Nicene Creed

[Kathryn]

Riiiiight, if I have to explain it you wouldn't understand. Sorry but I totally disagree with you. I'm anti-trinitarian but I feel I have total understanding of the concept and how it came about. Just because I believe that the Trinity is comprised of three separate beings rather than God divided into three avatars doesn't mean I can't "get it".

My quote about "getting it" was directed AT people who think they can convince someone who isn't Trinitarian that the Trinity is reality simply by explaining what the creeds MEAN.

I KNOW you understand and reject Trinitarian doctrine. Explaining the creeds to you isn't going to suddenly make you understand.

GET IT?

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

My quote about "getting it" was directed AT people who think they can convince someone who isn't Trinitarian that the Trinity is reality simply by explaining what the creeds MEAN.

I KNOW you understand and reject Trinitarian doctrine. Explaining the creeds to you isn't going to suddenly make you understand.

GET IT?

Sure, you equate understanding with acceptance. They mean the same thing to you. Because I don't accept the Creed I must not understand it. Only after I have accepted it will I truly understand. Totally get it.

 

[Kathryn]

Sure, you equate understanding with acceptance. They mean the same thing to you. Because I don't accept the Creed I must not understand it. Only after I have accepted it will I truly understand. Totally get it.

LOL, you don't "get" what I'm saying at all.

I am saying that a Trinitarian is not going to be able to "explain" a creed to you and - bingo - you suddenly "get it" - and that is precisely BECAUSE I am AGREEING with what you are saying, you goober! I am saying that Trinitarians often mistakenly assume that someone who is NOT Trinitarian simply doesn't understand the doctrine. I am saying that they often DO understand the doctrine, and simply reject it.

So explaining a Creed to them, hoping they suddenly "get it" is a waste of time.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

LOL, you don't "get" what I'm saying at all.

Maybe I am a goober because it sounds like you're talking in circles to me. No worries, I like goobers. I still don't see whats so hard to understand or explain about the creed. Its rather straight forward to me. Anyway, if nothing else, we probably confused the hell out of the original poster.

 

[Kathryn]

Maybe I am a goober because it sounds like you're talking in circles to me. No worries, I like goobers. I still don't see whats so hard to understand or explain about the creed. Its rather straight forward to me. Anyway, if nothing else, we probably confused the hell out of the original poster.

:yes: You got dat right! No worries!

 

[javajo]

I believe when Jesus commanded us to make disciples, baptizing in the name (SINGULAR) of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, this shows one Lord or God, in three persons. God, our Father which art in Heaven, Christ, the Son, God Incarnate who died for us, and God, the Holy Spirit who is with us and in us.

 

[outhouse]

My quote about "getting it" was directed AT people who think they can convince someone who isn't Trinitarian that the Trinity is reality simply by explaining what the creeds MEAN.

I KNOW you understand and reject Trinitarian doctrine. Explaining the creeds to you isn't going to suddenly make you understand.

GET IT?

Ad whats funny about that is the nicene creed more or less only only deals with the divinity of jesus and the father, not the trinity. trinity at that time wasnt even being discussed really in its present state.

They were to busy arguing jesus divinity in relation to the father.

It was the seed however the concept grew from.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Ad whats funny about that is the nicene creed more or less only only deals with the divinity of jesus and the father, not the trinity. trinity at that time wasnt even being discussed really in its present state.

They were to busy arguing jesus divinity in relation to the father.

It was the seed however the concept grew from.

Yep, the concept of the Trinity being a Godhead was invented by the Nicene council to stop the debates on who was higher in stature; the Father, the Son or the Holy Ghost. Declaring a man on earth to be a God was a very Roman thing to do.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Yep, the concept of the Trinity being a Godhead was invented by the Nicene council to stop the debates on who was higher in stature; the Father, the Son or the Holy Ghost. Declaring a man on earth to be a God was a very Roman thing to do.

Quite right... and like all compromises it is unlikely to be wholly true.
It is what is called a working model.

I find the explanation to be a fine example of religious Gobbledygook. I think Christianity is now mature enough to consider other models. Or simply abandon the Trinity concept.

 

[outhouse]

except they didnt invent the trinity concept at the first council of nicea, that came later.

It took about 75 years after that for the trinity to become mainstream. around 400AD



It wasnt invented to stop the debate either

the nicean council was dealing with how divine jesus was and trying to define the divinity. The council was divided and would not become unified and it ticked Constantine off so he set out to punish those apposed and this made the church unified in belief and the creed was born, that really only deals with duality that the son and father are the same.

