The Nicene Creed

[SteubieU]

Antley,

Could you further explain what you mean by "Jesus was telling us to somehow merge with one another and become a single being, and to also merge with the Son and the Father and become a single Being with them".

It sounds like what you are saying is that the Father and the Son can dwell in a person which goes against LDS scriputre (D&C 130:3,22,23)/

I said, "If you take his meaning to be "one in substance with the Father", then Jesus was telling us to somehow merge with one another and become a single being, and to also merge with the Son and the Father and become a single Being with them."

If you look at the context of John 17, Jesus said that we should be one as He and the Father are one. If you believe They are one in substance, then we must all become one in substance as well.

But don't you understand... that IS what we believe... we become real and true partakers of God's divine nature! That is what is so awesome about Catholicism...

[rameumptom]

Johnny,

Antley was meaning that if we take the Trinitarian view of God and Jesus being of one substance, and apply it to John 17, then we would have Jesus asking God (himself) to make the Twelve apostles one in substance even as the Father and Son are one in substance (in the Trinitarian definition).

However, if the Father and Son are not one in substance, but are one in unity; then the prayer of Jesus to the Father that the Twelve be one and also one with the Godhead, makes much more sense in a metaphysical way.

Catholics do not believe that humans that are saved will become of one substance with each other, nor with the Godhead. Yet, to read John 17 in a Trinitarian fashion would require that interpretation.

[Joseph Antley]

But don't you understand... that IS what we believe... we become real and true partakers of God's divine nature! That is what is so awesome about Catholicism...

Becoming partakers of God's divine nature has nothing to do with this. We're talking about how the Son and the Father are united; you say they're one in substance, I say they are united in purpose.

By your definition, Christ was saying the Twelve must become one Being, and one Being with the Son/Father. Sounds an awful lot like a Buddhist view to me, but to each his own.

[Guest Five to one]

By your definition, Christ was saying the Twelve must become one Being, and one Being with the Son/Father. Sounds an awful lot like a Buddhist view to me, but to each his own.

Sounds more like a Mormon who doesn't understand other people's beliefs.

[Joseph Antley]

By your definition, Christ was saying the Twelve must become one Being, and one Being with the Son/Father. Sounds an awful lot like a Buddhist view to me, but to each his own.

Sounds more like a Mormon who doesn't understand other people's beliefs.

If you're talking about the Trinitarian view, I think I understand it as best I am capable. The Trinity is one Being but with three different Identities or Personages. If that is correct, then that must be what Christ was saying: the Twelve must become one Being (but I guess with twelve different Identities or Personages) with the Father and the Son.

If you're talking about the Buddhist comment, then you're probably right. But from what I've been told by my Buddhist friends, the goal is to overcome this human nature and become "one with 'God', or the universe". Of course I may be wrong about this, but/and if so, this isn't the thread for it.

[Guest Five to one]

If you're talking about the Trinitarian view, I think I understand it as best I am capable. The Trinity is one Being but with three different Identities or Personages. If that is correct, then that must be what Christ was saying: the Twelve must become one Being (but I guess with twelve different Identities or Personages) with the Father and the Son.

Then you obviously don't understand the Trinitarian view. Do you have any idea what Trinitarians mean when they talk about Being, Essence, and Substance?

[Joseph Antley]

If you're talking about the Trinitarian view, I think I understand it as best I am capable. The Trinity is one Being but with three different Identities or Personages. If that is correct, then that must be what Christ was saying: the Twelve must become one Being (but I guess with twelve different Identities or Personages) with the Father and the Son.

Then you obviously don't understand the Trinitarian view. Do you have any idea what Trinitarians mean when they talk about Being, Essence, and Substance?

I assume they mean it not necessarily in any physical sense. Perhaps I don't fully understand it. Why don't you explain it to me via PM?

[Joseph Antley]

If you're talking about the Trinitarian view, I think I understand it as best I am capable. The Trinity is one Being but with three different Identities or Personages. If that is correct, then that must be what Christ was saying: the Twelve must become one Being (but I guess with twelve different Identities or Personages) with the Father and the Son.

Then you obviously don't understand the Trinitarian view. Do you have any idea what Trinitarians mean when they talk about Being, Essence, and Substance?

I assume they mean it not necessarily in any physical sense. Perhaps I don't fully understand it. Why don't you explain it to me via PM?

