Jump to content

The Nicene Creed


CelestialGurl000

Recommended Posts

The Nicene Creed met together and made a formal statement to the nation of the holy trinity, declaring that it was "one." The Father and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one. If it weren't for the Nicene Creed I believe besides the restored gospel (LDS), their would be atleast some other Church sects who believed the trinity to be 3 seperate and distinct personages. Every church after the Nicene Creed declared the trinity to be "one." Before the Nicene Creed their were some churches who believed in 3 seperate personages and some who believed them to be "one." The fact that being LDS I am able to know the nature of God. That he is a glorified exalted being of flesh and bone combined with His spirit. That he made all of us in His image, fills me with happiness. To know every night who I am praying to. My Heavenly Father. This gives me joy. To believe that 3 (being plural) is 1 is not correct. God is Christs Father. Jesus Christ prayed to Him as His Father. Was he just praying to himself? No. Jesus Christ came to this earth to do the will of His father. To be an example for us and show us what our Father in Heaven is like. Because they are "one" in mind and righteousness and personality. And their is a scripture in the Bible that says we can be "one" with them. One in "Mind" or "thinking" or "purpose."

Link to comment

I could take my statement a little farther by saying their was another Creed proceeding the Nicene Creed that attempted to make everything point blank and final on the different beliefs of the trinity. This was the Athanasian Creed, and was developed in an attempt to improve the Nicene Creed. The Athanasian Creed reads:

We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the person, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one person of the Father, another the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the holy Ghost. the Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. The Father eternalm the Son eternal, and the Holy ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal. As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

After this statemnt all churches from there on out believed in this theology. However, before this there were some who believed in three seperate personages, and others who believed in one.

It doesn't make sense. God is Jesus Christ's Father, and our Father. He is our GOD. We pray to God our Eternal Father and finish in the name of Jesus Christ because he atoned for our sins and made the path to eternal exaltation possible for all of us to live with God. They are seperate. And because the precepts of men have taken the liberty of changing the correct doctrine, their was an apostasy. Or as it is referred to in the Bible "a falling away first" before the complete restoration of all things. Or, "an absence of the seers or revelators." THE PROPHETS! The Holy Ghost is a spirit personage who, LDS are conferred with by the laying on of hands after baptism. He is the witness that God is the Father, and Jesus Christ is His son. He too has a name, we do not know of of course. Just like God is Elohim. And I am sure he too will have the chance of reaching Godhood or coming to the earth. I am thinking maybe in the millenium. But, you see I cannot know everything. WE CANNOT KNOW EVERYTHING. Their is so much more of the mysteries of God we cannot and will not know until we pass on, or even later than that. We are mortal and cannot even comprehend the many things our Father in Heaven has in store for us. We go by faith. But atleast the fullness and truth of Jesus Christ's gospel was restored!

Just like some of you said, early Christians preached of an apostasy, now they say their never was one. ????

Link to comment

Markk:

Post the creed here and tell me what part of it you disagree with?

I'll oblige:

The Nicene Creed

We believe in one God,

  the Father, the Almighty,

  maker of heaven and earth,

  of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,

  the only Son of God,

  eternally begotten of the Father,

  God from God, Light from Light,

  true God from true God,

  begotten, not made,

  of one Being with the Father.

  Through him all things were made.

  For us and for our salvation

    he came down from heaven:

  by the power of the Holy Spirit

    he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,

    and was made man.

  For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;

    he suffered death and was buried.

    On the third day he rose again

      in accordance with the Scriptures;

    he ascended into heaven

      and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

  He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,

    and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,

  who proceeds from the Father and the Son.

  With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.

  He has spoken through the Prophets.

  We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

  We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

  We look for the resurrection of the dead,

    and the life of the world to come.  Amen.

Personally, I disagree with the phrase "of one Being with the Father". I think the scriptures are clear that there is a sense in which the Father and Son are united and a sense in which they are separate. I think that the exact nature of their unity and separateness, based on the Bible alone, is debatable. I don't see where the Bible insists on the term "one Being".

Link to comment

Also, if Jesus Christ is the begotten son of the father, that makes a son, and a father. Just like here on earth I am the daughter of my father. That makes TWO personages. CAN IT BE ANY MORE OBVIOUS??? And now that I have come back to the church I am "one" in thought with my father in wanting eternal life and striving my best to be as Christ was. Though I am far off, LOL, that is what we are striving to do. Be "one" with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ in rightousness so we can become glorified and exalted as they are.

