripture is not always easy to understand for some people. That is why we have creeds.

Do not assume a persons connection with the Holy Spirit grants them super divining powers for scripture. spiritual gifts are not universal. Different people manifest different gifts. This is the reality sola scriptura folks refuse to admit to.

I dont think any one has the gift to prophesy and teach new things, i think that was the Job of Christ and the apostles who wrote the NT. If there is any prophecy it wont take away or add new commands to the things they previously taught.

 

[Tzaousios]

Actually perhaps i did misread your post (poor eyesight)

To answer you question. Clearly the men who wrote the NT were only alive in the 1st century, so the NT was wrote in the 1st century. Do i understand your question correctly?

I am not sure who has read what in what way, to be honest.

I guess, if you mean that cumulatively you could separate all the books out and have the same ones as first-century Christians, it might work.

However, what I was getting at is that first-century Christians did not have any set number at any given time. From the resurrection to the conversion of Paul it might not be anything in the NT. After Paul was martyred, one might have some of the gospels and a pastoral letter or two if one was lucky. One must also factor in that the Old Testament (the "Scriptures) that early Christians had and used was the Septuagint Greek translation.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

Okay, let's say that I get my Orthodox Study Bible and butcher it up into various pieces (hypothetically, I'm not actually going to do it because it was so expensive). I then have them in circulation around a dozen cities and towns for them to be read. Would this not mean that some Churches will be missing out on some books while not on others? That is not even counting the fact that they have different dates when they were written so not all of them would have been available at one time.

When John wrote his Revelation, I don't think the other Apostles were alive (though this is speculation). So the other Apostles probably did not have this same book.



You should, pretty interesting stuff out there.



Most Apostles probably did communicate with each other, but probably not as frequently as they would have liked. There other Apostles who probably could not even keep in touch such as Thomas as he was busy spreading the Good News in India.



So you're saying that there was no such as a first Church until the Apostles wrote everything we have today?

I believe that it seems clear that all churches established by the true Apostles of Christ had both the Gospel record, the commands of the Apostles and OT scriptures, this by itself is all that we need to follow him. However, i also think that Revelation would have been in the hands of Peter, James, John and Paul. And any Church who did not have those things in their early days cannot possibly claim to be the successor of Peter or any other Apostle. Clearly if they did not have the book of Revelation then they were not the successors of Peter, James, John or Paul.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

I am not sure who has read what in what way, to be honest.

I guess, if you mean that cumulatively you could separate all the books out and have the same ones as first-century Christians, it might work.

However, what I was getting at is that first-century Christians did not have any set number at any given time. From the resurrection to the conversion of Paul it might not be anything in the NT. After Paul was martyred, one might have some of the gospels and a pastoral letter or two if one was lucky. One must also factor in that the Old Testament (the "Scriptures) that early Christians had and used was the Septuagint Greek translation.

I think that any Church governed by the Apostles, even after they died, would have had their epistles, maybe not all of their epistles but they would have had enough, and more importantly they would have had the commands given by the apostles, and also the Gospel record and teachings of Christ.

But getting back to Revelation. Im convinced that If RC, EO or any other Church was in fact the first church, then they would have had the book of Revelation in their early days. I cannot see Peter, Paul, James or John lacking this book of prophecy. Its just not possible in my imagination.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I think that any Church governed by the Apostles, even after they died, would have had their epistles, maybe not all of their epistles but they would have had enough, and more importantly they would have had the commands given by the apostles, and also the Gospel record and teachings of Christ.

But getting back to Revelation. Im convinced that If RC, EO or any other Church was in fact the first church, then they would have had the book of Revelation in their early days. I cannot see Peter, Paul, James or John lacking this book of prophecy. Its just not possible in my imagination.

Saint Peter died in around 64-67 AD and the Revelation was written around 90-96 AD. Obviously saint Peter would never have read revelation on earth because he was no longer on earth when it was written.

 

[Willie T]

I think that any Church governed by the Apostles, even after they died, would have had their epistles, maybe not all of their epistles but they would have had enough, and more importantly they would have had the commands given by the apostles, and also the Gospel record and teachings of Christ.

But getting back to Revelation. Im convinced that If RC, EO or any other Church was in fact the first church, then they would have had the book of Revelation in their early days. I cannot see Peter, Paul, James or John lacking this book of prophecy. Its just not possible in my imagination.

Well, considering the revelation, itself, speaks of it being written during Nero's reign, (the latter part of the 60's AD), I suppose that is possible.