The word, "Doctrine"

[Willie T]

Looking at these dates, I can't help wondering just how much got left out, or how many individual and perhaps personally biased perceived notions may have been added in, when the compliers of some hundreds of years old letters finally got around to writing a creed..... which it seems the original authors of the letters didn't actually do themselves.... since they would have been long dead by then.

Creed Dates, Accepted by, Original name, and Notes Link to text
Apostles' Creed 120-250 Western Church Lat.: Symbolum Apostolorum or Symbolum Apostolicum Product of the Roman Christians around A.D.180, who developed an early form of the Apostles' Creed, possibly to critique Marcion. "Apostles' Creed".

Creed of Nicaea 325 Ecumenical Church Greek: Σύμβολον τῆς Νικαίας or, τῆς πίστεως, Latin: Symbolum Nicaenum Product of the first ecumenical council in Nicaea which tried to solve the Arian controversy.[2] "Creed of Nicaea".

Nicene Creed (Nicaea-Constantinopolitan Creed) 381 Ecumenical Church Expansion and revision of the 325 Creed of Nicaea (includes new section on Holy Spirit). It is the most widely accepted Christian creed.
It critiques apollinarism and a later addition, the Filioque clause, resulted in disagreement between Eastern Christianity and Western Christianity.

"Nicene Creed".
Chalcedonian Creed 451 Council of Chalcedon Latin: Concilium Chalcedonense In response to Nestorian teachings, the Chalcedonian formulation defines that Christ is "acknowledged in two natures", which "come together into one person and one hypostasis". Accepted by nearly all Christian denominations (except Oriental Orthodoxy, the Assyrian Church of the East, and much of Restorationism).

Athanasian Creed 500 Western Christian denominations Lat.: Quicumque vult The origin of this creed is uncertain, but it is widely used in various Christian denominations. "Athanasian Creed".

 

[Marymog]

Fairly close. If everyone claims they are exclusively correct, is anyone?

I will take close....:)

No....Only the Church that is built upon a rock is correct. 1 Timothy 3:15, Matthew 16:18; 18:17

 

[Marymog]

MM,
You seem to like to research things. I do not know this answer, but perhaps you could tell us if the timeframes of the writing of these various creeds that we attribute to men who sat at the Apostle's feet relates accurately to the life spans of both the "teachers" and the "students" who penned the creeds.

I'm going by this statement I once read: "The earliest known mention of the expression "Apostles' Creed" occurs in a letter of AD 390."

Hi,

I do like to research (learn) things that I don't know....

A writing from Tertullian (155-220AD) around the year 200AD has parts of the Creed in it so those parts either started with him or he was taught it. It is not known who he was a student of or if he was self taught. So to connect those parts that he wrote to an Apostle has not been done. Scripture does say stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter. That makes it possible (but un-provable) that he received those words via Apostolic Succession.

The Creed is only a reflection of Church beliefs. It was penned to help the average Christian learn their faith by having a statement of what they believe. A readers digest version if you will.

The Apostles Creed was orignilly called the Old Roman Creed and their is no historical evidence that it was written or dictated by the Apostles.

Why is it important to narrow down when a creed was first written? Does an earlier date make it more doctrinally valid and a later date nullify it? Is there any part of the text that is not supported by the Bible?

Researcher, Mary

Ref: Tertullian De Virg., vel 1.Trinity In You | Trinity In You

 

[Marymog]

Looking at these dates, I can't help wondering just how much got left out, or how many individual and perhaps personally biased perceived notions may have been added in, when the compliers of some hundreds of years old letters finally got around to writing a creed..... which it seems the original authors of the letters didn't actually do themselves.... since they would have been long dead by then.

Creed Dates, Accepted by, Original name, and Notes Link to text
Apostles' Creed 120-250 Western Church Lat.: Symbolum Apostolorum or Symbolum Apostolicum Product of the Roman Christians around A.D.180, who developed an early form of the Apostles' Creed, possibly to critique Marcion. "Apostles' Creed".

