Origins of the Creed
- Thread starter Thomas
- Start date
Abogado del Diablo
Ferally Decent
Ahhhh . . . but he did. He spoke in parables intended to convey many of his most important teachings that went right over the heads of many of his listeners, including his disciples, to whom he offered explanations out of earshot from the Pharisees and "Joe Citizen." This is a recurring theme of the Synoptics - that the message is "for He to has ears to hear." Mark 4:9, 4:23; Luke 8:8, 14:35.Quahom1 said:Hi Luna,
It's not that gnostics are a bad lot (not by far). It's just that Jesus didn't teach the good news only to have it secreted away from everyday joe citizen. Kind of counter productive, if you ask me. And please, Catholics hide nothing (can't even hide dirty laundry, let alone the secrets of the Universe)...l
v/r
Q
When we turn to the writings of Paul, he actually is talking about a secret plan concealed within the Jewish scriptures that is known by only a few. 1 Cor. 2:7, 4:1
Thomas:
Gnosticism is being badly straw-manned in this thread. It isn't based on "secret teachings." It's based on seeing the meanings the same teachings and knowing the message in the story itself. For people who know the meaning, the same stories are revelatory on a profoundly personal and more intimate level. The Gospel is a sign, but not the thing signified.
I say this as someone who has understood the Gospel both as a orthodox, Evangelical Christian and as a modern Gnostic. The problem for "orthodoxy" is that Gnostics acknowledge the "truth" of the Gospel without holding to the truth of the stories as literal, historical accounts.
Hence, the creeds. By the mid-second century we begin to see the creation of a "proto-orthodoxy" seeking to distance itself from adherents to the various and similar "mystery" religions common throughout the Empire by making the claim that unlike other metaphorical mystery myths, theirs actually happened. This proto-orthodoxy really gelled in the late second century in the person of Ireneaus, but there's little evidence that this notion of "right thinking," or the approved doctrines and dogmas of orthodoxy were prevelant before the second century.
The central theme of this "anti-heresy" approach to Christianity is to prosecute, making orthodox Christianity its own antithesis for those who have ears to hear. And history bears witness to the fruit of its methods. When you start reading the myth as a literal account, you set yourself up for losing the connection the myth was there to forge in the first place. Which is what Gnosticism is about.
I've always loved Joseph Campbell's explanation of this fundamental difference in "The Power of Myth" interviews he did with Bill Moyers:
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
The purpose of the creeds is to squelch individual experience and contain the artistic impulse that is the product of genuine epiphany. Dogma trades on the good will associated with the "cosmic religious experience" (as Einstein puts it), at the same time it drains that experience of its meanings. And that is what the Nicene Creed was for. It was also to create a law by which those who disagreed could be prosecuted.
Just ask the Cathars.
[/FONT]
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
I have probably mentioned on one thread or another here at CR that I do still attend church with my parents ... each year on Christmas. Such is important to me, for several reasons. However, when it comes to creed recitation time, I am either silent, or choose very carefully which parts of the creeds I am willing to intone. I can do this without them or anyone noticing of course.
But I know which parts are simply not worth repeating, in the form they are presently found. And yes, it does have something to do with literalism, and the truth behind the allegories.
Is there any harm in saying something like "born of the virgin Mary?" Mmmm, no, not if people understand what that's all about. I won't presume to understand it on all levels, but I sure know what it doesn't mean.
Love and Light,
andrew
But I know which parts are simply not worth repeating, in the form they are presently found. And yes, it does have something to do with literalism, and the truth behind the allegories.
Is there any harm in saying something like "born of the virgin Mary?" Mmmm, no, not if people understand what that's all about. I won't presume to understand it on all levels, but I sure know what it doesn't mean.
Love and Light,
andrew
Ahhhh . . . but he did. He spoke in parables intended to convey many of his most important teachings that went right over the heads of many of his listeners, including his disciples, to whom he offered explanations out of earshot from the Pharisees and "Joe Citizen." This is a recurring theme of the Synoptics - that the message is "for He to has ears to hear." Mark 4:9, 4:23; Luke 8:8, 14:35.
And he also ensured that the truth of his message will be conveyed in its fullness:
"And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen." (Matthew 28:18-20)
It is clear from the above, and the synoptics in general, and Acts, that He explained the meaning of these parables to the apostles, even if, as John himself states (eg John 20:8), they did not understand them in their entirety, until certain events unfolded (and nor, I would suggest, could anyone else have forseen the outcome). Nevertheless, Acts opens with the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles:
"And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a mighty wind coming: and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. And there appeared to them parted tongues, as it were of fire: and it sat upon every one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost: and they began to speak with divers tongues, according as the Holy Ghost gave them to speak."
On this occasion, we are told, some three thousand were converted.
Germain to this point - the orthodox line has always been that only the apostles would know what 'observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you' meant and they in turn would pass this on to their successors.
I would further say that the disciples were not only in receipt of an oral teaching, but they were in the Presence of Christ, an experience which we simply cannot quantify.
