exchemist
Veteran Member
Sure, that's what the western church has always argued. But I fail to see what practical difference it makes, either way.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Christians only - The Nicene creed.
- Thread starter syo
- Start date
firedragon
Veteran Member
paradox
(㇏(•̀ᵥᵥ•́)ノ)
it's about fundamental difference not real life practice.
It is recorded in the gospel of John chapter 17 that Jesus prays for his disciples to be one, yet he never gives them a creed such as for example: The Nicene Creed. Yet some people know about this creed. How? It must be by that same means by which Peter knows that Jesus is the Christ, but that implies that if some creed is from the Father then it must be something that is revealed from the Father, not from other people, from books or lessons. You can be taught but not internally agree. Then it *also* must be the Father (and not mere words) who unites whether it is through a creed or through some other means such as love and forgiveness.
If people share a creed it is very comforting, but people who share the same creed may nevertheless have divisions among themselves and people with different creeds can unite. How, then, can it be argued that creeds unite? I don't know how that argument could succeed with me.
But I want to highlight some of the comments by Pearl who is a very knowledgeable catholic among the catholics who posts on RF who in my mind has achieved reverend status, though I am not saying they are always correct or perfect.
Yes! It has been divisive though not the words themselves but the pedestal upon which they are often placed. People can argue about anything, and so we like to pick something truly sacred, something sensitive. We pick whatever sacred cow we can find. Sacred words are the least unifying, not the most unifying. Maybe they could comfort some people, but they couldn't unify any more than the words "I am right you are wrong!" could repair a friendship. @syo
I wish, Syo, that a creed was enough.
GardenLady
Active Member
In our Lutheran parish, the Apostles’ Creed is said at Sunday Services. The Nicene and Athanasian creeds are also in the worship book.
Occasionally, particularly at Wednesday night service, an alternative might be used. For a few weeks, we had one from Kenya, in which we declared that, while Jesus was in the tomb, the hyenas did not disturb him.
Occasionally, particularly at Wednesday night service, an alternative might be used. For a few weeks, we had one from Kenya, in which we declared that, while Jesus was in the tomb, the hyenas did not disturb him.
Last edited:
DNB
Christian
Neither, for all the major ecumenical councils right up to the eighth century, and further, formulated creeds that were not developed by either inspired or authoritative men. No Christian is bound to any of the creeds established at these councils, for they were not convened under the auspices of God.
If that weren't enough, these councils are further to be considered spurious, both in intent and doctrine, as first, it was a pagan Emperor who precipitated the need to resolve the Christological controversy, and two, none of the tenets of the doctrine of the trinity can be Biblically substantiated, let alone make any sense.
I, as a Christian, personally and vehemently, denounce all the council's creeds: homoousios, filioque, theotokos, monophysites, monothelites, iconoclasm, etc...
syo
Well-Known Member
I mean the nicene creed without the additions.
syo
Well-Known Member
No.That remark betrays a wish to divide, rather than unite.
Does it really matter? Does anyone really have a valid claim to a monopoly of the truth?
But the original Nicene creed is the most brief.
firedragon
Veteran Member
syo
Well-Known Member
Why should it tell us? The Holy Spirit is what it is.
syo
Well-Known Member
If there is one brief creed that is ''on point''. That's the original nicene creed.
The churches are in pieces, and creeds have not helped. Instead they are given credit for the merest bit of humility that anyone chooses to have, but they are (probably) only teaching tools. They are ancient teaching tools. I don't doubt that, but why must there be councils and arguments about them? The Nicene council is the most famous situation in which a creed is at the center of a controversy, yet people are telling me that it unites. Nothing was settled by that council, or we wouldn't even be having this conversation.If there is one brief creed that is ''on point''. That's the original nicene creed.
syo
Well-Known Member
Of course. Plural creeds are a disaster. We need only one creed. And that's the original nicene creed.
syo
Well-Known Member
Greed led to more, I think. Not creed.
syo
Well-Known Member
Humans.
(That's why aliens avoid us.)
An intractable problem. One good thing about the creed is that most people don't understand it, so those who argue against the creed tend to argue against straw targets.Humans.
The usual pattern is: 1. accept the creed 2. then you learn about what it means By the time you are at #1 you have already shown the humility necessary to be united without a creed.
exchemist
Veteran Member
You have not made any case for that. You are just asserting it. (In fact, I may have missed it, but I don't think you have even specified what version you regard as "original".)Of course. Plural creeds are a disaster. We need only one creed. And that's the original nicene creed.
People are always going to have a variety of opinions and interpretations of what various passages in scripture and teaching should be taken to mean. Plural creeds are simply a reflection of that fact. So it is quite futile to insist there should be only one creed, as it will never happen naturally. It would have to be enforced on unwilling people.
That's what I mean by you being divisive with this idea of yours. It requires some group (actually your group, whatever that is) to say: "we are right, you lot are wrong and we are going either to force you to use our formula, whether you like it or not, or we are going to redefine you - unilaterally - as being no longer Christian."
That is not unifying. Nor is it practical.