Creed of Nicaea 325 Ecumenical Church Greek: Σύμβολον τῆς Νικαίας or, τῆς πίστεως, Latin: Symbolum Nicaenum Product of the first ecumenical council in Nicaea which tried to solve the Arian controversy.[2] "Creed of Nicaea".

Nicene Creed (Nicaea-Constantinopolitan Creed) 381 Ecumenical Church Expansion and revision of the 325 Creed of Nicaea (includes new section on Holy Spirit). It is the most widely accepted Christian creed.
It critiques apollinarism and a later addition, the Filioque clause, resulted in disagreement between Eastern Christianity and Western Christianity.

"Nicene Creed".
Chalcedonian Creed 451 Council of Chalcedon Latin: Concilium Chalcedonense In response to Nestorian teachings, the Chalcedonian formulation defines that Christ is "acknowledged in two natures", which "come together into one person and one hypostasis". Accepted by nearly all Christian denominations (except Oriental Orthodoxy, the Assyrian Church of the East, and much of Restorationism).

Athanasian Creed 500 Western Christian denominations Lat.: Quicumque vult The origin of this creed is uncertain, but it is widely used in various Christian denominations. "Athanasian Creed".

WOW......You have done better research than me.....

IMPRESSIVE!!!

Do you disagree with any parts of the Apostles Creed?

Mary

 

[Willie T]

WOW......You have done better research than me.....

IMPRESSIVE!!!

Do you disagree with any parts of the Apostles Creed?

Mary

The main thing I take exception to with any of those three or four dozen creeds is that Jesus never developed a "creed" we were to adopt, so where did we come up with the idea that we needed to devise them? To me, this is man's intervention of trying to institutionalize what Jesus simply walked, talked, and lived.

 

[aspen]

Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

 

[aspen]

Looking at these dates, I can't help wondering just how much got left out, or how many individual and perhaps personally biased perceived notions may have been added in, when the compliers of some hundreds of years old letters finally got around to writing a creed..... which it seems the original authors of the letters didn't actually do themselves.... since they would have been long dead by then.

Creed Dates, Accepted by, Original name, and Notes Link to text
Apostles' Creed 120-250 Western Church Lat.: Symbolum Apostolorum or Symbolum Apostolicum Product of the Roman Christians around A.D.180, who developed an early form of the Apostles' Creed, possibly to critique Marcion. "Apostles' Creed".

Creed of Nicaea 325 Ecumenical Church Greek: Σύμβολον τῆς Νικαίας or, τῆς πίστεως, Latin: Symbolum Nicaenum Product of the first ecumenical council in Nicaea which tried to solve the Arian controversy.[2] "Creed of Nicaea".

Nicene Creed (Nicaea-Constantinopolitan Creed) 381 Ecumenical Church Expansion and revision of the 325 Creed of Nicaea (includes new section on Holy Spirit). It is the most widely accepted Christian creed.
It critiques apollinarism and a later addition, the Filioque clause, resulted in disagreement between Eastern Christianity and Western Christianity.

"Nicene Creed".
Chalcedonian Creed 451 Council of Chalcedon Latin: Concilium Chalcedonense In response to Nestorian teachings, the Chalcedonian formulation defines that Christ is "acknowledged in two natures", which "come together into one person and one hypostasis". Accepted by nearly all Christian denominations (except Oriental Orthodoxy, the Assyrian Church of the East, and much of Restorationism).

Athanasian Creed 500 Western Christian denominations Lat.: Quicumque vult The origin of this creed is uncertain, but it is widely used in various Christian denominations. "Athanasian Creed".

So why do church historians and authors suddenly get sloppy and reckless after Jesus returns to the Father? Yet, for millennia prior, they were inspired and trustworthy?

 

[Willie T]

So why do church historians and authors suddenly get sloppy and reckless after Jesus returns to the Father? Yet, for millennia prior, they were inspired and trustworthy?