 

[truseeker]

So why only a trinity? What about John 1:1 which says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Wouldn't that make a fourth "person". Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and Word? We have to invent a new word to replace Trinity and indicate one God in four "persons."

 

[outhouse]

So why only a trinity? What about John 1:1 which says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Wouldn't that make a fourth "person". Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and Word? We have to invent a new word to replace Trinity and indicate one God in four "persons."

You may be taking that out of context

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

So why only a trinity? What about John 1:1 which says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Wouldn't that make a fourth "person". Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and Word? We have to invent a new word to replace Trinity and indicate one God in four "persons."

I think the Word and the Holy Spirit are considered the same thing. Not sure though, maybe someone else can confirm or deny.

 

[Mark2020]

I think the Word and the Holy Spirit are considered the same thing. Not sure though, maybe someone else can confirm or deny.

The Word is the Son.

 

[JacobEzra.]

So why only a trinity? What about John 1:1 which says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Wouldn't that make a fourth "person". Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and Word? We have to invent a new word to replace Trinity and indicate one God in four "persons."

Maybe you should keep reading lol. I always thought it was very easy to tell the Word was Jesus as in the pat, "The word was made flesh and dwelt among us"

[14] And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. [15] John beareth witness of him, and crieth out, saying: This was he of whom I spoke: He that shall come after me, is preferred before me: because he was before me.

 

[Gaura Priya]

The Word is the same as Wisdom, original Mind. It is not that the Word was 'God' but the actual translation should have been that the Word was 'Divine' (theos, and not 'ho theos' or 'God'). That came into Jesus Christ as the embodiment of God's Word, or Wisdom (Logos).

God = Word. Word = Jesus. That does not mean God = Jesus.

Then again, as an explorer of religion, I take a more Arian perspective as a more Biblically functioning doctrine of the personage of Jesus Christ and his relation to the Father.

 

[Hethatreadethit]

Can anyone help me understand something in the Nicene Creed? One line says "we believe in one lord, Jesus Christ" A little later another line says "we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord" So Jesus is the one lord but the Holy Spirit is the Lord. How can there be only one lord if both Jesus and the Holy Spirit are the lord? Is there some easy way to understand this or is it just another example of religious mumbo jumbo where you say whatever you want and don't worry about what it means?

Greetings Truseeker:
IT's mumbo jumbo. I think of the Holy Spirit as the life force of all spiritual beings that do G-ds will. G-d is not a trinity, but rather is one and yet He is : I Am That I Am.
Exo 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

The world's trinity label is hogwash and part of their confused noise which we can call Babylon.
Sncerely: Hethatreadethit

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

except they didnt invent the trinity concept at the first council of nicea, that came later.

It took about 75 years after that for the trinity to become mainstream. around 400AD



It wasnt invented to stop the debate either

the nicean council was dealing with how divine jesus was and trying to define the divinity. The council was divided and would not become unified and it ticked Constantine off so he set out to punish those apposed and this made the church unified in belief and the creed was born, that really only deals with duality that the son and father are the same.

Constantine Called the council at his hospitality and held them captive until there was unity. He did not care what was decided as long as it fitted in with his concept of a single roman religion. His own inclination was more Unitarian.
Various versions of the trinity were in the melting pot long before that. what was needed was an acceptable form of words that were acceptable to all. Those that did not agree were declared heretic... problem solved.

 

[Mark2020]

The Word is the same as Wisdom, original Mind. It is not that the Word was 'God' but the actual translation should have been that the Word was 'Divine' (theos, and not 'ho theos' or 'God'). That came into Jesus Christ as the embodiment of God's Word, or Wisdom (Logos).

'Divine' doesn't mean He isn't God.
'theos' without 'ho' was used to describe God many times in the bible:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/121296-john-1-1-anarthrous-theos-big.html

 

[JacobEzra.]

The Word is the same as Wisdom, original Mind. It is not that the Word was 'God' but the actual translation should have been that the Word was 'Divine' (theos, and not 'ho theos' or 'God'). That came into Jesus Christ as the embodiment of God's Word, or Wisdom (Logos).

God = Word. Word = Jesus. That does not mean God = Jesus.

Then again, as an explorer of religion, I take a more Arian perspective as a more Biblically functioning doctrine of the personage of Jesus Christ and his relation to the Father.

I don't know greek all that much. But, Theotokos doesn't mean divine-bearer. Are you sure there needs to be "ho theos"?