The perennial problem for the orthodox Christian is discussion with the gnostic is the issue of selective discrimination and scripture taken out of context. The same few references are thrown up again and again, whilst the orthodox argue the reference itself is meaningless unless read against the total testimony of scripture and tradition, the same argument used against fundamentalists. This in turn leads on to the idea that the Christian sees the heterodox or heresiarch as operating a selective process according to his own pre-determined criteria, or his own critical faculty - the gnostic chooses what to accept, and what not, of the data of Revelation itself, in a process that thereby accommodates the data of revelation to a pre-existing concept. In this sense the Christian can only regard the gnostic as being not 'open' to the message, one whom does not 'observe all things' as Christ commanded, but rather observes what suits. Read in this light it is the Christian would argue that the faithful are the ones who have the ears to hear, and accepts the message in its entirely, even if it is not fully understood, and observes them in the fullness of faith, to the best of their abilities, whereas the gnostic, on the other hand, hears, and selects what he or she chooses to accept or deny.
This highlights the sharp distinction between 'catholic' and not - catholic means universal, and the immediate definition is a church which holds one faith universally, but there is another understanding, and that is that the church accepts the data of revelation wholly and unconditionally, and this is another, esoteric, reading of catholic.
On the other hand the gnostic cannot claim universality, no two gnostic schools taught precisely the same thing, so there was never a 'gnostic church' as such - never a cohesive body - and this, more than Christianity, was primarily the cause of its evaporation, the schools were too dependent upon the charisma of individuals and too diffuse in their focus on the charism of truth.
+++
When we turn to the writings of Paul, he actually is talking about a secret plan concealed within the Jewish scriptures that is known by only a few. 1 Cor. 2:7, 4:1.
Indeed St Paul says: "But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, a wisdom which is hidden, which God ordained before the world, unto our glory" (1 Cor 2:7), but if we read on he says "But to us God hath revealed them by his Spirit" and further: "Now, we have received not the spirit of this world, but the Spirit that is of God: that we may know the things that are given us from God. Which things also we speak: not in the learned words of human wisdom, but in the doctrine of the Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual."
And this states explicitly that Paul is talking of the Mystery of God, revealed in and by Christ, and moreover yet, he rejects 'the learned words of human wisdom' which is the speculative philosophies of man, under which the early Christians would include any doctrine which sought to discriminate and 'pick and choose' from the Word of God.
+++
Gnosticism is being badly straw-manned in this thread. It isn't based on "secret teachings." It's based on seeing the meanings the same teachings and knowing the message in the story itself. For people who know the meaning, the same stories are revelatory on a profoundly personal and more intimate level. The Gospel is a sign, but not the thing signified.
The 'Christian gnostic' has always (and still does) claim to have esoteric knowledge of the secret inner meaning of the text - in this sense secret, that is not public.
Orthodoxy has every right (in fact it has a Christ-given right) to protect the truth, to ensure that the message is transmitted correctly, and in its fullness, to all. The gnostic can claim many things, but again and again, his embrace of revelation can only be seen as discriminatory, selective, and thereby limited, picking only those texts that support his cause, whilst at the same time declaring those that do not as empty or invalid, or misinterpreted. It's hard to get around the fact that the gnostic reads scripture as a sign to what he has already decided for himself.
The problem for "orthodoxy" is that Gnostics acknowledge the "truth" of the Gospel without holding to the truth of the stories as literal, historical accounts.
Au contraire - the problem for "gnostics" is they cannot let go of their pre-conceptions and see the reality of the Incarnation for what it is, and thus what it signifies:
"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and our hands have handled, of the word of life. For the life was manifested: and we have seen and do bear witness and declare unto you the life eternal, which was with the Father and hath appeared to us. That which we have seen and have heard, we declare unto you: that you also may have fellowship with us and our fellowship may be with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ."
(1 John 1:1-3)
By the mid-second century we begin to see the creation of a "proto-orthodoxy" seeking to distance itself from adherents to the various and similar "mystery" religions common throughout the Empire by making the claim that unlike other metaphorical mystery myths, theirs actually happened.
Effectively the gnostic says "because what I believe is a myth, what you believe must be a myth also" - to which the Christian replies, no it isn't - nor is that an argument.
Again, I would argue, from Scripture and all evidence, that orthodoxy was the case from the very outset. What are the epistles but communications to instruct and correct error? cf 2 Timothy 3:16: "All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice." That's all scripture, not some of it.
This proto-orthodoxy really gelled in the late second century in the person of Ireneaus, but there's little evidence that this notion of "right thinking," or the approved doctrines and dogmas of orthodoxy were prevelant before the second century.
Then look at Scripture again - in Paul, John, Peter - in every epistle there is a call to right thinking. What is the Prologue of John if not an exhortation to 'make straight the way of the Lord' as the Old Testament commands? The argument that orthodoxy, doctrines or dogmas suddenly appeared is insupportable. Every doctrine, every dogma, every line of the creed, traces itself back to the Word of Christ.
Likewise this argument declares Irenaeus the father of orthodoxy, which is not the case. Irenaeus offered a systematic, or rather theological, retutation of error, but he was not the first, nor alone in this; one can count Justin, Hippolytus, Epiphananius, Clement of Alexandria, Origen ...
The central theme of this "anti-heresy" approach to Christianity is to prosecute, making orthodox Christianity its own antithesis for those who have ears to hear.
No, that's ignoring the reality. The central theme was to protect the truth for those who have the ears to hear. I would argue that the gnostics heard the word, and assumed it meant the same thing as their myths told them. It's the Christians are the ones who heard the word, not the other way round...
And history bears witness to the fruit of its methods. When you start reading the myth as a literal account, you set yourself up for losing the connection the myth was there to forge in the first place. Which is what Gnosticism is about.