What are you talking about... "sloppy and reckless?" I suggested that after hundreds of years, interpretations of the meanings of long-ago written letters would be quite suspect of picking up traits of the developing religious views of the compilers of those many creeds. (And, by simply reading each of them, we can see that, "Yes" indeed, several differing points of view worked their ways into each of the various creeds.)

I'm a little surprised to see this supposition challenged, when it is a rather consistent cry that all of the newer versions of the Bible, itself, have picked up the esoteric notions and understandings that the people who transcribed or translated them adhere to in their personal viewpoints. Is it believed that anyone "rendering" a new look at the Bible is, of course, going to be prejudiced and biased... but there is no way it ever could have happened with the authors of the Creeds?

 

[Enoch111]

Do you disagree with any parts of the Apostles Creed?

Christians cannot really disagree with any part of the Apostles'Creed. But they may disagree with how the RCC interprets *the Holy Catholic Church* and "the Communion of Saints*. And had the Creed stated that "He descended into Hades" (rather than Hell) that would have been very helpful.

 

[Philip James]

interpretations of the meanings of long-ago written letters would be quite suspec

Hmmm...

Think its hard to misinterpet this:

"But mark ye those who hold strange doctrine
touching the grace of Jesus Christ which came to us,
how that they are contrary to the mind of God. They
have no care for love, none for the widow, none for
the orphan, none for the afflicted, none for the
prisoner, none for the hungry or thirsty. They abstain
from eucharist (thanksgiving) and prayer, because they
allow not that the eucharist is the flesh of our
Saviour Jesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our
sins, and which the Father of His goodness raised up."

Ignatius to the Smyrneans St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans (Lightfoot translation)

Peace be with you!

 

[Jay Ross]

Hmmm...

Think its hard to misinterpet this:

"But mark ye those who hold strange doctrine
touching the grace of Jesus Christ which came to us,
how that they are contrary to the mind of God. They
have no care for love, none for the widow, none for
the orphan, none for the afflicted, none for the
prisoner, none for the hungry or thirsty. They abstain
from eucharist (thanksgiving) and prayer, because they
allow not that the eucharist is the flesh of our
Saviour Jesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our
sins, and which the Father of His goodness raised up."

Ignatius to the Smyrneans St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans (Lightfoot translation)

Peace be with you!

A friend of mine used to say that if you copy it right, then it is copywrite.

Sadly, the document has been translated. Now did the translator copy it right with his translation?

Shalom

 

[Willie T]

WOW......You have done better research than me.....

IMPRESSIVE!!!

Do you disagree with any parts of the Apostles Creed?

Mary

Since it has been a while since I read The Apostle's creed, I just did so again. And, "Yes", although it isn't too important to me, and I had forgotten the exact words they used, "Yes" there is much in that creed that I feel falls short of fully stating some things the way they should have been mentioned therein…. and therefore opens the Creed to quite a bit of possible disagreement.

Aside from the obviously "Catholic-slanted" things already mentioned, the term, "God's only son", as opposed to the way it is written in the Bible, "God's only BEGOTTEN son", (Yes there are several other ways that phrase is worded in different translations) could be seen to be denying that we are ALL called sons (children) of God in the Scriptures. Jesus' "brothers", even... Him being the "Firstborn" among us.

There are several other statements that have been abbreviated that way, but most people just yell "Yippee" to the whole Creed, and are unwilling to slow down and look at each phrase by itself.

 

[Philip James]

A friend of mine used to say that if you copy it right, then it is copywrite.

Sadly, the document has been translated. Now did the translator copy it right with his translation?

Shalom

You can find three different translations here: Ignatius of Antioch

You will note that the meaning is clear in all three..

Peace!

 

[Jay Ross]

You can find three different translations here: Ignatius of Antioch

You will note that the meaning is clear in all three..

Peace!

So you have three translations which seem to agree with each other. Does that really mean that the three translation are infallible then?

 

[Philip James]

So you have three translations which seem to agree with each other. Does that really mean that the three translation are infallible then?

There is commentary there on the translations and the various codexs and documents used to produce them.