Link to comment
Hi CG and tresspass,

In your own words, explain to me what the doctrine of the triune God is. What do you think the protastant church believe the trinity is, this will help me to see where you are coming from.

Mark

John 1:12

Well what do you believe? Are you protestant? I know what I believe and that is that they are 3 seperate distinct personages. I guess that others believe they are "one" somehow. They all have different views, different ways at looking at it from what I have heard from friends all from different faiths. I am not familiar with the protestant view. Only that they believe they are "one." Maybe they believe that God sent himself as Jesus Christ and that the holy spirit is a feeling he gives them to know that he is God. That he could do that because he is "all powerful" or omething. But I don't know. Expound on your beliefs of the trinity please. I see what the Creed's declare, but what's your testimony of the Nature of God. Is he a man, an invisible force? Are they "one." If so why does Christ call him Father? Why would he send himself and pray to himself praying "Father." ??? If you could explain to me your views so I could understand how you look at it.

Link to comment

Markk:

In your own words, explain to me what the doctrine of the triune God is.

That's part of the problem. In the words of trinitarians, "there is one God, eternally existing in three persons". Three persons, but one substance. I can't express that in my own words. In my own words, it is a contradiction and is without meaning. I don't think trinitarians have resolved the contradiction of One God vs. Three Gods. They've just embraced it and accept it as part of the mystery of God. That just doesn't satisfy me.

What do you think the protastant church believe the trinity is

I'm still not convinced that I've met one who was comfortable that they understood the doctrine of the Trinity. I understand that there are three Persons. But when we get into "each of these persons is God", you lose me. I understand that modalism is considered erroneous, but I don't see how stating contradictions actually resolves anything. Particularly so when every conversation ultimately ends in "God is beyond comprehension".

Link to comment

== The Nicene Creed met together and made a formal statement to the nation of the holy trinity, declaring that it was "one." The Father and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one.

Actually, no. The Holy Spirit became "one" with the Trinity much later at the Council of Constantinople during the end of the fifth century. It is erroneous for us to keep referring to the Trinity as the Nicene Creed.

Link to comment
It doesn't make sense. God is Jesus Christ's Father, and our Father. He is our GOD.
Personally, I disagree with the phrase "of one Being with the Father".

Well all I can say is that the two of you have to come to grips with a little trouble in the BOM then, as it clearly reflects God and Jesus being one in the same in Alma 11:

"38 Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?

39 And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of

earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last;"

If He (Jesus and God) is the first and the last, they are one in the same!!!!!

Looks like it's time for the "revisionist definitions" to start!

Link to comment
== The Nicene Creed met together and made a formal statement to the nation of the holy trinity, declaring that it was "one." The Father and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one.

Actually, no. The Holy Spirit became "one" with the Trinity much later at the Council of Constantinople during the end of the fifth century. It is erroneous for us to keep referring to the Trinity as the Nicene Creed.

Well the Nicene Creed was a contributing factor. The point is some believed three seperate, some believed one, until everyones thinking was unified by Creeds and the Council of Constantinople.

Link to comment
It doesn't make sense. God is Jesus Christ's Father, and our Father. He is our GOD.
Personally, I disagree with the phrase "of one Being with the Father".

Well all I can say is that the two of you have to come to grips with a little trouble in the BOM then, as it clearly reflects God and Jesus being one in the same in Alma 11:

"38 Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?

39 And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of

earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last;"

If He (Jesus and God) is the first and the last, they are one in the same!!!!!

Looks like it's time for the "revisionist definitions" to start!

Jesus Christ and Michael created this earth under Heavenly Father's direction. Christ is our Saviour. We know from many other scriptural references and the first vision that they are indeed seperate. Some scripture can be confusing sometimes and misinterpreted. He is the Father of this Heaven and Earth because he created it. Under Heavenly Father's direction. And he represents the Father. Christ always was the one appearing being called "Lord" in the Book of Mormon. He was doing Heavenly Father's work. I believe the only time I know of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ actually appearing visibly together was at the first vision. And I think Heavenly Father did that because he saw how men had misconstrued His identity, and needed that to be KNOWN.

