Nicene Creed-An Alternate Translation

[Br. Thomas]

Message Deleted by Author.

[Br. Thomas]

I removed the original post after I realized that the Arian Catholic Church asserts that Christ had not pre-incarnate existence. I was of the mind that they espoused His pre-incarnate existence but that he was not "co-eternal" in the strictest sense of the term ( meaning there was a time when there was only the Unbeggoten God, the Father.

If I am wrong in my observations I will gladly repost the propsed Alternative, if not there is no need for it to even be a consideration.

[Archbishop Michael-John]

Br. Thomas,

There is a spectrum of belief within Arianism; The Anomoeans believe that Jesus was just a man no different than anyone else except that he was chosen by God as a prophet. Semi-Arians attempted to appease the Roman Catholics by compromising over the divinity of Jesus, thus effectively rendering Jesus a demi-god.

The official stance of the Arian Catholic Church is to follow the advice of Arius himself...

That the Logos and the Father were not of the same essence (ousia);
That the Son was a created being (ktisma or poiema); and
That though He was the creator of the worlds, and must therefore have existed before them and before all time, there was (Arius refused to use such terms as cronos or aion) a time when Christ did not exist.
A popular biblical text called upon by Saint Arius is in the Book of Proverbs 8:22-31:"The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way, Before His works of old. I have been established from everlasting, From the beginning, before there was ever an earth. When there were no depths I was brought forth, When there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, Before the hills, I was brought forth; While as yet He had not made the earth or the fields, Or the primal dust of the world. When He prepared the heavens, I was there, When He drew a circle on the face of the deep, When He established the clouds above, When He strengthened the fountains of the deep, When He assigned to the sea its limit, So that the waters would not transgress His command, When He marked out the foundations of the earth, Then I was beside Him as a master craftsman; And I was daily His delight, Rejoicing always before Him, Rejoicing in His inhabited world, And my delight was with the sons of men."I notice that one or more of the Administrators keeps editing (vandalising) the Wikipedia article on Arian Catholicism and inserts text which isn't in line with Arian Catholic belief! Protecting this article seems to be an ongoing battle! However I admit there is still some fine tuning to be done to one or two of the articles on the website and there is still much more information to be added; this work is ongoing. Contributions and constructive feed back are always appreciated!


I hope this has clarified the point for you.

[Br. Thomas]

Thank You +Br. John for your helpful reply.

Being that it is the 'official position" of the ACC that Christ was "pre-existent" to all creation I will go forward with my proposal concerning an "Alternate" version of the Nicene Creed.
Stay tuned. :D

With the Love of Christ,
+Br. Thomas

[Br. Thomas]

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,
begotten of the Father,
Lord from God, Light from Light,
true Divinity from true Divinity,
begotten, not made,
of one Nature with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven;
by the power of God’s 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 very Power of God, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
(Filioque question here?^)
To the glory of the Father and the Son the Spirit dwells within the Church,
empowering and preserving her until the return of Our Lord.
The Spirit inspired the Prophets to Speak
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

[Archbishop Michael-John]

:-( Dear Brother Thomas,

I believe the best way to formulate a creed is to keep it short and simple. This creed appears to be an adaptation of the Nicene creed and I can see elements of inference to heresy there too: "Light from Light", and new ones: "true Divinity from true Divinity" &c.

As I have said elsewhere on the forum although it was written at the end of the second century the Apostles' Creed contains the minimum of Christian belief, be it presented in a more supernatural context than the Arian Catholic Creed, it is recognised by the Arian Catholic Church as it was the creed of the early Church, it is non-trinitarian and contains all the essential elements of Christian belief.

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell; the third day He arose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.
Amen.

The Arian Catholic Creed was developed to resolve issues over the trinitarian / Nicaean-Roman Controversy and follows on from the Apostles creed, it addresses the points raised by Arius (and in that respect responds to the heretical Nicene Creed) and represents the Arian Catholic Church in a more logical context. Both creeds are recognised and used by the Arian Catholic Church.

I BELIEVE IN ONE GOD,
Creator of Heaven and earth,
And of all things visible and invisible.
And in his Spiritual Son, Jesus Christ,
Whom was born of Mary and Joseph,
Was not consubstantial nor co-eternal with God the Father almighty,
Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, died, and was buried.
On the third day His Spirit was resurrected.
He ascended into Heaven,
And sitteth at the right hand of God, the Father almighty.
Whence he shall come again to judge the living and the dead,
Of whose Kingdom there shall be no end.
And I believe in the Holy Spirit,
The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church,
The communion of saints,
The forgiveness of sins,
The resurrection of the Spirit,
And life everlasting.
Amen.

