Was the Nicean creed a big mistake?

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.




Was the Nicene creed (and other creeds and councils) one giant mistake for Christianity?

Now by this, I don't mean was the creed incorrect or wrong in its detail, what I mean is has its existence de-railed any message found in Christianity.

I realise the creed came about to stamp out the various heresies that were around at the time, but in turning Christianity into a set of statements to be repeated, do you not think it lost much of what it may have originally been?

Think about this; Before the creed you had a variety of interpretations and understandings of what God was, who Jesus was, Gods relationship to Jesus and humankind and importantly, what it means to live as a Christian. After the creed, Christianity lost much of its debate and Christians lost their self-inquiry. Christianity became reduced to a set of statements. Where the creed was originally meant to be a boundary to Christian thought, it became a statement that many think has some sort of magical power if you repeat it. It says nothing of what it means to live as a Christian. Think of all the Christians you know, who when asked what they believe, or what Christianity is, respond with some sort of paraphrased hollow quote from the creed.


Do you think this is what Jesus had in mind when he gave the sermon on the mount? :sunny:

 

Never thought about this but it is indeed a good question!

I believe in being open minded and forming your own beliefs based on what makes sense and speaks to you. And I wouldn't let a however many years old creed tell me exactly what I should or shouldn't believe.

I think the part that did the most damage is "We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church." when you think about how much religious intolerance, persecution of non Christians and the holy wars

 

the big mistake was saul of tarsus compromising the peace and love for the sake of marketing. the second nicean council indeed erred in relation to christianity's original intent by incorporating the trinity and "paul"s epistles.

possibly also by some of what it excluded, though this is less certain.

at any rate "paul"s epistles were of necessity written after revelations, as he himself, was likewise not even born yet when it was written.

christ's sermon on the mount, was a man facing execution, for acts of resistance to colonial rule, committed before he began preaching pacifism at the age of 30, strugling with his own inner self, over whether he could have lived any differently, to have avoided arriving at that point and situation, and still have been true to himself.

 

That would mean Revelation was the earliest scripture of the Christian canon. Is there a scholar who agrees with you? Or are the "revelations" you're talking about something else?

 

I don't know about mistake, seems they did it on purpose.
It is however in contravention of a purported teaching of christ against taking oaths.

Practically such causes do nothing but put a limit on giving.

As the measure you give is the measure you receive, such practice leads to poverty at some point.

 

Bismarck once compared public policy to sausage making: "Better not to know the details about how it was prepared". The same thing could be said of the various Church councils and creeds. Charles Freeman, in his book The Closing of the Western Mind gives us "too much information" about the politics behind these formulations, and the role of Roman Emperors in settling some of the critical disputes. As for Paul, though, his concept of Jesus as sacrificial lamb was the critical meme mutation that enabled Christianity to spread across the globe. But I think it did change the message from Jesus' life and teachings to His death and resurrection.

 

To be fair, in another time the story may not have had the same appeal as it was catered to the politics of the roman world as well as the tradition of the jewish world. A creation of slyness, cunning and tact to capitalize on prevailing conditions.

My take is there is no reason for those distinctions not to be complementary, but the meaning of the second part as taught, (death and resurrection), is not consistent with the first,(life and teaching of jesus).

If you take out the the story of debts owed for the state of sin, then death and resurrection are elements of a single story of the power of mercy and the glory of god.

As it stands it is a tale of guilt, sacrifice, and the perpetual codification of that relationship. All for the sake of a bloodthirsty revengeful god.

 

The most important distortion I think is that Paul's tale turns christian devotion into a cult of personality.

Again in contravention of the purported teaching of christ that those who believed on him, believed not in him but the one who sent him.

 

It is my understanding that reincarnation was taken out of the Bible at the council of Nicea in 329 a.d. at the requiest of Constine . desert rat

 

The Council of Nicea met in 325. Nothing was taken out of the Bible. The Council produced a creed of Christian beliefs that didn't really win general acceptance until its endorsement in an expended form by another emperor, Theodosius I, at the Council of Constantinople in 381.

 

I'm curious where you heard about this? I've never heard it before, definately interesting!

 

I'll try to answer the spirit of your question.

Jesus called such things vain repetitions. They are things that put us to sleep rather than put us in touch with God.

Although doctrines are fun to talk about, it is actually Christian principles that are important.

Christianity is based on principles rather than laws or hollow creeds and doctrines and it is understanding the principles and putting them to use in our lives that makes us Christians.

 

Are the repetitions vain because they are repeated, or are they vain because of what is in the heart?

 

no. it wouldn't. unless you think time was running in reverse or something.

 

Matthew 5;34-37, "But I say to you do not swear at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of god, or by the earth, for it is the footstool, or by jerusalem, for it is the city of the great king, and do not swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or one hair black. Let what you say be simply yes or no, anything more than this comes from evil."

Why do I say swearing fealty is a limit on giving? Because where you would give with a whole heart to one, you would withhold from another for the sake of that one.

 

I'd say a little of both.

God listens for sincerity, not a multitude of repeated words.

If someone mindlessly repeats the same thing over and over again it becomes a vain repetition but if from humble, heart felt desire, words are repeated, then no, it is not vain repetition.

Also, if the prayer is not from the heart, it doesn't matter if you only say it one time, it is still in vain.

 

Let's make an analogy. If defining Christianity is a bad thing, then you would have to say that doing research to figure out (and hence define) how the human body works is a bad thing as well. But what of the knowledge gained in doing so? Knowing God is not bad, anymore than getting to know the woman or man you marry. To love someone, you must know that person. God included.

 

It is not so much the defining of Christianity that is a bad thing but the accepting how others define it without finding out for yourself, that is a bad thing.

To use your analogy, if we just blindly accepted what others said about the human body, we would still be doing blood letting.

So I agree, knowing and loving God is not bad but we need to make sure of all things and hold on to what is fine and not just blindly accept something like a Nicean Creed. (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

 

Thank you for a coherent and rational response. I do not want to derail the thread, so I may take this to PM.

 

Unlike my usual responses?

I'll look forward to it, like I do all your PMs.