I agree. Gnosticism is all about myths. Christianity is all about realities. Myths are presentiments of spiritual realities. Again, and this is fundamental, because gnostics believe in myths, that does not mean nor prove that every other object of belief is necessarily a myth.
I've always loved Joseph Campbell's explanation of this fundamental difference in "The Power of Myth" interviews he did with Bill Moyers:
The purpose of the creeds is to squelch individual experience and contain the artistic impulse that is the product of genuine epiphany. Dogma trades on the good will associated with the "cosmic religious experience" (as Einstein puts it), at the same time it drains that experience of its meanings. And that is what the Nicene Creed was for. It was also to create a law by which those who disagreed could be prosecuted.
Really? How does he explain away the Cappadocians? Boethius? Hilary of Poitiers? Dionysius the Areopagite? Ephrem the Syrian, St Maximus ... Francis, Thomas, Bonaventure, Catherine of Siena? The Cloud of Unknowing? The Imitation of Christ? Julian of Norwich? ... Eckhart, Merton, Therese of Liseaux, John of the Cross, de Chardin ... all squelched? None of their insights the fruit of a genuine epiphany?
I would counter with a saying of Chesterton: "There's two types of people in the world. Those who know they follow a creed, and those who do not."
The real point of difference is not how the gnostic believes (which is invariably what the argument seems to focus on) - personal freedom to believe what one likes as opposed to the orthodox disciplina arcani - but what the gnostic believes - and the fundamentals common to the diverse gnostic doctrines are at odds with scripture in its literal, metaphorical, and eschatalogical senses.
Thomas
And he also ensured that the truth of his message will be conveyed in its fullness:
"And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen." (Matthew 28:18-20)
It is clear from the above, and the synoptics in general, and Acts, that He explained the meaning of these parables to the apostles, even if, as John himself states (eg John 20:8), they did not understand them in their entirety, until certain events unfolded (and nor, I would suggest, could anyone else have forseen the outcome). Nevertheless, Acts opens with the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles:
"And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a mighty wind coming: and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. And there appeared to them parted tongues, as it were of fire: and it sat upon every one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost: and they began to speak with divers tongues, according as the Holy Ghost gave them to speak."
On this occasion, we are told, some three thousand were converted.
Germain to this point - the orthodox line has always been that only the apostles would know what 'observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you' meant and they in turn would pass this on to their successors.
I would further say that the disciples were not only in receipt of an oral teaching, but they were in the Presence of Christ, an experience which we simply cannot quantify.
The perennial problem for the orthodox Christian is discussion with the gnostic is the issue of selective discrimination and scripture taken out of context. The same few references are thrown up again and again, whilst the orthodox argue the reference itself is meaningless unless read against the total testimony of scripture and tradition, the same argument used against fundamentalists. This in turn leads on to the idea that the Christian sees the heterodox or heresiarch as operating a selective process according to his own pre-determined criteria, or his own critical faculty - the gnostic chooses what to accept, and what not, of the data of Revelation itself, in a process that thereby accommodates the data of revelation to a pre-existing concept. In this sense the Christian can only regard the gnostic as being not 'open' to the message, one whom does not 'observe all things' as Christ commanded, but rather observes what suits. Read in this light it is the Christian would argue that the faithful are the ones who have the ears to hear, and accepts the message in its entirely, even if it is not fully understood, and observes them in the fullness of faith, to the best of their abilities, whereas the gnostic, on the other hand, hears, and selects what he or she chooses to accept or deny.
This highlights the sharp distinction between 'catholic' and not - catholic means universal, and the immediate definition is a church which holds one faith universally, but there is another understanding, and that is that the church accepts the data of revelation wholly and unconditionally, and this is another, esoteric, reading of catholic.
On the other hand the gnostic cannot claim universality, no two gnostic schools taught precisely the same thing, so there was never a 'gnostic church' as such - never a cohesive body - and this, more than Christianity, was primarily the cause of its evaporation, the schools were too dependent upon the charisma of individuals and too diffuse in their focus on the charism of truth.
+++
When we turn to the writings of Paul, he actually is talking about a secret plan concealed within the Jewish scriptures that is known by only a few. 1 Cor. 2:7, 4:1.
Indeed St Paul says: "But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, a wisdom which is hidden, which God ordained before the world, unto our glory" (1 Cor 2:7), but if we read on he says "But to us God hath revealed them by his Spirit" and further: "Now, we have received not the spirit of this world, but the Spirit that is of God: that we may know the things that are given us from God. Which things also we speak: not in the learned words of human wisdom, but in the doctrine of the Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual."
And this states explicitly that Paul is talking of the Mystery of God, revealed in and by Christ, and moreover yet, he rejects 'the learned words of human wisdom' which is the speculative philosophies of man, under which the early Christians would include any doctrine which sought to discriminate and 'pick and choose' from the Word of God.
+++
Gnosticism is being badly straw-manned in this thread. It isn't based on "secret teachings." It's based on seeing the meanings the same teachings and knowing the message in the story itself. For people who know the meaning, the same stories are revelatory on a profoundly personal and more intimate level. The Gospel is a sign, but not the thing signified.
The 'Christian gnostic' has always (and still does) claim to have esoteric knowledge of the secret inner meaning of the text - in this sense secret, that is not public.