So..say someone were to call Joseph Smith a fruad. Which, he was not. But say someone did. If he claimed to see God the Father and Jesus Christ that were 2 distinct personages, but really didn't. And than somehow "conspired" to write the Book of Mormon. If he had said he saw two seperate personages, than in writing the Book of Mormon with his own words would definately NOT use a scripture verse like that...if he was trying to "trick" people into his new MORMON religion.

Sorry the above was a little confusing, but that was just what I was thinking at the moment. At how the Book of Mormon came about in 3 months. Could a man write the Book of Mormon in 3 months? Fraid NOT!

The problem is not the Book of Mormon, it's your misinterpretation. :P

Link to comment

Hi Trespass,

Thanks, it would only be a contridiction if God was man, but God is not a man, but the creator of man. It is a mystery to us and thats good, just like it's a mystery how He listens to every ones prayers at the same time, or how He spoke the world into existence, or how He knows how many feathers a sparrow has. And if you think about it, campare dto the things He does, His being must be even farther from our understanding.

So that said let me say that to "understand" Gods nature is impossible from a finite prospective, it would have to be, or He wouldn't be a very powerful God if we understood Him and his ways, But, we can and do have insight of His power and nature as proclaimed in His word. We know He created man out of the clay because the bible tells us, but we don't know how or the method in which it is done. Like wise with His nature, the bible teaches that there is only one God, thats clear, I understand that LDS believe different and have teachings that teach this from other sources, but the bible teaches that there is but one God, so this the biblical prespective. But, the bible also teaches that the Father is God, the son is God, and the Holy spirit is God. So one God three seperate persons. I don't understand it just as you don't understad how man can be both Body and spirit, yet one person.

So the creeds really mean nothing if they teach different than what the bible teaches, so to say the the Nic. creed established the teaching of the triune nature of God is just not true in that the Bible teaches His nature 300 years or so before these creeds where, and while the creeds have come and gone, the teaching in which these men made their article of faith from is still the same.

Mark

John 1:12

Link to comment

Markk:

Thank you for your response. And thank you for your respectful tone. Sadly, respect is almost the exception rather than the rule on message boards these days. I appreciate it.

So that said let me say that to "understand" Gods nature is impossible from a finite prospective, it would have to be, or He wouldn't be a very powerful God if we understood Him and his ways,

I readily accept that many aspects of God are beyond our comprehension. But I have problems when we start suggesting that God has multiple identities. Ironically, modalism makes perfect sense to me. But it is difficult to defend scripturally.

Here's my real problem with trinitinarianism: if we don't understand it, then what grounds do we have for offering a definition? If we don't understand how God can be three Persons but one Being, then why adopt that as our definition of God. You can't offer a definition for something you don't understand.

Webster's defines "being" as "a living thing; especially : PERSON". If "being" and "person" are synonyms, then when making a statement such as "three Persons, but one Being" some explanations need to be made as to what the difference is between a "person" and a "being". Otherwise, you've only provided a contradictory statement that is devoid of meaning. This explanation is what I'm missing from trinitarians.

An interesting side note: one of the definitions for "person" in Webster's is "one of the three modes of being in the Trinitarian Godhead as understood by Christians". It seems Webster's is suffering from the same ignorance I am. We both recognize that Trinitarians use the term in an unique way, but are at a loss to provide its meaning in that context.

I don't understand it just as you don't understad how man can be both Body and spirit, yet one person.

But I understand that both body and spirit are components of one combined entity. I can't say that about the Trinity. I don't have a problem with Trinitarians admitting that we don't understand everything about God. I have a problem with them making statements that (IMO) have no meaning, then failing to provide clarification. If you don't know how it can be true, then why should I believe you that it is true in the first place? Do you see where I'm coming from?

So the creeds really mean nothing if they teach different than what the bible teaches

And ultimately, it just boils down to an interpretation of the Bible. I don't believe the Bible ever uses the language "one Being" or "one substance". Since it doesn't, using such language is an interpretation. All I see is that the Bible makes it clear that there is a sense in which the Godhead is one and a sense in which they are three. I see the creeds as an attempt to make sense out of that. I don't see them as the only legitimate way to make sense out of that. Particularly since (to me) their explanation doesn't make a lot of sense.

the bible teaches that there is only one God, thats clear, I understand that LDS believe different and have teachings that teach this from other sources

Not quite 100% there. LDS believe that there is only one God just as the Bible teaches. However, in what sense is there only one God? In what sense are Jesus and the Father one? You say "in Being", but we say "in purpose". Both are reconciliations of apparently contradictory data. It's a battle of interpretations, not an issue of "who is on the Bible's side".