In the Grace of God through Emmanuel.
o:)

[Br. Thomas]

Thank you again, +Br. John, for your response.
I just want to go on record now, lol, to state that I personally believe that the Apostle's Creed is THE ONLY Universally accepted and 100% Scriptural Creed of the Church and I think it , alone, is worthy of the acceptance it has received.

Now having said that; I would like to address my concerns over the Arian Creed. First I think it’s never really a good idea to state (in a Creed) what you don't believe. Secondly The Arian Creed as it reads is both argumentative and presumptuous in that it assumes the reader has read the Nicene Creed and therefore its words can only be understood in that light.

Also the lines of “And in his Spiritual Son, Jesus Christ, Whom was born of Mary and Joseph,
Was not consubstantial nor co-eternal with God the Father almighty,” seem to imply a more Unitarian perspective that Arian perspective in that they suggest Jesus was the biological son of Joseph and that Jesus had no preexistence before His physical birth. Then there is the line “On the third day His Spirit was resurrected.” Which denies scripture many times over.

It is not my intention to argue the many “points” of the Arian Creed but only to point out why I think it is not very affective in the traditional purpose of a Creed, that being a summery of one’s beliefs in a proactive positive manner. But then again this is all just my opinion I could be wrong, LOL.

[Jason]

I personally like and accept the Arian creed over and above any other creed I know of. It's much easier to accept and removes all the ridiculous superstition behind Jesus.

Great work ACC!

[Archbishop Michael-John]

Dear brother Thomas,

Thank you for your response. As I have stated the Apostles Creed is accepted by the Arian Catholic Church and is under stood to be a Creed which has a more supernatural interpretation of the Scriptures.

I would disagree with you that to say "on the third day his Spirit was resurrected" denies scripture at all, in fact there is no scriptural evidence that his BODY ascended in to heaven, only that his body is said to have disappeared!

The Arian Catholic Creed is by definition based on Arius' teachings and goes further to interpret the scriptures more logically; in that context it can be regarded as a response to the Nicene creed and for the time being the Arian Catholic Creed will stand, warts and all, however I would not wish to attempt to take away the sanctity of the Apostle's Creed.

Kind regards,
In the grace of our Father through Immanuel,

[miseretur]

I BELIEVE IN ONE GOD, Creator of Heaven and earth, And of all things visible and invisible.And in his Spiritual Son, Jesus Christ, Whom was born of Mary and Joseph, Was not consubstantial nor co-eternal with God the Father almighty, Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, died, and was buried. On the third day His Spirit was resurrected. He ascended into Heaven, And sitteth at the right hand of God, the Father almighty.Whence he shall come again to judge the living and the dead, Of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And I believe in the Holy Spirit, The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church,The communion of saints, The forgiveness of sins, The resurrection of the Spirit,And life everlasting. Amen.<o></o>

<o></o> <o></o>
Spiritual son
<o></o>
Was Jesus only spiritual when hi was in earth? his body was only fake, (monofysis)<o></o>
<o></o>
Son of Maria and Joseph<o></o>
<o></o>
not virgin birth by God, real father Joseph.<o></o>
<o></o>
Resurrected a spirit, are this immortal soul thinking, jesus was not

resurrected in new body what is mixed whit old and new.<o></o>
<o>

</o><o></o>

[miseretur]

In Hellenistic thought, at death the soul was said to leave the inferior body behind.

The idea that Jesus was resurrected spiritually rather than physically even gained popularity among some Christian teachers, whom the author of 1 john declared to be anti christ

Similar beliefs appeared in the early church as gnostism

However, in Luke 24:39,

the resurrected Jesus expressly states



"behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Handle me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have."

[Hermes]

The Nicene Creed in Syriac (of the Church of the East, sometimes called Nestorians) is probably the most interesting of all the different variations of the Nicene Creed - it's much closer to an Arian understanding. The part about the Holy Spirit is quite Arian and it even uses the title "the Spirit of Truth" which has only been used before in the Creed of Ariminum. It omits the heterodoxical Constantinopolitan additions.

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty: Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-Begotten, the First Born of all created. Begotten of His Father before all worlds and not made: Very God of very God: of one essence with His Father, by Whom the worlds were established and everything was created. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate by The Holy Spirit and became Man: And was conceived and born of the Virgin Mary: He suffered and was crucified in the days of Pontius Pilate. He was buried and Rose again on the third day as it is written and ascended into Heaven and sat down on the right hand of His Father: And He shall come again to judge the dead and the living. And, in one Holy Spirit, The Spirit of Truth: who proceedeth from the Father, the Life-giving Spirit: And in one Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church. And, we confess one baptism for the remission of sin. And, the resurrection of our bodies, and life for ever and ever: Amen."