Orthodoxy has every right (in fact it has a Christ-given right) to protect the truth, to ensure that the message is transmitted correctly, and in its fullness, to all. The gnostic can claim many things, but again and again, his embrace of revelation can only be seen as discriminatory, selective, and thereby limited, picking only those texts that support his cause, whilst at the same time declaring those that do not as empty or invalid, or misinterpreted. It's hard to get around the fact that the gnostic reads scripture as a sign to what he has already decided for himself.
The problem for "orthodoxy" is that Gnostics acknowledge the "truth" of the Gospel without holding to the truth of the stories as literal, historical accounts.
Au contraire - the problem for "gnostics" is they cannot let go of their pre-conceptions and see the reality of the Incarnation for what it is, and thus what it signifies:
"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and our hands have handled, of the word of life. For the life was manifested: and we have seen and do bear witness and declare unto you the life eternal, which was with the Father and hath appeared to us. That which we have seen and have heard, we declare unto you: that you also may have fellowship with us and our fellowship may be with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ."
(1 John 1:1-3)
By the mid-second century we begin to see the creation of a "proto-orthodoxy" seeking to distance itself from adherents to the various and similar "mystery" religions common throughout the Empire by making the claim that unlike other metaphorical mystery myths, theirs actually happened.
Effectively the gnostic says "because what I believe is a myth, what you believe must be a myth also" - to which the Christian replies, no it isn't - nor is that an argument.
Again, I would argue, from Scripture and all evidence, that orthodoxy was the case from the very outset. What are the epistles but communications to instruct and correct error? cf 2 Timothy 3:16: "All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice." That's all scripture, not some of it.
This proto-orthodoxy really gelled in the late second century in the person of Ireneaus, but there's little evidence that this notion of "right thinking," or the approved doctrines and dogmas of orthodoxy were prevelant before the second century.
Then look at Scripture again - in Paul, John, Peter - in every epistle there is a call to right thinking. What is the Prologue of John if not an exhortation to 'make straight the way of the Lord' as the Old Testament commands? The argument that orthodoxy, doctrines or dogmas suddenly appeared is insupportable. Every doctrine, every dogma, every line of the creed, traces itself back to the Word of Christ.
Likewise this argument declares Irenaeus the father of orthodoxy, which is not the case. Irenaeus offered a systematic, or rather theological, retutation of error, but he was not the first, nor alone in this; one can count Justin, Hippolytus, Epiphananius, Clement of Alexandria, Origen ...
The central theme of this "anti-heresy" approach to Christianity is to prosecute, making orthodox Christianity its own antithesis for those who have ears to hear.
No, that's ignoring the reality. The central theme was to protect the truth for those who have the ears to hear. I would argue that the gnostics heard the word, and assumed it meant the same thing as their myths told them. It's the Christians are the ones who heard the word, not the other way round...
And history bears witness to the fruit of its methods. When you start reading the myth as a literal account, you set yourself up for losing the connection the myth was there to forge in the first place. Which is what Gnosticism is about.
I agree. Gnosticism is all about myths. Christianity is all about realities. Myths are presentiments of spiritual realities. Again, and this is fundamental, because gnostics believe in myths, that does not mean nor prove that every other object of belief is necessarily a myth.
I've always loved Joseph Campbell's explanation of this fundamental difference in "The Power of Myth" interviews he did with Bill Moyers:
The purpose of the creeds is to squelch individual experience and contain the artistic impulse that is the product of genuine epiphany. Dogma trades on the good will associated with the "cosmic religious experience" (as Einstein puts it), at the same time it drains that experience of its meanings. And that is what the Nicene Creed was for. It was also to create a law by which those who disagreed could be prosecuted.
Really? How does he explain away the Cappadocians? Boethius? Hilary of Poitiers? Dionysius the Areopagite? Ephrem the Syrian, St Maximus ... Francis, Thomas, Bonaventure, Catherine of Siena? The Cloud of Unknowing? The Imitation of Christ? Julian of Norwich? ... Eckhart, Merton, Therese of Liseaux, John of the Cross, de Chardin ... all squelched? None of their insights the fruit of a genuine epiphany?
I would counter with a saying of Chesterton: "There's two types of people in the world. Those who know they follow a creed, and those who do not."
The real point of difference is not how the gnostic believes (which is invariably what the argument seems to focus on) - personal freedom to believe what one likes as opposed to the orthodox disciplina arcani - but what the gnostic believes - and the fundamentals common to the diverse gnostic doctrines are at odds with scripture in its literal, metaphorical, and eschatalogical senses.
Thomas
Abogado del Diablo
Ferally Decent
Thomas:
Let's begin with first principles.
Who wrote the Synoptic gospels? Why did they write them? And specifically when?
These question do not ask you to make assertions you've heard from your orthodox teachings. It asks you to investigate first-hand the evidence for those assertions and build a case for the literal and objective truth of the claims you make.
Let us reason together.
I will remind you that I have "accepted" the dogma of Christianity in its fullness for many years. I was raised and confirmed Catholic, and graduated from a well-known Jesuit University with a degree in History and Philosophy. I say this to convey only a small sliver of the of facts you have mistakenly assumed about me by labeling me.
I also point it out to help you understand that condescension is wasted on me. Nevertheless, to the extent you choose to operate with a bullying, condescending or insulting tone, I would ask that you please remain respectful of the realistic possibility that I (and many others) might reasonably disagree with you. In that manner, we might have a productive dialogue.
Now, about those questions . . .
Let's begin with first principles.
Who wrote the Synoptic gospels? Why did they write them? And specifically when?