Link to comment

I read an interesting book written by a Jew that was titled "When Jesus Became God". It is amply evident from history that it was the belief of the apostles of Jesus, not a latter addition. Have you searched the matter out in the Bible account? If you did a thorough review you would find it inescapable to see that they believed Jesus was God veiling Himself in human flesh to fulfill His word and work and thereby redeem His people.

In Scripture we find that these are equated as states of being, not just purpose:

God and Christ

the Spirit of Christ and the Holy Spirit

God=Christ=Holy Spirit.

The mystery is how God emptied Himself to be found as a man and as man subjected himself to Himself to show us who He really is and reveal the fulness of the gospel to mankind through His love, obedience, submission, death and resurrection -- all in full accord with the prophecies and law of the OT.

Link to comment

Nepheye:

I read an interesting book written by a Jew that was titled "When Jesus Became God". It is amply evident from history that it was the belief of the apostles of Jesus, not a latter addition. Have you searched the matter out in the Bible account? If you did a thorough review you would find it inescapable to see that they believed Jesus was God veiling Himself in human flesh to fulfill His word and work and thereby redeem His people.

I'm not sure why you think that conflicts with the LDS position. LDS believe that Jesus is Jehovah. One in person, one in being -- just plain old "one person". Does that not account adequately for the belief you describe?

In Scripture we find that these are equated as states of being, not just purpose:

An example of which is precisely what I've been asking for. If you have one, where the scripture explicitly equates God and Christ as "states of being", I'd love to see it.

Link to comment
their would be atleast some other Church sects who believed the trinity to be 3 seperate and distinct personages.

Trinitarians do believe they are three separate and distinct persons.

To believe that 3 (being plural) is 1 is not correct.

There are three separate and distinct persons, sharing one substance.

God is Christs Father.  Jesus Christ prayed to Him as His Father.  Was he just praying to himself?

No; they are three separate and distinct persons. They share whatever the substance or essence is, that is their divinity. We know certain things about the divine substance, but we don't know exactly what that substance/essence is; that's the mystery.

Link to comment

Constantly thoughout Isaiah in the 40th chapter and a while thereafter, God says to his people I am the Lord your God, the Holy ONE of Israel. I am the only God specifically - 43:10 - I am the Lord you God before me none other was formed, nor will there be after me. He also claims to be the redeemer.

We know through the New Testament that Jesus is both LORD and Redeemer. Thus, Jesus was the one talking to Isaiah in these passages. We also know that there is only ONE God, and that Jesus and The Father must be the SAME in substance, for if Jesus was one substance, and the Father another substance, than there would be 2 Gods, even if they were the same in purpose, there would be more than one God, and then we would have to ask the question as to why we were praying to the Father, when we should be praying to Jesus, because he is our Lord.

We know because of the New Testament, that all 3 Jesus, The Father, and The Holy Spirit are ALL, FULLY God, because all three are equated various times throughout the New Testament. [and btw, if you're looking for biblical references ask me, but I"m trying to make this a shorter post]. So If all 3 of them are all FULLY God, then to take them apart in substance would be to say that there are three equally divine beings, which Isaiah 43:10 says clearly: "there is ONE God, and he is eternal, and there was and never will be another God."

Because the bible is a book, there are obviously going to be Rhetorical Devices thoughout the book, because that is a natural usage of people who write. One Rhetorical Device that is used in the bible is that of the Metaphor. So when the bible goes into a state of Vision, it would obviously be a key place to use metaphors to better aid the reader in understanding what's going on. So to say that Jesus sat at the right hand of God is a metaphor alluding to power and place. When it says God has body parts, whether they be eyes, noses, legs, arms, whatever...It can easily be seen as a rhetorical device to aid the reader in understanding more about God. Just because it is said that Jesus is at the right hand of God, doesn't necessarily mean that needs to be taken literally, and It can easily be seen why someone would write it in that way in order to help the reader understand the glory of Jesus.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...