[cdowis]

>Then you obviously don't understand the Trinitarian view. Do you have any idea what Trinitarians mean when they talk about Being, Essence, and Substance?

Trinitarians mean "homoousia", as explicitly stated in the Nicene Creed. You will find a great reluctance to translate this into English, merely using the word "one".

It means "the same substance", or "one substance". If it does not relate to a physical presence, that is only because the Trinitarians do not accept a physical presence of God the Father.

Thus, Christ has a resurrected (physical) body, and the Father has no physical presence at all. The contradiction between these two is just one of those mysteries -- like the egg yoke and the egg white are "one substance" within the egg shell, or something like that.

[Cold Steel]

I challenge you to quote a single passage of the Bible that directly and explicity teaches that God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are three Gods like Joseph Smith taught. If you cannot, then the words of Joseph Smith are a heretical addtion to the doctrine in the Bible.

We don't really confine ourselves to the Bible to prove or disprove everything we teach, especially one passage.

We can point out the use of Elohim in the first chapter of Genesis, which shows the plurality of Gods (Godhead) and that Jesus prayed to the Father, asking him to "remove the bitter cup," but offering "thy will be done." We also note that Stephen, upon being stoned, saw the Son on the right hand of the Father and...well, we've been over this so many times it's scarcely worth repeating.

Additionally, I think most Christians see three gods of one substance as problematical. As a former Protestant, we knew that's what the preacher tried getting us to believe, but at the supper table we never really bought into it. "Then who was Jesus praying to?" comes up at more dinner tables than anyone has any idea.

The Mormon missionaries came along one day and took about 10-15 minutes to explain it all and tie it up so it all made sense.

Cold Steel

[Joseph Antley]

If you're talking about the Trinitarian view, I think I understand it as best I am capable. The Trinity is one Being but with three different Identities or Personages. If that is correct, then that must be what Christ was saying: the Twelve must become one Being (but I guess with twelve different Identities or Personages) with the Father and the Son.

Then you obviously don't understand the Trinitarian view. Do you have any idea what Trinitarians mean when they talk about Being, Essence, and Substance?

Let me rephrase one more time then. Whatever you believe the relationship between the Father and the Son to be, when you look at John 17, we must achieve the same relationship with one another and with the Father and the Son.

We could also go backwards and try to figure out what kind of relationship He was saying we should have, and then apply that relationship to the Father and the Son.

Either way, I get the result that they are united in purpose, but are still distinct beings.

[Theophilus]

Let me rephrase one more time then.  Whatever you believe the relationship between the Father and the Son to be, when you look at John 17, we must achieve the same relationship with one another and with the Father and the Son.

Perhaps... Just perhaps... Jesus is "one" with the Father in more than one way, and perhaps... Perhaps... Jesus was only referring to one of those ways (and not the other) in John 17...

LDS seem to assume otherwise, for reasons I can't see...

Theophilus

[johnny]

Antley,

You say they are one in purpose ... I say they are one in purpose .... I also say that the Son and the Father are one in being.

[Bsix]

I challenge you to quote a single passage of the Bible that directly and explicity teaches that God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are three Gods like Joseph Smith taught. If you cannot, then the words of Joseph Smith are a heretical addtion to the doctrine in the Bible.

Six: Well for starters, this discussion is about the Nicene Creed. If you want to discuss the merits (of lack of) LDS theology...start another thread.

I'd say that your attempt to change the subject is a tacit admission that the Bible does not contain Nicene concept of one being/substance/homoosius.

1Tim.3

[16] And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

John 1

[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

[14] And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Six: Those passages are abstract and without Biblical resolution to the mystery they introduce. They do not teach "one substance."

Six: As you have stated their is a final version of the Nicene Creed. In the council at Jerusalem (Acts 15) their are was "much disputing" then Peter rose up with the final version. The Early Church Fathers also taught that the following about "substance"

Six: The vast difference between the Council of Acts 15 and the Nicene Council is that the Council of Acts 15 was endorsed by God by inclusion in the scriptures AND it was convened by the Church itself...not a secular non-Christian imperial emporor.

Johnny: Constantine took no part in the deliberations of the Council; it was entirely an affair of the Church

[johnny]

Cold Steel,

Catholics do not confine themselves to the Bible to prove or disprove everything they teach.

Neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament reveal three Gods like Joseph Smith taught.

[Neighbor]

Hi, Johnny! Long time no been here. I got so lonesome that it was time to start my own site. It's just beginning. Let me know if you have some ideas or suggestions or such.

Thanks!

http://www.jesuschriststeachings.com

[johnny]

Cold Steel,

The Bible contains the Nicene concept that the Son and the Father are "one in being". 1Tim3 reveals that "God was manifest in the flesh, John 1 reveals that "the Word was made flesh" sounds like God is Man and Man is God in the Person of Jesus Christ.

The Nicene Council was endorsed by the Vicar of Christ. The Church rook advantage of the opportunities afforded by Constantine.

Please provide the source and quotes that reveal that Constantine took part in the deliberations of the Council and meddle in the affairs of the Church.

Constantine called the council to deal with pressing Church problems, and all took place under conditions of political turbulence and stress.

Constantine was forced into exile because he was denounced as heretical. Please provide the source and quotes that reveal it was decreed by Constantine...or tolerated by him.

The manner in which the creeds came about is what took took place at the council of Jersualem (Acts 15). The ecumenical council has authority.

[David Bokovoy]

The Bible contains the Nicene concept that the Son and the Father are "one in being".

Yeah Right. Consider the perspective of one expert:

"It is impossible for anyone, whether he be a student of history or not, to fail to notice a difference of both form and content between the Sermon on the Mount and the Nicene Creed. The Sermon on the Mount is the promulgation of a new law of conduct; it assumes beliefs rather than formulates them; the theological conceptions which underlie it belong to the ethical rather than the speculative side of theology; metaphysics are wholly absent. The Nicene Creed is a statement partly of historical facts and partly of dogmatic inferences; the metaphysical terms which it contains would probably have been unintelligible to the first disciples; ethics have no place in it. The one belongs to a world of Syrian peasants, the other to a world of Greek philosophers

[Apex]

Here something I wrote on the Nicean Council but I started school and havent really been able to finish it.

Imposition of the Nicene Creed

One of the first gatherings of an organized council in the early church was the Council of Nicaea. Many today hold the creed, which come forth from this council, the Nicene Creed, as the guidebook for God and Christianity. However there is still much controversy as to how the outcome of the council came about. Some say it was God

[johnny]

Hi Neighbor,

Lately I haven't been posting much since I have been extra busy with work and famiy.

Your new site looks great ... it is great that your focus is on the words of Jesus. Your site contains many wise words that will bring us closer to our Lord and closer to each other.

[Cold Steel]

Constantine was forced into exile because he was denounced as heretical. Please provide the source and quotes that  reveal it was decreed by Constantine...or tolerated by him. The manner in which the creeds came about is what took took place at the council of Jersualem (Acts 15). The ecumenical council has authority.

Constantine's role in the whole affair is debatable, but even if he did not exert overt influence over the assembly, he was the consumate politician. He put everyone in a room and told them to reach agreement or else.

The bottom line is that scriptures are of God; creeds are by men. And only by passing to the next world will we see and understand history and the things of God as it's made plain to us.

Hugh Nibley, in his World and the Prophets, notes:

Everyone is laughing at the Christian leaders, Athanasius says, and is saying, "These Christians don't know what to think of Christ!" which of course weakens their authority. "What is the use of all these synods?" he asks. "In vain do they dash hither and yon under the pretext that synods are necessary to settle important matters of doctrine, for the Holy Scriptures are sufficient for all that." (Note where Athanasius finds the court of last appeal-not in any episcopal see, but simply in the scripture.) "We contradict those who were before us, depart from the traditions of our fathers, and think we must hold a synod. Then we are seized by misgivings, lest if we simply come together and agree our diligence will be wasted; so we decide that the synod ought to be divided into two groups, so we can vote...and so we render ineffective what was done at Nicaea under pretext of working for greater simplicity."

One of the standing jokes, he noted, was which was the greater miracle: Causing a stone to speak or stopping a philosopher from speaking?

