#Nicene creed

[banishedchildofeve]

‘Jesus Christ in Sorrow in Gethsemane’ - Carl Heinrich Bloch

⠀ ⠀ ⠀ ⠀ ⠀ ⠀ ♰

[beloved-of-john]

it is absolutely not necessary to believe in a literal body resurrection to be Christian. this literalization of important stories does not make things more real.

for many people a literal body resurrection and a literal general resurrection of the dead are very definitely non sensical.

we are not bound to the 4th century worldview. the way Christians have understood Christianity has always been subject to evolution. the creation of the literal bodily resurrection you can see evolve in the new testament

Paul and Mark have no bodily resurrection. Matthew has visitations but in a way similar to the theophany @ sinai, a coming down from heaven.

John and Luke as the latest gospels have mixed aspects of their experience. experience that indicate a bodily resurrection tradition was. beginning by then.

I have to respectfully disagree. If you don't believe Jesus was physically raised from the dead then you are not believing the gospel. If a literal bodily resurrection is non-sensical, how do you deal with the raising of Lazarus? Do you pick and choose which of Jesus' miracles to believe in? Biblical literalism is not necessary in all cases, many parts of the Bible are written like poetry or literature to give us a better understanding of God, like the creation stories in Genesis, but this is not the case with accounts of Jesus' life. The gospels repeatedly ask you to believe the seemingly unbelievable. I'm not going to quote a load of scripture at you, but the New Testament does not support your view on this.

It is necessary to believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ as a Christian because God conquering human death is the foundation of our faith. Otherwise, what makes Jesus different to Elijah, who was taken up to God? The physical resurrection cannot be extracted from the belief of Jesus as our saviour. Plus, the Bible explicitly shows us that Jesus' physical body is resurrected, with Thomas touching Jesus's wounds still present on his body from the crucifixion.

Also, you imply that you believe Matthew and Mark to be true over Luke and John, because they came later and due to reasons of plausibility? Do you believe the gospels are divinely inspired or not? Don't get me wrong, you can be both a religious scholar and a Christian, but to be one doesn't make you the other. Being a Christian requires belief.

Also *out of breath* the Nicene Creed. God give me strength why does everyone think they just know better. It contains everything mandatory to believe to be a Christian.

"For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father."

Died -> buried -> rose -> ascended, not died -> buried -> ascended. There is no ascension without resurrection. The literal belief in THE key foundational concept of Christianity does in fact make things more real. Otherwise what is your faith based on?

[orthodoxadventure]

[matildalyonne]

Many have seen the picture (included for context) of boygenius dressed as the Trinity, with Julien – dressed as Jesus Christ – revealing she is wearing underwear emblazoned with “GOD’S EYES ONLY”, while Lucy – dressed as The Father – smirks and points at the article of clothing and Phoebe – as The Holy Ghost – covers her eyes.

This has raised a big question for some fans, namely: “Are Julien Baker and Lucy Dacus in a sexually intimate relationship?” This is truly no one's business. However, this photo also prompts a different and possibly more interesting question – what can we glean of the band’s theology of the Trinity based on the picture?

Phoebe – dressed as the Holy Ghost – averting her eyes in the picture has profound implications on the nature of the godhead. The most straightforward interpretation points to the boygenius picture depicting an understanding of the trinity that predates the 381 revision of the Nicene Creed at the First Council of Constantinople, which added the following lines to the Creed:

“And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.”

These lines were clarification on the nature of the Holy Ghost, who was mentioned in the original version of the creed established in 325, but not expressly stated to be worshipped or co-substantial with the Father and Son. The addition of these lines solidifies the council’s view of the Holy Ghost as an equal part of the Triune God. This view does not appear to be shared by the band members of boygenius, given that the Holy Ghost’s pose in the photo communicates a lack of authority to look beneath the underwear, implying that the Holy Ghost is not God.

The photo could also feasibly be interpreted from an Arian theology of Christ – that is to say that photo does not decisively communicate that Christ himself is God. Julien – as Christ - is looking away from the underwear, towards Lucy – as the Father. One could reasonably interpret the look as a one of deference. Perhaps only the Father is authorized to remove the underwear and gaze beneath. Whether Christ himself is able to look beneath the underwear is left inconclusive within the bounds of the photo. If Christ is also not considered to be equal and co-substantial with the Father as God, the picture may be Arian in nature. This, however, is less certain.