Also notice the addition "the first born of all created", which Eusebius of Caesarea used in the Creed of Caesarea. That makes the only problematic parts "very God of very God" and "of one essence with His Father". The first one fights against the explicit statement of John, and the second one could give a false impression of saying how Christ and the Father are one. Though if they were used in the same way as they were explained to Eusebius in 325 then they would be acceptable, the first one saying Christ is truly divine, and the second one stressing Christ's origination from the Father. Unfortunately the trap for a misunderstanding is still there.

[Danage]

Here is Isaiah 7:14 from the JPS translation:

'Assuredly, my Lord will give you a sign of His own accord! Look, the young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son. Let her name him Immanuel [meaning 'with us is G-d']'

This quote is the most accurate rendering of the Hebrew text in English.

If Isaiah 7:14 is indeed referring to Jesus, then it says he would be born of a young woman (or almah, young woman of marriageable age), not virgin. This prophecy, however, was fulfilled back in the days of Isaiah himself, although it could be one of those prophecies that is fulfilled twice (see, I think, Ecclesiates 1:9).

[miseretur]

Isaiah 7:14.
septuaginta translate this verse also virgin (almah)
some translate it young woman or maid.

[miseretur]

Was Mary truly a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus?

Luke 1:26-31 (JB) reports that it was to “a virgin” whose name was Mary that the angel Gabriel carried the news: “
You are to conceive and bear a son, and you must name him Jesus.

” At this, verse 34 states, “Mary said to the angel, ‘But how can this come about, since I am a virgin

[“I do not know man: i.e., as husband,” NAB footnote; “
I am having no intercourse with a man,” NW]?

’” Matthew 1:22-25 (JB) adds: “Now all this took place to fulfil the words spoken by the Lord through the prophet:

The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son and they will call him Immanuel, a name which means ‘God-is-with-us’.

When Joseph woke up he did what the angel of the Lord had told him to do: he took his wife to his home and,
though he had not had intercourse with her, she gave birth to a son; and he named him Jesus.”

Is this reasonable? Surely it was not impossible for the Creator, who designed the human reproductive organs,

to bring about the fertilization of an egg cell in the womb of Mary by supernatural means.
Marvelously, Lord transferred the life-force and the personality pattern of his firstborn heavenly Son to the womb of Mary.

God’s own active force, his holy spirit, safeguarded the development of the child in Mary’s womb so that what was born was a perfect human.

—Luke 1:35; John 17:5.

:-)

[miseretur]

in talmud we see that jew are mocking maria, and say that she is a whore, beacause she was get child whitout man, but bible tell us otherwise.
Josef also was thinking this, that the child was someone other, beacause in jewish law these things were important, not like nowadays.

but in gosbel we see the truth, and this virgin thing is not like other pagan myths or take us near trinity doctrine, how could it if other is in the bible and other isnt?

We dont have to fear thise things if we dont understand them, this is question about faith and miracle, we dont have tools, that we can understand these things our corrupted adam mind, logic here is not the right way, only faith and trust The Lord.

:-)

[Postulare42]

So, Brother miseretur, you are a non-trinitarian lutheran marian Paulian sola scripturist. Did I get that right?

[miseretur]

Yes I belive virgin birth and lutheran view about that, I do not worship Maria, only respect her in human who is faithful to Lord.
I do not belive that Maria is our heavenly prayer who pray for us in front of God, that "job" is only for Christ.
Trinitarian doctrine is hard to understand thats why I cant belive that doctrine in it´s full meaning.

But something isn´t right if I reject it full meaning,
Then I must try to understand Jesus role otherwise, are there two Gods then.
Yes I also belive in bibe canon what is the bible scriptures what we have,
hebrew and greek text, because If that is also diffrent we must then doupt god and his protection to keep real faith in reality to find.
If we dont have bible or nothing what is then the real faith, were we can find it?

I study lutheran theology, but what is weak part of lutheran view is two regiments doctrine.
I think that christian must be free, not part of kaisar politic.
if kaisar want to be a christian that is good, but christian church was corrupted when konstantinus become church leader, and church
was also quilty, church become kaisar too, they rule secular peoples like other kings, not like Jesus told us.
Church become babylons harlot , who use common peoples.
That is why Church´s doctrine and pure faith become dirty.

State church is not what jesus wants, hi want´s only that we make our choice to take jesus in our life.
God is unfair if we just born so called christian country, and we baptise in child.

I also try to understand what is value in infant baptism.
I do not see it only logical meaning or rationalist human, but also
what are the fruits of it. are averybody true christians then?

Christian faith is more than humanist philosophy teachings.
doing good is not allways meter of our faith.
That is sure...