The Nicene Creed

[jocor]

The following version of the Nicene Creed is found at https://www.ccel.org/creeds/nicene.creed.html. The red words are those that I believe are unscriptural. The blue words are those I believe should be added to make the creed more scriptural. I will be commenting on the colored portions in other posts as I explain why they are either unscriptural or should be added.

I believe in one 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 the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not and made, being of one substance with the Father, by through whom all things were made.

Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of through 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 the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Spirit Ghost, 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 through the prophets.

And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

 

[jocor]

begotten of the Father before all worlds -

The first use of the word “begotten” in reference to the Son is found in Psalm 2:7;

I will declare the decree: the LORD (YHWH) hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.​

The fulfillment of this verse is found in Acts 13:33;

God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus (Yeshua) again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.​

This obviously took place after the “world” was made, not "before".

All other references to the Son being begotten refer to either his conception/birth or to his resurrection as the first begotten from the dead. Those, too, took place after the "world" was made.

 

[By Grace]

Everyone is entitled to have his own opinion, and we just read yours.

HOWEVER, since your avatar states that you are NOT a Christian, do you not think that it is rather presumptuous for a non-Christian to tell Christians what they should and should not believe?

Beyond that obvious point, if you are wanting to make a case that the words you made red are "not Scriptural" then you have the FIRST burden of proof to demonstrate that that the words in red are not supported in Scripture.

Then you also have a SECOND burden of proof to explain to Christians exactly why you believe that your words are more Scripture-based than are the ones translated from the Latin, and is accepted as an accurate representation of the true Christian faith by the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church and most Protestant churches, excluding the cults.

In your opposition to all those, you are opposing 1700 years of scholars, and the men who who had access to the Greek manuscripts that were closest to the original documents written by the Apostles, and the Gospel writers. Therefore, I respectfully ask why you, who is not a Christian, and who most likely has no knowledge of the transmission of the Scriptures. and who has no interest in what the NT says because you are not a Christian are making so much ado about something that is not important to you?

 

[By Grace]

begotten of the Father before all worlds - <snip>

If you wish to post about something being "wrong" in the English translation of a Greek NT word, it is always a good idea to use the original Greek word. That is because sometimes the English meanings change from what was written in the KJV. I say that because although the KJV was a very good translation for its time, there are now more Greek manuscripts available than in 1611, and the nuances in the Greek are better expressed using different English words.

 

[jocor]

Everyone is entitled to have his own opinion, and we just read yours.

HOWEVER, since your avatar states that you are NOT a Christian, do you not think that it is rather presumptuous for a non-Christian to tell Christians what they should and should not believe?

When I first registered on this forum, I was asked if I was a "Christian", yes or no. There was no button to click saying I was a Messianic Israelite or of the Way or a Nazarene ... Since I reject several key doctrines of post Apostolic Christianity and since Christians have told me I'm not a Christian because of those doctrinal differences, I thought it best to just say "no". However, I have received Messiah Yeshua as my Master and Savior, am washed and redeemed by his blood, and serve him as best I can as the Spirit leads me. I believe what I see written in the original languages of the OT and NT and, for the most part, in English as well. So, no, it is not presumptuous of me to tell anyone what we should believe based on what Scripture says.

Beyond that obvious point, if you are wanting to make a case that the words you made red are "not Scriptural" then you have the FIRST burden of proof to demonstrate that that the words in red are not supported in Scripture.

That is what I am doing. If I have not given enough proof that the phrase "begotten of the Father before all worlds" is unscriptural, then show me where I have erred.

Then you also have a SECOND burden of proof to explain to Christians exactly why you believe that your words are more Scripture-based than are the ones translated from the Latin, and is accepted as an accurate representation of the true Christian faith by the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church and most Protestant churches, excluding the cults.

I am doing that as well.

In your opposition to all those, you are opposing 1700 years of scholars, and the men who who had access to the Greek manuscripts that were closest to the original documents written by the Apostles, and the Gospel writers. Therefore, I respectfully ask why you, who is not a Christian, and who most likely has no knowledge of the transmission of the Scriptures. and who has no interest in what the NT says because you are not a Christian are making so much ado about something that is not important to you?