In conclusion, the picture depicts a view of the Trinity that is – at the very least – not in congruence with the Nicene Creed after its revision at the First Council of Constantinople, and could further be interpreted in an Arian view with some assumptions. However, for this viewer, one thing remains clear: seeing Julien Baker has me muttering “Jesus Christ”, even when it isn’t Halloween.

[apenitentialprayer]

i've read that mormons and JWs are considered heretics because they don't affirm the trinity, so i was wondering what the sort-of 'cut off' point is. like would the ACOE be considered heretics because they say mary isn't the mother of God, only the mother of christ, for example

Alrighty, this is a big one. So, as far as the Jehovah's Witnesses and the (mainstream) Latter Day Saints movement go, things are.... a little more complicated in terms of whether their doctrine is "heresy" or if they are just plain non-Christian (and thus wouldn't count as heretical).

The crux of the argument that they are not Christian is that they do not affirm the Nicene Creed, which was articulated during the Councils of Nicaea (325 AD) and Constantinople (381 AD). While Mormons and JWs can affirm the most primitive of Christian creeds ("Christ is Lord"), the Nicene Creed very quickly took on the status of the σύμβολον, or symbolum in Latin; the "symbol of faith," the creed whose affirmation is itself a verification of one's Christian identity. That's why during the Council of Trent, for example, the Tridentine Fathers invited Protestants to participate in the Council on the condition that they could still affirm the Creed.

Of course, Mormons and JWs do not see it that way. They self-identify as Christians; and each group doesn't see themselves just as Christians, but as restorers of a purer, more original Christianity that had existed before the creation of that Creed.

But, anyway, if the conclusion of this argument is accepted, and members of the (mainstream) Latter Day Saints movement and Jehovah's Witnesses are not considered Christian, they by definition cannot be considered heretics; per the Baltimore Catechism, heretics are "baptized Christians, but do not believe all the articles of faith" (Q 1170).

The Assyrian Church of the East affirms the Nicene Creed, have Apostolic Succession, and have limited intercommunion with the Catholic Church. And, Christologically, they have an interesting situation going on. The Assyrian Church has not formally accepted the dogmatic Christological definitions of the Council of Ephesus (431). And, on that alone, the ACoE would seem to fit into the Baltimore Catechism's definition of heretic.

But over 1550 years after that split, the leaders of both the Assyrian Church of the East and the Catholic Church signed a document that affirmed that both Churches saw the other's Christological doctrines as valid, and that both theologies were expressions of the same Apostolic faith. You can read the full document, which is not very long, here.

But to abstract the discussion of heresy for a moment (bold of me to do, admittedly, after saying the last ask was a little vague); we need to make a distinction between formal heresy and material heresy. As Pope Benedict noted in 1993, which itself was an echo of the 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia's description of heresy, the defining characteristic of formal heresy is pertinacia, which can be translated as "stubbornness." What makes a person a "heretic" in a condemnable sense is this pertinacia, this holding fast to falsehoods in defiance of correction by proper authority.

So while the first generations of Protestants may be considered formal heretics, Pope Benedict noted that this does not reflect the actual social and religious conditions of Protestants living today, who are simply living out their Christian faith in the traditions that have arisen since the Reformation. They may be material heretics, and the doctrines of Protestantism may be considered heretical from the Catholic viewpoint, but being a Protestant does not automatically incur the guilt of heresy.

And, in all honesty, most Christians alive today (and most Christians in all ages) have in all probability been material heretics - i.e., they hold some wrong or incorrect opinions concerning the faith, but simply out of ignorance and not in defiance of proper authority. And that is not a sin.

[thepastisalreadywritten]

SAINT OF THE DAY (January 2)

St. Basil, one of the most distinguished Doctors of the Church and Bishop of Caesarea, was likely born in 329 and died on 1 January 379.

He ranks after Athanasius as a defender of the Oriental Church against the heresies of the fourth century, especially Arianism, which denied the divine nature of Jesus Christ. 

He was also a strong supporter of the Nicene Creed.

With his friend Gregory of Nazianzus and his brother Gregory of Nyssa, he is part of the trio known as "The Three Cappadocians" — of which he was the most important in practical genius and theological writings.

Basil resisted the pressure from Emperor Valens, an Arian himself, who wanted to keep him in silence and admit the heretics to communion. 

No wonder the responsibility of being the defender of the faith against Aryanism fell upon Basil when the great St. Athanasius died.

Seventy-two years after his death, the Council of Chalcedon described him as “the great Basil, minister of grace who has expounded the truth to the whole earth.”

[idylls-of-the-divine-romance]

Me: Ooohhh yeah! Let's have a discussion on theology and philosophy.

Them: Everything went wrong after the Council of Nicea.