These question do not ask you to make assertions you've heard from your orthodox teachings. It asks you to investigate first-hand the evidence for those assertions and build a case for the literal and objective truth of the claims you make.
Let us reason together.
I will remind you that I have "accepted" the dogma of Christianity in its fullness for many years. I was raised and confirmed Catholic, and graduated from a well-known Jesuit University with a degree in History and Philosophy. I say this to convey only a small sliver of the of facts you have mistakenly assumed about me by labeling me.
I also point it out to help you understand that condescension is wasted on me. Nevertheless, to the extent you choose to operate with a bullying, condescending or insulting tone, I would ask that you please remain respectful of the realistic possibility that I (and many others) might reasonably disagree with you. In that manner, we might have a productive dialogue.
Now, about those questions . . .
Abogado del Diablo said:
Abogado,
First welcome back!
Our mutual friend from Florida is on sabbatical due to an impending marriage (I assume you are are of), so I offer his welcome back to you as well.
I assure you I did not mean to insult gnostics in any light. I was pointing out comments made by recent writers about the Church (Shelley for starters), and perhaps I should have put quotes around their points of thought. Of course it is subject to debate as to whether they have history right or not (as we have found out time and time again).
Now, as for your point above, when I was first taught the "parables", I found them easy to understand, even as a child. Perhaps, it is due to the Sisters and Brothers and Priests pre-empting the stories we were to be told with a "disclaimer" that they were about Faith. So immediately we/I assumed they were meant to paint a picture of the times, and we were to apply them to our times and our lives.
You pointed out 1 Corinthians 2: 7, and 4: 1; allow me to present the rest of the message:
"1 Corinthians 2
Christ Crucified
1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, did not come with excellence of speech or of wisdom declaring to you the testimony[a] of God. 2 For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. 3 I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling. 4 And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human[b] wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.
Spiritual Wisdom
6 However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, 8 which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9 But as it is written:
“ Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,
Nor have entered into the heart of man
The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.”[c]
10 But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.
13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy[d] Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. 16 For “who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct Him?”[e] But we have the mind of Christ."
And 1 Corinthians 4:
"1 Corinthians 4
Stewards of the Mysteries of God
1 Let a man so consider us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. 2 Moreover it is required in stewards that one be found faithful. 3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by a human court.[a] In fact, I do not even judge myself. 4 For I know of nothing against myself, yet I am not justified by this; but He who judges me is the Lord. 5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the counsels of the hearts. Then each one’s praise will come from God.
Fools for Christ’s Sake
6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other. 7 For who makes you differ from another? And what do you have that you did not receive? Now if you did indeed receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?
8 You are already full! You are already rich! You have reigned as kings without us—and indeed I could wish you did reign, that we also might reign with you! 9 For I think that God has displayed us, the apostles, last, as men condemned to death; for we have been made a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men. 10 We are fools for Christ’s sake, but you are wise in Christ! We are weak, but you are strong! You are distinguished, but we are dishonored! 11 To the present hour we both hunger and thirst, and we are poorly clothed, and beaten, and homeless. 12 And we labor, working with our own hands. Being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we endure; 13 being defamed, we entreat. We have been made as the filth of the world, the offscouring of all things until now.
Paul’s Paternal Care
14 I do not write these things to shame you, but as my beloved children I warn you. 15 For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. 16 Therefore I urge you, imitate me. 17 For this reason I have sent Timothy to you, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord, who will remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church.
18 Now some are puffed up, as though I were not coming to you. 19 But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord wills, and I will know, not the word of those who are puffed up, but the power. 20 For the kingdom of God is not in word but in power. 21 What do you want? Shall I come to you with a rod, or in love and a spirit of gentleness?"
I submit, that these are not mysteries at all. They make perfect sense to a "Christian" who wishes to follow Christ Jesus, and "all that entails". However, to a "non Christian", they might indeed be considered "mysterious" phrases and script. But that in itself makes sense. If one is not a practicing Christian, how could one know what is meant, hence the "mystery" part?
What good is a metaphor, if one does not understand the context in which the metaphor was made?
"Surf's up!" would mean little to one from the Gobi desert...yet to one from California, or Hawaii, or Guam, it would make perfect sense.
There is no "mystery", hidden or otherwise. There is only lack of learning. An easily remedied situation.
Which is why Jesus picked some of the most ignorant people to be His Apostles, and confounded the most "educated" with the simplest of fables. He taught "childrens' " stories, to adults, who refused to lower themselves to such state of understanding.
Does that make sense?
v/r
Q
Abogado del Diablo
Ferally Decent
Quahom1 said:Abogado,
First welcome back!
Our mutual friend from Florida is on sabbatical due to an impending marriage (I assume you are are of), so I offer his welcome back to you as well.
Thanks to both of you.
Quahom1 said:
I know, and I didn't read your comments as doing so. Unfortunately, my post began with a quote from your post and I may have mistakenly given the impression that my later comments were a response to you. They weren't.
My sole point in pointing out the parables is simply to indicate that in the context of the Gospel story, these teachings went over the heads of Jesus's listeners. It is an aspect of both these individual stories and the entire Gospel story itself that mysteries were unfolding before people who did not grasp their meaning. And there is additional meaning in that for me.