Your last sentence is based on your ignorance of me and what I know. As for your first sentence, Yeshua opposed roughly 2,000 years of Hebrew scholars who had access to the Hebrew Scriptures. His Spirit lives in me. Therefore, it is important to me that Christians, my brothers and sisters in Messiah, understand what the Nicene Creed teaches and what they are affirming when they accept it. I would venture to say that the majority of Christians 1) do not know what it says and 2) do not understand why portions of it are unscriptural; thus, this thread.

In your second post you wrote:

If you wish to post about something being "wrong" in the English translation of a Greek NT word, it is always a good idea to use the original Greek word. That is because sometimes the English meanings change from what was written in the KJV. I say that because although the KJV was a very good translation for its time, there are now more Greek manuscripts available than in 1611, and the nuances in the Greek are better expressed using different English words.

My second post was not opposing "the English translation of a Greek NT word". I was opposing the phrase "before all worlds" which is not found in Scripture (OT and NT). We would make much better progress if you would not make assumptions about me and if you would read my posts more thoroughly.

 

[smaller]

begotten of the Father before all worlds -

Without beginning or ending would perhaps be more accurate. Before all worlds is kinda lame.

The first use of the word “begotten” in reference to the Son is found in Psalm 2:7;

I will declare the decree: the LORD (YHWH) hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.​

The fulfillment of this verse is found in Acts 13:33;

God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus (Yeshua) again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.​

This obviously took place after the “world” was made, not "before".

There is nothing in the Nicene Creed that I'm aware of, nor in orthodox understandings of the Trinity that denies that Jesus had a "created/made" body.

Nevertheless in His Body was the Spirit without Measure, which can only be The Spirit of God. John 3:34

All other references to the Son being begotten refer to either his conception/birth or to his resurrection as the first begotten from the dead. Those, too, took place after the "world" was made.

The Body of Jesus was surely Glorified for a reason, to show us the end game for ourselves.

 

[brother Paul]

begotten of the Father before all worlds -

The first use of the word “begotten” in reference to the Son is found in Psalm 2:7;

I will declare the decree: the LORD (YHWH) hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.​

The fulfillment of this verse is found in Acts 13:33;

God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus (Yeshua) again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.​

This obviously took place after the “world” was made, not "before".

All other references to the Son being begotten refer to either his conception/birth or to his resurrection as the first begotten from the dead. Those, too, took place after the "world" was made.

This word does not mean begotten as in the relationship of an offspring to their parent, it refers to being eternally one of a kind/unique (monogenes) and refers to the incarnation, not to the Son/Word's essential being which is the same as the Father (of one substance with Him and the Spirit....their is only one YHVH, and He IS the Father, the Son, and the Spirit)

 

[th1b.taylor]

When I first registered on this forum, I was asked if I was a "Christian", yes or no. There was no button to click saying I was a Messianic Israelite or of the Way or a Nazarene ... Since I reject several key doctrines of post Apostolic Christianity and since Christians have told me I'm not a Christian because of those doctrinal differences, I thought it best to just say "no". However, I have received Messiah Yeshua as my Master and Savior, am washed and redeemed by his blood, and serve him as best I can as the Spirit leads me. I believe what I see written in the original languages of the OT and NT and, for the most part, in English as well. So, no, it is not presumptuous of me to tell anyone what we should believe based on what Scripture says.


That is what I am doing. If I have not given enough proof that the phrase "begotten of the Father before all worlds" is unscriptural, then show me where I have erred.


I am doing that as well.


Your last sentence is based on your ignorance of me and what I know. As for your first sentence, Yeshua opposed roughly 2,000 years of Hebrew scholars who had access to the Hebrew Scriptures. His Spirit lives in me. Therefore, it is important to me that Christians, my brothers and sisters in Messiah, understand what the Nicene Creed teaches and what they are affirming when they accept it. I would venture to say that the majority of Christians 1) do not know what it says and 2) do not understand why portions of it are unscriptural; thus, this thread.

In your second post you wrote:


My second post was not opposing "the English translation of a Greek NT word". I was opposing the phrase "before all worlds" which is not found in Scripture (OT and NT). We would make much better progress if you would not make assumptions about me and if you would read my posts more thoroughly.

Jocor,
You and I have and you and I may cross swords in the future but to tell you that you are not a Christian because you hold or do not hold this or that doctrinal point is not scriptural and you should always consider the source and if it is not the Bible nor is it the Holy Spirit, tested against the scriptures, ignore them. If the modern day New Testament and these fly by night New Covenat Christians had their way, those stinking Jews, Paul, James, Peter and the rest of that bunch would be drummed out of the Church.