Me: I know longer trust your opinion on anything T-T

[jurakan]

I keep thinking, for some reason, about Medieval Lives (a book that's a collection of short stories about 'medieval' figures), and that one part in the Saint Helena chapter where a character , who if I recall was the author's version of a famous theologian, said that the Nicene Creed was deliberately crafted in a way that was ambiguous enough to keep both heterodox Christians and Arians happy, without offending either, and, uh...

It's not.

It's really, really not.

The Nicene Creed is in no way ambiguous in its refutation of Arianism.

[seekingtheosis]

Understanding Formal Creed Statements: Its Need in Early Christianity

Explore the need for formal creed statements in early Christianity, addressing false teachings like Gnosticism, Docetism, and Arianism to preserve the true faith of the Church.

In the name of God the Father, Christ Jesus His Son and the Holy Spirit, One True God. Amen. Dear brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus In the previous blog, where we introduced the topic of the Statement of Faith, we learned how the early Christian statement of faith, encapsulated in the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed, played a pivotal role in defining and uniting Christian belief across…

[rabbits-of-negative-euphoria]

prettypianoprincess: What is the creed?

"I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and earth; and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of His Father before all worlds: God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made; being of one substance with the Father, by Whom all things were made: Who for us men and for our salvation came down from Heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into Heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father. And He shall come again with glory to judge both the living and the dead Whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Spirit, The Lord, and Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; Who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. And I look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.

Amen."

if they don't affirm the Nicene Creed, they are not Christians. if they claim to be Christians but they don't affirm the Nicene Creed, they are 9 times out of 10 a cult.

[mindfulldsliving]

Comparative Theology on the Nature of the Father - Rejecting the Valentinus Gnostic Heresy and Gnostic Heresy of the Trinity

Photo by Tima Miroshnichenko on Pexels.com At 15 years of age, a young man by the name of Joseph Smith entered into a wooded place near his home and prayed. This has become known as the First Vision where Joseph Smith records various religious denominations engaged in preaching and proselytizing individuals. Upon reading James 1:5, he shares that he had determined to seek God for answers to his…

[biblebloodhound]

I Want To Know Christ (Philippians 3:7-11)

We must let go and accept how something or someone is, before we can experience what a truly good life really is.

Jesus Christ and the Apostles, by Nikolas Martínez Ortiz de Zarate (1907-1990) But whatever were gains to me I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of…

[shamballalin]

Lilith

Spiritual maturity is needed to allow yourself to read this book. It is not for the faint of heart. If this book has found its way to you and is in your hands, it is finally time for you to know what has been kept from you and humanity for 1,698 years. What I am going to share with you in this book was once common knowledge for 325 years following the crucifixion of Jesus until men, not God,…

[orthodoxadventure]

[apenitentialprayer]

How much Latin should a Catholic know? For example, should one know Our Father? Hail Mary? The whole rosary? Entire Creeds? None? Would love your opinion/scholarly analysis! Always appreciate you, God bless

I don't think there is a cookie-cutter answer for this. If I had to give a no-nuance answer to the minimum amount of Latin an individual Catholic should know, I'd say "the amount of Latin used in your region's average Novus Ordo Mass."

That being said, I am never going to advocate against learning a language. I think there are a lot of benefits in learning and studying a given text in its original language (or, in the case of the Creeds and the standard prayers, in the language through which the Latin Church Fathers interpreted them).

To use one example: in the United States, the English translation of the Nicene Creed used in the Roman Rite uses the phrase "I believe in one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church." But if you look at the original ("original"; bear with me) Latin, there is no "I believe in," but "I believe." (Credo in unum Deum […] Et in unum Dominum […] Et in Spiritum Sanctum […] Et unum, sanctam, catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam). This linguistic construction was considered very important to the Latin Fathers; you "believed in," you placed your faith in, the three Persons of the Trinity in a way you didn't "believe in" the Church. You simply believed the Church in what She said about the God who established Her. This is a nuance that is lost in our English translation.

To be quite honest with you, I pray purely in the vernacular. English is the one and only language that I feel comfortable inhabiting enough to speak to God in. (Hopefully someday soon I will add Swedish to that list, but for now I am a living American stereotype). But if you look at the Pater Noster, or the Ave Maria, or the text of the Missale Romanum, you know, you potentially learn to look at these prayers in a new way.

So the short answer, really; you shouldn't feel obligated to know Latin, but learning Latin might help you gain further insight into the prayer life of the Latin Church.

[dreamerroy]

Nicene Creed: Opening lines!!