Quahom1 said:
It could be. It could also be that after 2000 years of building our culture around these ideas and stories it isn't difficult for us to perceive orthodox meanings imparted to them that have become part of our language and identities. Or it could be that they aren't really that hard to figure out, but for literary purposes, they were represented as mysterious teachings that went over the head of the Pharisees who believed they had all their answers in the Jewish law. If the latter, I'm sure you could imagine several connotations that would emerge from a writer choosing to tell such a story about Pharisees not understanding the meaning behind a parable.
Quahom1 said:
And I would humbly submit that as I read them, I now easily perceive yet a different meaning that is for me (and I make no claims about others here) more affecting, inisightful and intimate. So much so, that my understanding of their meaning (as is my understanding of the entire Gospel) seems competely natural and reasonable. And it's tricky checking myself against assuming that others must or should see the same things I do. I often fail in that regard.
Quahom1 said:What good is a metaphor, if one does not understand the context in which the metaphor was made?
Fantastic question!
Quahom1 said:
It certainly does.
To get back to Nicea...
The purpose of this council, was to answer one question specifically, brought to light by Arius -
Is Jesus Christ 'of one being' with the father, and thus co-eternal with him, or was there a 'time' (in the metaphysical sense) that God existed, but Christ did not?
Of course, the father cannot be father without progeny, so 'Father' and 'Son' are co-eternal in that regard, but the question remains...
Put another way
The Fathers talk of the Son as 'Arche' - Logos or Principle - and the Father as 'Arche Anarchos' - Principle without Principle -
If we consider Anaximander, we have 'arche' - principle, and Apeiron - The Boundless (one of my favourite expressions) - and that the principle, or Logos, emerges from the Boundless, rather than the Boundless becoming subject to some exernal logoic principle.
They would argue that if the Boundless if truly such, and truly from whence the Logos emerges, then the Boundless and the logos are one, for if they were not, this would signify a Boundless subject to change, which renders the Boundless as limited, and therefore not Boundless at all.
Again, if God is God, then there was ever 'a way, a truth and a life' in God, and that is precisely who, and what, the Incarnate Son is.
Thomas
Thomas
The purpose of this council, was to answer one question specifically, brought to light by Arius -
Is Jesus Christ 'of one being' with the father, and thus co-eternal with him, or was there a 'time' (in the metaphysical sense) that God existed, but Christ did not?
Of course, the father cannot be father without progeny, so 'Father' and 'Son' are co-eternal in that regard, but the question remains...
Put another way
The Fathers talk of the Son as 'Arche' - Logos or Principle - and the Father as 'Arche Anarchos' - Principle without Principle -
If we consider Anaximander, we have 'arche' - principle, and Apeiron - The Boundless (one of my favourite expressions) - and that the principle, or Logos, emerges from the Boundless, rather than the Boundless becoming subject to some exernal logoic principle.
They would argue that if the Boundless if truly such, and truly from whence the Logos emerges, then the Boundless and the logos are one, for if they were not, this would signify a Boundless subject to change, which renders the Boundless as limited, and therefore not Boundless at all.
Again, if God is God, then there was ever 'a way, a truth and a life' in God, and that is precisely who, and what, the Incarnate Son is.
Thomas
Thomas
lunamoth
Episcopalian
Thomas said:
Thank you Thomas. I had to read it twice to follow it,
but I think I got it. I'm happy to see this thread resurrected .Yours,
luna
lunamoth
Episcopalian
Although it does not directly deal with the origins of the Creed, I thought I would share some of the Anglican/Episcopalian perspective on the Creeds.
First, a little background. The Episcopal Church, which is part of the Anglican Communion, follows the via media, the middle way between Protestantism and Catholocism. Episcopalians find their unity primarily in worship. Thus, we also approach our theology from the perspective of worship comes first. I'm going to quote from a nice little booklet by Christopher Webber:
"Christians come to know God through the witness of others, through the Bible, through prayer, and through music, naure, and art. They respond to that knowledge in many ways. But as a church, the primary experience of God for Episcopalians lies in our worship. Our theology, therefore, is based in very large part on that worship. We come in worship to a knowledge of God that surpasses words. We then attempt to find the best words we can to express and explain that knowledge. Furthermore, if we continue the comparison between music, art, and worship, we might also notice that while the liturgy is somewhat like a work of art, it is also different in that we don't simply admire it, we participate in it and even help to make it. This is the reason Christians sometmes speak of "doing theology." Theology is not simply statements that we accept or reject; it has a direct relationship to our way of living as Christians."
...
Theology relies on language in its attempt to understand religious experience, and those who worship God know how difficult it is to put that experience into words. God is always beyond our definitions. That will be frustrating to those who want precise answers to all their questions but liberating to those who feel restricted and unsatisfied by some of the answers they have been given in the past. Definitive answers block off further inquiry, but limited answers stimulate the serach for better answers and should lead to a lifelong preocess of growth and a thirst for a fuller knowledge of God that can only be satisfied hereafter in God's presence."
...
"If there are no final answers to be found in this life, where can we go to find preliminary answers that will at least lead us in the right direction? Anglicans have most oftn answered that question by speaking of "Scripture, tradition, and reason....Beginning as we do with worship and a desire for unity, Anglicans have preferred to look for guidance to the undivided church, the church before it was divided by the Reformation, and especially to the first centuries of the church's life. Scripture, of course, is the primary written authority, but Scripture, as we have seen, is not always clear and does not answer all questions. Anglicans turn, therefore, to "tradition," the worship, teaching, and life of the church throughout the ages. No better summary of this tradition can be found than the Creeds agreed to by the church in its early days. ...The bishops of the worldwide Anglican Communion have agreed that the Nicene Creed is "the sufficient statement of the Christian faith." For a basic statement of what Episcopalians believe, then, we can begin with this Creed, accepted by all Christians and adopted in the fourth century by the first ecumenical councils."