I am often caught telling people that when we are all seated at the feet of Jesus, in Heaven, He will straighten every one of us, the believers, out. If we are faithful, daily we grow and if we are growing, we are not perfect. God bless my brother.

 

[brother Paul]

Jocor,
You and I have and you and I may cross swords in the future but to tell you that you are not a Christian because you hold or do not hold this or that doctrinal point is not scriptural and you should always consider the source and if it is not the Bible nor is it the Holy Spirit, tested against the scriptures, ignore them. If the modern day New Testament and these fly by night New Covenat Christians had their way, those stinking Jews, Paul, James, Peter and the rest of that bunch would be drummed out of the Church.

I am often caught telling people that when we are all seated at the feet of Jesus, in Heaven, He will straighten every one of us, the believers, out. If we are faithful, daily we grow and if we are growing, we are not perfect. God bless my brother.

Amen to that brother T

 

[smaller]

I respect any believer who upholds every Word of God. Most Messianic believers do make that effort. Though many equally fall short when engaging the Apostolic sights of Paul in particular, as they wrongly see Paul as against the law when he was not.

While I might disagree with their conclusions about what that effort really means, I am in alignment with those efforts. And I believe jocor does make that attempt. Many Messianics also have various issues with the Trinity construct, although I think they are biased not so much because of the sights, but because of the church(es) through which they came.

I might disagree with some postures of christian orthodoxy, but the Trinity is not one for debate. It's sound reasoning and was/is used to counter a plethora of bad alternatives.

Colossians 2:9
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

 

[jocor]

Without beginning or ending would perhaps be more accurate. Before all worlds is kinda lame.

The phrase, "begotten of the Father before all worlds" has nothing to do with any "ending", but certainly with a "beginning".

There is nothing in the Nicene Creed that I'm aware of, nor in orthodox understandings of the Trinity that denies that Jesus had a "created/made" body.

I will address this soon.

Nevertheless in His Body was the Spirit without Measure, which can only be The Spirit of God. John 3:34


The Body of Jesus was surely Glorified for a reason, to show us the end game for ourselves.

I agree.

 

[smaller]

The phrase, "begotten of the Father before all worlds" has nothing to do with any "ending", but certainly with a "beginning".

I believe the term Mystery sums up any loose edges in our efforts quite nicely. No amounts of constructs are really adequate to "capture God." At least not in my mind. That is somewhat idolatrous, that effort. To carve God and make Him fit in our language boxes. Then demand others worship it. And to cut out the tongues of disagreement, or burn them alive at the stake only exacerbated the problems.

1 Timothy 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.

Yes, all quite entirely A Great Mystery to me. Unfathomable. While I respect, greatly, the conclusions of Trinitarian definitions, even they acknowledged The Mystery of God manifest in flesh, and that any definitions do not necessarily equate to "entire capture."

 

[jocor]

This word does not mean begotten as in the relationship of an offspring to their parent, it refers to being eternally one of a kind/unique (monogenes) and refers to the incarnation, not to the Son/Word's essential being which is the same as the Father (of one substance with Him and the Spirit....their is only one YHVH, and He IS the Father, the Son, and the Spirit)

Not just "unique", but "uniquely begotten." The word comes from two Greek words, monos meaning sole or unique and ginomai meaning "to cause to be, to become, to come into being". Yeshua was uniquely brought into being at his conception/birth. He is the only child Fathered directly by Yahweh through His spoken words and thoughts (logos).

You said it refers to his "incarnation" which proves my point. His "incarnation" took place in Mary's womb long after the "worlds" were created. Therefore, the phrase "before all worlds" is unscriptural.

 

[jocor]

Jocor,
You and I have and you and I may cross swords in the future but to tell you that you are not a Christian because you hold or do not hold this or that doctrinal point is not scriptural and you should always consider the source and if it is not the Bible nor is it the Holy Spirit, tested against the scriptures, ignore them. If the modern day New Testament and these fly by night New Covenat Christians had their way, those stinking Jews, Paul, James, Peter and the rest of that bunch would be drummed out of the Church.

I am often caught telling people that when we are all seated at the feet of Jesus, in Heaven, He will straighten every one of us, the believers, out. If we are faithful, daily we grow and if we are growing, we are not perfect. God bless my brother.

