JAH - Nicean Creed - View Messages

Return to Reasoning List

Here is a link to this page:
http://www.jah-rastafari.com/forum/message-view.asp?message_group=1381&start_row=1

Nicean Creed

1 - 8

Time Zone: EST (New York, Toronto)

Messenger: Samaiyah

Sent: 3/14/2006 7:15:41 PM

Blessed praises to the most High
Haile Selassie I reigns in righteousness

Idren, in speaking with my mother, she mentioned the Nicean Creed as a way to refute the Holy Trinity. Saying as verses were added at this time for the purpose of supporting the Trinity. Does any I know about this?

WE IN ETHIOPIA HAVE ONE OF THE OLDEST VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE, but however old the version may be, in whatever language it might be written, the Word remains one and the same. It transcends all boundaries of empires and all conceptions of race. It is eternal.

1 John 5
[7] For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.

Bless Jah

Messenger: zionI

Sent: 3/14/2006 9:17:08 PM

Bredrin, I'm not sure if I overstand the I's question, but here is one of the references to the Holy Trinity in the Kebra Negast- introduction...

..."For the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit with good fellowship and right good will and cordial agreement together made the Heavenly ZION to be the place of habitation of their Glory. And then the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit said, "Let Us make man in Our similitude and likeness,"1 and with ready agreement and good will They were all of this opinion. And the Son said, "I will put on the body of ADAM," and the Holy Spirit said, "I will dwell in the heart[s] of the Prophets and the Righteous," and this common agreement and covenant was [fulfilled] in ZION, the City of their Glory. And DAVID said, "Remember Thine agreement which Thou didst make of old for salvation, the rod of Thine inheritance, in Mount ZION wherein Thou dost dwell."1

Guidance

Messenger: White dread

Sent: 3/15/2006 6:39:06 AM

I hope this might help the I

http://www.farsinet.com/icc/nicean.html

Messenger: Dread Lion

Sent: 3/15/2006 10:53:50 AM

from religion-online.org

a discussion of authors Bart Ehrman, Elaine Pagels and Karen King's recent interpretation of early Christian history:

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the threat of persecution, certain church leaders, especially Irenaeus, became convinced that Christianity could survive only if it became more unified in doctrine and structure. When Constantine came to power, the state promoted the church’s unity for the sake of its own. The "orthodox" established a canon of writings [ie., the creed], which had to be rightly interpreted by authoritative confessions and teachers. Christianity became a matter of right belief, rather than a vital search for divine truth.

Pagels and Ehrman write sympathetically as well as critically about these developments. Irenaeus was not the Grand Inquisitor of the second century. He did not worry about heresy in order to protect his own power or prestige. Rather, he was deeply concerned that the appeals of the "heretics" to personal experience (including visions and new revelations) inevitably divided and weakened the church. Personal claims to truth needed to be tested against the truth that the church had received in the canonical Gospels’ witness to Jesus’ life, death and resurrection. Right belief would ensure unity, and unity would ensure strength.

In addition, Ehrman notes that only orthodoxy had the ingredients that would allow Christianity to become a great world religion. The major alternative movements -- the Ebionites, Marcionites and Gnostics -- had historical liabilities. The Ebionites made demands for Jewish ritual purity that would have repelled gentiles. Marcionism’s rejection of Judaism made the faith look like a historical novelty, with no roots in antiquity and hence no clear claim to abiding significance. The various forms of Gnosticism promoted a spiritual elitism that would have had difficulty winning the masses. Historical factors thus conspired to ensure that orthodoxy alone would prevail and profoundly shape Western civilization.

Yet all three also believe that orthodoxy’s triumph, however inevitable, was also tragic, since it came at the cost of repressing Christianity’s origins. Orthodoxy began to think of itself as divinely ordained, rather than as part of a larger historical conversation about the meaning of Jesus. To Pagels and company, the discovery of the ancient texts in the Nag Hammadi library in 1945 has had the salutary effect of forcing Christianity to reconsider its past. The heretics can now speak for themselves, rather than be seen only through the lenses of the orthodox writers.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Once more Iman HIGHLY recommend Bart Ehrman's book to anyone desiring a clear grasp of modern (N.T.) biblical scholarship.

The Nicean (Nicene) Creed is interesting as history but as an article of faith it is found insufficient to a modern rational seeker of Truth.

InI read from JAH Book of Life and therein find Wisemind, Knowledge and Overstanding. May the words of I mouth and the Iditations of I heart be acceptable unto The Most High JAH RASTAFARI.