OK then. I know there are some here who will strongly disagree with the last sentence, and others who will strongly disagree with one or more of the other sentences. But, there it is from the Episcopalian view, and the sometimes harrowing experience of the via media. Next I'll actually get to the Creed.
luna
First, a little background. The Episcopal Church, which is part of the Anglican Communion, follows the via media, the middle way between Protestantism and Catholocism. Episcopalians find their unity primarily in worship. Thus, we also approach our theology from the perspective of worship comes first. I'm going to quote from a nice little booklet by Christopher Webber:
"Christians come to know God through the witness of others, through the Bible, through prayer, and through music, naure, and art. They respond to that knowledge in many ways. But as a church, the primary experience of God for Episcopalians lies in our worship. Our theology, therefore, is based in very large part on that worship. We come in worship to a knowledge of God that surpasses words. We then attempt to find the best words we can to express and explain that knowledge. Furthermore, if we continue the comparison between music, art, and worship, we might also notice that while the liturgy is somewhat like a work of art, it is also different in that we don't simply admire it, we participate in it and even help to make it. This is the reason Christians sometmes speak of "doing theology." Theology is not simply statements that we accept or reject; it has a direct relationship to our way of living as Christians."
...
Theology relies on language in its attempt to understand religious experience, and those who worship God know how difficult it is to put that experience into words. God is always beyond our definitions. That will be frustrating to those who want precise answers to all their questions but liberating to those who feel restricted and unsatisfied by some of the answers they have been given in the past. Definitive answers block off further inquiry, but limited answers stimulate the serach for better answers and should lead to a lifelong preocess of growth and a thirst for a fuller knowledge of God that can only be satisfied hereafter in God's presence."
...
"If there are no final answers to be found in this life, where can we go to find preliminary answers that will at least lead us in the right direction? Anglicans have most oftn answered that question by speaking of "Scripture, tradition, and reason....Beginning as we do with worship and a desire for unity, Anglicans have preferred to look for guidance to the undivided church, the church before it was divided by the Reformation, and especially to the first centuries of the church's life. Scripture, of course, is the primary written authority, but Scripture, as we have seen, is not always clear and does not answer all questions. Anglicans turn, therefore, to "tradition," the worship, teaching, and life of the church throughout the ages. No better summary of this tradition can be found than the Creeds agreed to by the church in its early days. ...The bishops of the worldwide Anglican Communion have agreed that the Nicene Creed is "the sufficient statement of the Christian faith." For a basic statement of what Episcopalians believe, then, we can begin with this Creed, accepted by all Christians and adopted in the fourth century by the first ecumenical councils."
OK then. I know there are some here who will strongly disagree with the last sentence, and others who will strongly disagree with one or more of the other sentences. But, there it is from the Episcopalian view, and the sometimes harrowing experience of the via media. Next I'll actually get to the Creed.
luna
lunamoth
Episcopalian
OK, a bit more preface. I've attempted this a couple of times now and keep getting bogged down. But in light of some of the earlier discussion in this thread, I would like to give my understaniding of 'why a Creed.'
The earliest Christian worship is described above in Mark, and is found in all four Gospels. Eating, drinking and praise. And Paul confirms this: "Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?" (1 Cor 10:16)
Jesus showed us the Truth by His life and I think that Truth is found in most if not all religions. But He also gave us this distinctive gift; we call it communion. Two things I notice about it. It is communal; a shared meal and shared mystical event. It is physical. It is bread and wine and it is His body. When we participate in it we participate in Christ, we are His Body.
OK, so where am I going with this. We are not Christians alone. We are Christians together. We can be Christians together without agreeing on a lot, although I would suggest that if we can agree on at least a few things upon which we can build a shared language and understanding, it enriches our relationships and builds a familiarity that connect us no matter what culture we come from. It helps us overcome barriers of culture, nationality, class. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal 3:28) Familiarity, family. Haha! Sometimes it's hardest to love our family.
In John's Gospel, Jesus prays that we may all be one and He and the Father are one. Unity is in the very heart of Christianity.
It has been said that the creeds divide us. Sadly this has been true. You don't have to write out a creed until the question of 'well, what exactly do we believe in common' comes up, and some people have one idea and others have another. But the alternative, not agreeing, in a growing community where people on one side of the continent will never meet those on the other, would be dissolution, rather than community. I'm sure there are analysts of some sort out there who could say for sure, but this seems to be a function of size. We don't eat the bread and wine together when we are many miles apart, but we can still share symbols and a certain degree of meaning.
OK, maybe this is just a long-winded way of justifying why I like what I like about the creeds. But just because a scalpel is designed for a healing function does not keep it from being put to destructive uses. Would we be better off without the scalpel because it can be misused?
The earliest Christian worship is described above in Mark, and is found in all four Gospels. Eating, drinking and praise. And Paul confirms this: "Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?" (1 Cor 10:16)
Jesus showed us the Truth by His life and I think that Truth is found in most if not all religions. But He also gave us this distinctive gift; we call it communion. Two things I notice about it. It is communal; a shared meal and shared mystical event. It is physical. It is bread and wine and it is His body. When we participate in it we participate in Christ, we are His Body.