Thanks Bill.

 

[jocor]

I respect any believer who upholds every Word of God. Most Messianic believers do make that effort. Though many equally fall short when engaging the Apostolic sights of Paul in particular, as they wrongly see Paul as against the law when he was not.

While I do not want this thread derailed into a law thread, I just want to say that in my circles, it is the Messianics that see Paul upholding the law and mainline Christians seeing Paul abolishing the law.

 

[smaller]

While I do not want this thread derailed into a law thread, I just want to say that in my circles, it is the Messianics that see Paul upholding the law and mainline Christians seeing Paul abolishing the law.

I agree with Messianics on that sight fwiw. Perhaps a different thread sometime.

 

[brother Paul]

Not just "unique", but "uniquely begotten." The word comes from two Greek words, monos meaning sole or unique and ginomai meaning "to cause to be, to become, to come into being". Yeshua was uniquely brought into being at his conception/birth. He is the only child Fathered directly by Yahweh through His spoken words and thoughts (logos).

You said it refers to his "incarnation" which proves my point. His "incarnation" took place in Mary's womb long after the "worlds" were created. Therefore, the phrase "before all worlds" is unscriptural.

Yes but He existed as the uncreated eternal Son/Word (Hebrews 1) before being MADE incarnate (Hebrews 2)....The “Word of God” to the Targumim for example was a personae or hypostasis of the living God (YHVH), and yet strangely separate from Him (as given us in Isaiah 48 and Zechariah 2). The concept of God’s “Word“ as a person of YHVH, or as the temporal visible or audible expression of God, primarily has its roots in and develops out of the Hebrew scriptures, and is also present in pre-Christian traditions in the works, and commentaries of ancient 1st and 2nd century Rabbinical scholarship.

 

[jocor]

begotten, not made -

It is interesting that the creed says the Son was "not made" in the above phrase, but then, in the very next sentence, says, "and was made man." There is no doubt that the Son was both begotten "and" made which is why I believe "not" is unscriptural and "and" should be added.

John 1:14 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.​

Perhaps the authors of the creed believe he was "made" a man, but was "begotten" eons before his birth. If that is so, consider this; since the word "begotten" (monogenes) means "uniquely came into being", then that shows there was a point in time that the Son came to be, came to exist. If that time was eons before his birth, then it conflicts with the trinitarian belief that the Son is co-eternal.

 

[jocor]

Yes but He existed as the uncreated eternal Son/Word (Hebrews 1) before being MADE incarnate (Hebrews 2)....The “Word of God” to the Targumim for example was a personae or hypostasis of the living God (YHVH), and yet strangely separate from Him (as given us in Isaiah 48 and Zechariah 2). The concept of God’s “Word“ as a person of YHVH, or as the temporal visible or audible expression of God, primarily has its roots in and develops out of the Hebrew scriptures, and is also present in pre-Christian traditions in the works, and commentaries of ancient 1st and 2nd century Rabbinical scholarship.

None of this addresses the issue at hand. Was the Son "begotten of the Father before all worlds"? You said he was "begotten" at his "incarnation". That would be his conception, correct? Yes. I agree that begotten refers to his conception although I disagree with the term "incarnation". However, "incarnation" is irrelevant since it happened at conception and not "before all worlds". Can you pinpoint a time where Yeshua was "begotten ... before all worlds"? If not, then my view that "before all worlds" is unscriptural has been proven true.

 

[smaller]

None of this addresses the issue at hand. Was the Son "begotten of the Father before all worlds"?

Nay. Eternal CoExistence!

The Son Is and always has been the EXPRESSION of God. The Image of God.

His "Expression" was in a created perfect human body. It was His flesh BODY that was made, and as such The First Begotten Son in a human body. The First Fruit, harvested.

You said he was "begotten" at his "incarnation". That would be his conception, correct? Yes.

No. See prior. God Himself participated in creation in a created made human body. This is the great mystery. That God Himself partook in His Own creation. God with us.

I agree that begotten refers to his conception although I disagree with the term "incarnation". However, "incarnation" is irrelevant since it happened at conception and not "before all worlds". Can you pinpoint a time where Yeshua was "begotten ... before all worlds"? If not, then my view that "before all worlds" is unscriptural has been proven true.

Whatever 'plan' God had in Mind was also 'eternal.' This is problematic to wrap our minds around.