If you are not satisfied that these are good scholarly translations and you have another that varies from them, post a link to it.

Peace!

 

[Marymog]

The main thing I take exception to with any of those three or four dozen creeds is that Jesus never developed a "creed" we were to adopt, so where did we come up with the idea that we needed to devise them? To me, this is man's intervention of trying to institutionalize what Jesus simply walked, talked, and lived.

He never gave us a table of contents for the bible either. Was that done by man's intervention?

Mary

 

[Willie T]

He never gave us a table of contents for the bible either. Was that done by man's intervention?

Mary

Perhaps the Bible might truly be read more accurately without many things we have added to it..... Such as preconceived headings and sub-headings, and, of course, Chapters and verses. There are many places those particular "selected divisions" of the flow of speech tend to distort the intent.

 

[Willie T]

Many times Jesus told His listeners: "You have heard it said (or in our cases, "You have memorized particular verses.") , and believe them to mean "_____________" . But, I am telling you now, that what was really intended in those verses is THIS:"_______________________" . (Paraphrased, of course.)

Even way back then, Jesus had to straighten-out the way Religious people had distorted some of the meaning of the written word. Imagine what MORE has happened in the ensuing centuries?

 

[Marymog]

Christians cannot really disagree with any part of the Apostles'Creed. But they may disagree with how the RCC interprets *the Holy Catholic Church* and "the Communion of Saints*. And had the Creed stated that "He descended into Hades" (rather than Hell) that would have been very helpful.

Hi Enoch,

Let me help you dispel your myths: The word catholic comes from the Greek katholikos: universal, wide ranging, whole. When that word is capitalized it means Catholic Church. In the Creed the word catholic is not capitalized and is used among other adjectives in the same manner.

Scripture often uses Sheol in Hebrew and Hades in Greek to refer to the abode of the dead. In the OT Sheol generally represents “the place of the dead” where both the righteous and the unrighteous go. In ancient Hebrew this “place of the dead” was divided into two sections: A place of suffering AND a holding place for the righteous.

HADES = HELL, HELL= HADES

Myth Buster Mary

 

[Marymog]

Many times Jesus told His listeners: "You have heard it said (or in our cases, "You have memorized particular verses.") , and believe them to mean "_____________" . But, I am telling you now, that what was really intended in those verses is THIS:"_______________________" . (Paraphrased, of course.)

Even way back then, Jesus had to straighten-out the way Religious people had distorted some of the meaning of the written word. Imagine what MORE has happened in the ensuing centuries?

Thank you Willie.

You are very good at making your point. Your example above is very clear and concise to me.

I don't see where Jesus came to "straighten-out the way Religious people had distorted some of the meaning of the written word." I believe what Jesus said when he said He came to fulfill the law (Matt. 5:17).

If I may I would like to present another way to look at it: In Matthew Jesus was showing WHO has the true interpretation of the law AND Scripture (Matthew) shows how he was fulfillment of that law.

Jesus gave a series of five “antitheses” (“You have heard it said . . . but I say to you”)! In those he is giving us his interpretation of the law as practiced by himself and his followers:

Those five antitheses at the Sermon on the Mount fulfill five aspects of the books of Moses:

Deuteronomy 5:17 is fulfilled in Matthew 5:21

Exodus 20:14 is fulfilled in Matthew 5:27

Leviticus 19:12 is fulfilled in Matthew 5:33

Exodus 21:23-25 is fulfilled in Matthew 5:38

Leviticus 19:17-18 is fulfilled in Matthew 5:43

Earlier in Matthew it shows five times how He is the fulfillment of the law:

Matthew 1:22-23 is a fulfilling of Isaiah 7:14

Matthew 2:5-6 is a fulfilling Micah 5:2

Matthew 2:15 is a fulfilling Hosea 11:1

Matthew 2:17-18 is fulfilling of Jeremiah 31:15

Matthew 2:23 summarizes Judges 13:5 and Isaiah 11:1

Bible study Mary