OK, so where am I going with this. We are not Christians alone. We are Christians together. We can be Christians together without agreeing on a lot, although I would suggest that if we can agree on at least a few things upon which we can build a shared language and understanding, it enriches our relationships and builds a familiarity that connect us no matter what culture we come from. It helps us overcome barriers of culture, nationality, class. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal 3:28) Familiarity, family. Haha! Sometimes it's hardest to love our family.
In John's Gospel, Jesus prays that we may all be one and He and the Father are one. Unity is in the very heart of Christianity.
It has been said that the creeds divide us. Sadly this has been true. You don't have to write out a creed until the question of 'well, what exactly do we believe in common' comes up, and some people have one idea and others have another. But the alternative, not agreeing, in a growing community where people on one side of the continent will never meet those on the other, would be dissolution, rather than community. I'm sure there are analysts of some sort out there who could say for sure, but this seems to be a function of size. We don't eat the bread and wine together when we are many miles apart, but we can still share symbols and a certain degree of meaning.
OK, maybe this is just a long-winded way of justifying why I like what I like about the creeds.
But just because a scalpel is designed for a healing function does not keep it from being put to destructive uses. Would we be better off without the scalpel because it can be misused?
lunamoth
Episcopalian
OK, I'll press on. *I hardly ever write one long post, much less three. apologies!*
Back to the Episcopalian view. I'm going to paraphrase from the same source.
*start paraphrasing*
The Creed has to do, first of all with a Trinitarian God. Second of all, the second parapgraph is the longest and has the two themes of the unity of Jesus Christ with God the Father and the human life of Jesus. The belief that the Son of God came into this world and lived a human life is summed up in the word 'incarnation' (coming into flesh). God is best known in a human life.
But notice that the Creed does not explain the Trinity or the Incarnation' it simply asserts their truth....The great ecumenical councils that met in the fourth and fifth centuries considered and rejected (other possibilities) in favor of statements that rule out inadequate explanations without providing an explanation themselves. The Trinity and Incarnation remain mysteries; we can offer possible explanations and suggest ways of thinking about them that may be helpful, but the ultimate nature of God remains beyond human reason. (luna's insert: like a koan perhaps). It is appropriate, therefore, to put the Creed in the liturgy as part of our worship rather than insist on further explanations.
...(leaving out some nice parts here about the Trinity and Incarnation)...
Notice how the Creed as a theological statement functions to set boundaries or guidelines, while, as a part of our worship, it functions to open our lives to the mystery of God. The Creed is not intended to end debate so much as to guide the ongoing search for explanations.' *end paraphrase, emphasis mine*
Back to the Episcopalian view. I'm going to paraphrase from the same source.
*start paraphrasing*
The Creed has to do, first of all with a Trinitarian God. Second of all, the second parapgraph is the longest and has the two themes of the unity of Jesus Christ with God the Father and the human life of Jesus. The belief that the Son of God came into this world and lived a human life is summed up in the word 'incarnation' (coming into flesh). God is best known in a human life.
But notice that the Creed does not explain the Trinity or the Incarnation' it simply asserts their truth....The great ecumenical councils that met in the fourth and fifth centuries considered and rejected (other possibilities) in favor of statements that rule out inadequate explanations without providing an explanation themselves. The Trinity and Incarnation remain mysteries; we can offer possible explanations and suggest ways of thinking about them that may be helpful, but the ultimate nature of God remains beyond human reason. (luna's insert: like a koan perhaps). It is appropriate, therefore, to put the Creed in the liturgy as part of our worship rather than insist on further explanations.
...(leaving out some nice parts here about the Trinity and Incarnation)...
Notice how the Creed as a theological statement functions to set boundaries or guidelines, while, as a part of our worship, it functions to open our lives to the mystery of God. The Creed is not intended to end debate so much as to guide the ongoing search for explanations.' *end paraphrase, emphasis mine*
Hi Luna -
Notice how the Creed as a theological statement functions to set boundaries or guidelines, while, as a part of our worship, it functions to open our lives to the mystery of God. The Creed is not intended to end debate so much as to guide the ongoing search for explanations.'
Nice and informative posts.
Anselm (11thC) defined theology as 'faith seeking understanding' - and in this way the Creed is not a theological statement, it is a statement of faith, from which all theology flows ... it is the framework within which all thelogical investigation happens, and a safeguard against the speculative excesses of the imagination.
So, as you post, the Creed does not 'curtail' the debate as to give it a firm foundation; if one thinks on the creed, one can't go far wrong, and looking at the works of the doctors, saints, mystics and theologians down through the ages, the sky's the limit! One can hardly define their world as 'limited'.
Thomas
Notice how the Creed as a theological statement functions to set boundaries or guidelines, while, as a part of our worship, it functions to open our lives to the mystery of God. The Creed is not intended to end debate so much as to guide the ongoing search for explanations.'
Nice and informative posts.
Anselm (11thC) defined theology as 'faith seeking understanding' - and in this way the Creed is not a theological statement, it is a statement of faith, from which all theology flows ... it is the framework within which all thelogical investigation happens, and a safeguard against the speculative excesses of the imagination.
So, as you post, the Creed does not 'curtail' the debate as to give it a firm foundation; if one thinks on the creed, one can't go far wrong, and looking at the works of the doctors, saints, mystics and theologians down through the ages, the sky's the limit! One can hardly define their world as 'limited'.
Thomas