"It is a thing equally deplorable and dangerous," St. Hilary wrote, "that there are as many creeds as opinions among men, as many doctrines as inclinations, and as many sources of blasphemy as there are faults among us; because we make creeds arbitrarily, and explain them arbitrarily.... The homoousion is rejected, and received, and explained away by successive synods.... Every year, nay every month, we make new creeds to describe invisible mysteries. We repent of what we have done, we defend those who change their minds, we anathematize those whom we defended. We condemn either the doctrine of others in ourselves, or our own in that of others; and, reciprocally tearing one another to pieces, we have been the cause of each other's ruin."

Again, how much difference was there in the "painted sepulchers" in the days of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church once revelation had ceased? Both had scriptures and traditions; both had their creeds and commentaries. And both were inwardly dead, having none of the spiritual gifts that had animated the dispensations. In other words, when there is revelation, prophecy and the Spirit, who needs creeds? Who needs councils and synods? And who needs a bloviating politician to round up a bickering bunch of churchmen to write them?

True, Constantine rounded them up, but how many Christians did he have killed to reach a "consensus" on dogma?

Like Athanasius, Eusebius, Basil, Chrysostom, Akakius, Eleusius, Phoebadius, and a host of lesser lights, [Hilary depicts] not the folly of the few, but, as he puts it, "the faith of our miserable age.... Last year's faith," he asks, "what is the changeful stuff that it contains? First it silenced the homoousion, then it preached it, then it excused it, then it condemned it. And where does that sort of thing lead to? To this, that neither we nor our predecessors were in a position to be sure of preserving any sacred thing intact." When men are left to their own resources, without the guidance of living prophets, even the great tradition will not preserve the true faith, for, as Hilary has...noted, men are not able of themselves to preserve that tradition.

Cold Steel

(P.S. -- With your knowledge and dedication, you'd make a great Mormon, by the way. As I understand this pope may be the last, I hope you'll at least keep us in mind. )

[Joseph Antley]

The simple fact is, the Bible does not explicitely teach either the Trinitarian view of the Godhead, the LDS view of the Godhead, a modalistic view of the Godhead, or any other view; there are many conclusions one could come to if they lacked inspiration or inspired leaders (such as prophets or apostles).

Considering the known facts, the Nicene Creed has some shaky history, and I see no reason to accept it as inspired.

[johnny]

Cold Steel,

The Church took advantage of the opportunities afforded by Constantine. Necessary developments of Church doctrine emerged from some of the Church's interaction with the Empire.

The bottom line is that scriptures are of God and that the creeds come from inspired men of God. Through the centuries many professions or symbols of faith have been articulated in response to the needs of the different eras. They help us today to attain and deepen the faith of all times by means of the different summaries made of it. The Nicene Creed draws its great authority from the fact that it comes from an ecumenical Council.

The creed is truth containted in divine Revelation. Divine assistance is given to the successors of the apostles when they propose a teaching that leads to better understanding. The dogmas which the Church proposes as revealed are "truths which have come down to us from heaven" and not "an interpretation of religious facts which the human mind has acquired by its own strenuous efforts".

[rhinomelon]

Fun topic Hopefully I'll get a chance to post here later. Take care

[Bsix]

The Church took advantage of the opportunities afforded by Constantine. Necessary developments of Church doctrine emerged from some of the Church's interaction with the Empire.

Six: Personally, I think there is some deep denial of just how influenced the Nicene Council (and its decrees) were by the secularized emporor.

The bottom line is that scriptures are of God and that the creeds come from inspired men of God.

Six: Without a doubt, scriptures by their very nature come from God. However, false interpetations and heretical creeds are not from God -- nor were the men who created them inspired.

Through the centuries many professions or symbols of faith have been articulated in response to the needs of the different eras. They help us today to attain and deepen the faith of all times by means of the different summaries made of it. The Nicene Creed draws its great authority from the fact that it comes from an ecumenical Council.

Six: As I said, there is truth to be found in the Nicene Creed. There is also very serious error. I have also said that traditional Christian believers are free to accept the Creed -- however, I do not.

The creed is truth containted in divine Revelation. Divine assistance is given to the successors of the apostles when they propose a teaching that leads to better understanding. The dogmas which the Church proposes as revealed are "truths which have come down to us from heaven" and not "an interpretation of religious facts which the human mind has acquired by its own strenuous efforts".

Six: You see divine revelation in the Creed. I do not. I see the Creed with it's mistaken interpretation...and the less-then-inspired synod from which it came as evidence of the apostasy.

Regards,

Six