ONE LOVE

Messenger: Samaiyah

Sent: 3/15/2006 12:14:48 PM

Thanks for the posts Idren.
The refute in the conversation was because she is defending her stance on no Trinity. The Christadelphian church (she being a member of) explains to the people that this Nicean crede was formed, and actually added verses in the translation of the Bible to support the Trinity. Therefore they ignore certain verses.
I have not been able to find another source that explains these additions.

Bless

Sis. Julie
Haile Selassie I
Power of the Trinity

Messenger: Dread Lion

Sent: 3/15/2006 1:13:00 PM

Seen.

One must remember that the Bible has been "changed" since the day it was first composed and then existed for centuries as oral tradition then was copied by hand (with mistakes and corruptions or "corrections") and finally was codified, printed and published. So, the idea of "changing scripture" is somewhat niave.
That said, yes I believe that the central biblical passage justifying the doctrine of a Holy Trinity was a late addition made to support the doctrine.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

from www.heaven.net:

The next verse we will look at is a blatant attempt by man to give the doctrine of the Trinity credibility. That verse is 1 John 5:7 (English-KJV)
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

All other translations do not have the words " the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." ; Apart from the King James translation. Translators agree that the last part of this verse was added in later and is actually a footnote in the Textus Receptus, the Greek text that the King James Bible was translated from. Now this same verse in the NIV for example simply says the following:

1 John 5:7 (English-NIV)
For there are three that testify:

How did the disputed words find there way into the New testament?

The first published Greek NT was edited in 1516 by Catholic priest, scholar, and humanist Erasmus in 1516. This edition did not include the disputed words. A revised edition in 1519 also did not include these words. Erasmus was severely criticised by other Catholic priests for not including in Greek these words which were well-known to them from the Latin. Erasmus said that the words were left out simply because he did not find them in any of the Greek manuscripts he had examined, and promised to insert them if they were found in even one Greek manuscript.

An Irish monk deliberately fabricated such a manuscript to meet Erasmus' requirement. This manuscript (no. 61) was copied from an early manuscript which did not contain the words. The page in this manuscript containing the disputed words is on a special paper and has a glossy finish, unlike any other page in the manuscript. On the basis of this one 16th century deliberately falsified manuscript, Erasmus inserted the disputed words in his 3rd, 4th, and 5th editions of the Greek NT, though he protested that he did not believe the words were genuine.

Nearly all printed Greek NTs from Erasmus until the 19th century were simply reprints of Erasmus' 4th or 5th edition, and so the words continued to be printed in Greek as part of I John even though there is no sufficient evidence for their inclusion. Recent editions of the Greek NT follow the manuscript evidence and therefore do not insert the words.

The earliest English New Testament, the translation of Wycliffe in the 1380s, was made from medieval Latin manuscripts, and so it includes the disputed words, though it reads "son" instead of "word." Tyndale's translation of 1525 was based on Erasmus' 3rd edition and so it included the words. In the 2nd and 3rd editions of his translation, Tyndale placed the disputed words in parentheses to show that their genuineness was doubtful. Several editions of the NT edited by Tyndale's assistant Miles Coverdale also placed the disputed words in parentheses or smaller type or both to show that they were disputed. Jugge's 1552 edition of Tyndale's NT omitted the parentheses and printed the words in standard type, a practice followed in later English Bibles, including the KJV (based on Beza's 1598 Greek NT, a virtual reprint of Erasmus' 4th edition). Recent conservative translations of the NT (ASV, NASB, NIV) delete the disputed words entirely or put them in a footnote because the evidence is conclusive that they were not an original part of John's letter. [Verse numbers were not added until 1551 in a Greek NT based on Erasmus' 4th edition]

Now 1 John 5:7 is about the closest verse in the Bible that hints at a Trinity and yet that verse is not actually scripture, rather a footnote that was inserted into some texts fraudently. In scripture we find that Jesus himself never taught the Trinity, on the contrary he taught us that his Father is his God and our God see John 20:17 (English-NIV)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Messenger: Samaiyah

Sent: 3/15/2006 5:07:44 PM

Thanks for the info Dread Lion

One King One Love One Aim

Messenger: Ark I

Sent: 3/16/2006 1:27:05 AM

The point of it all is One.

That is what I and I need to learn so that I and I will also be One.

Christ is One with Jah, RasTafarI is One with Jah, and all that live for Jah are One with Jah. One is one in completeness, there is no separation in One. So Christ is Jah, RasTafarI is Jah, and all that live for Jah is Jah. One is what Christ told I and I to be, and is what Christ asked Jah to make us be.

John 17
9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.
11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
25 O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.
26 And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.

John 14
10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.
20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.
21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

John 15
1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.
2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.
3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.
7 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.

Jah Iternal Blessings,

Ark I
RasTafarI
Haile Selassie I

1 - 8

Return to Reasoning List