Christians only - The Nicene creed.

[syo]

Do you prefer or accept the original Creed or the Creed with the later additions?

 

[paradox]

Do you prefer or accept the original Creed or the Creed with the later additions?

The nicene creed is the only one which all Christians agreed upon.
Later additions are nothing but corruption motivated by greed.

 

[syo]

The nicene creed is the only one which all Christians agreed upon.
Later additions are nothing but corruption motivated by greed.

I agree. The very first creed is the only creed that unites us all.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Do you prefer or accept the original Creed or the Creed with the later additions?

I think unity has no need of an official creed, that creeds take credit for a unity they don't provide and that they probably therefore are an obstacle to unity. They are something to argue about, but I've never seen them unify anything unless you count "Sit down and shut up and do what I say" as unification.

 

[Brian2]

The nicene creed is the only one which all Christians agreed upon.
Later additions are nothing but corruption motivated by greed.

The Nicene creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son and the Eastern Orthodox does not agree.
I'm not sure which is the original creed.
This site says the earliest creed is "Jesus is Lord", which is in the Pauline Epistles and that the most common one used is the Apostles creed which is shorter than the Nicene creed.
Creed - Wikipedia

 

[syo]

I think unity has no need of an official creed, that creeds take credit for a unity they don't provide and that they probably therefore are an obstacle to unity. They are something to argue about, but I've never seen them unify anything unless you count "Sit down and shut up and do what I say" as unification.

The original creed unites, no?

''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, begotten of the Father
Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;

By whom all things were made

Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man;

He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven;

From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

And in the Holy Ghost.''

The above creed is simple, true and prevents confusion, no?

 

[syo]

I'm not sure which is the original creed.

The 325AD Nicaea creed.

 

[paradox]

The Nicene creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son and the Eastern Orthodox does not agree.
I'm not sure which is the original creed.

nicene creed was established in 325 AD, back then there was no fragmentation of the church, therefore eastern Orthodox church has broke away in 1054 with their change to creed.
Beside that the bible says Holly Spirit proceeds from both.
Therefore Catholic church is biblically correct and it retained the original creed.

 

[Kenny]

Do you prefer or accept the original Creed or the Creed with the later additions?

Original is good for me.

 

[Brian2]

nicene creed was established in 325 AD, back then there was no fragmentation of the church, therefore eastern Orthodox church has broke away in 1054 with their change to creed.
Beside that the bible says Holly Spirit proceeds from both.
Therefore Catholic church is biblically correct and it retained the original creed.

The Nicene is the one I am most familiar with.

 

[pearl]

The earliest Creed seems to be found in 1 Corinthians 15.
For I handed on to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures;

 

[Estro Felino]

The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.

 

[exchemist]

I agree. The very first creed is the only creed that unites us all.

That remark betrays a wish to divide, rather than unite.

Does it really matter? Does anyone really have a valid claim to a monopoly of the truth?

 

[exchemist]

nicene creed was established in 325 AD, back then there was no fragmentation of the church, therefore eastern Orthodox church has broke away in 1054 with their change to creed.
Beside that the bible says Holly Spirit proceeds from both.
Therefore Catholic church is biblically correct and it retained the original creed.

This is, as a matter of historical fact, wrong.

The filioque clause was added by the western church and this addition was not accepted by the eastern one.

Details here: Filioque - Wikipedia

But frankly, who cares whether the Holy Spirit "proceeds" only from the Father to the Son, or in both directions? It's a distinction of negligible importance to either the understanding or the practice of Christianity.

 

[paradox]

This is, as a matter of historical fact, wrong.

The filioque clause was added by the western church and this addition was not accepted by the eastern one.

Details here: Filioque - Wikipedia

I've read this wikipedia entry a few times already but still didn't remember this.
You're right, but regardless I see this addition valid since it's biblically supported with John 20:19-23

 

[Estro Felino]

This is, as a matter of historical fact, wrong.

The filioque clause was added by the western church and this addition was not accepted by the eastern one.

Details here: Filioque - Wikipedia

But frankly, who cares whether the Holy Spirit "proceeds" only from the Father to the Son, or in both directions? It's a distinction of negligible importance to either the understanding or the practice of Christianity.

Surely.
But to Catholics it is indisputable that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Jesus too.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Arguing about the nature of the messenger, while completely ignoring the message, is common to every denomination it seems.

 

[metis]

The nicene creed is the only one which all Christians agreed upon.

It was preceded by the Apostles Creed, which is actually used in more denominations than the Nicene.

Later additions are nothing but corruption motivated by greed.

What evidence do you have for that? Please be specific.

Meanwhile, here:
Since it was difficult to do this on Scriptural terms alone, the bishops decided to formulate a creed that specifically excluded Arianism from the scope of Christian belief. Later, at the Second Ecumenical Council, minor revisions were made to the Nicene Creed. -- wikichristian.org/wiki/en/Nicene_Creed

 

[pearl]

. But what did the Spirit do in relation to Jesus Christ in Christian history? The Creed does not tell us.
As a result of the silence one may argue with permissible exaggeration that this one Spirit whom we praise ("one Lord, one Spirit, one baptism") has been the most divisive feature in the history of Christianity. In the first millennium of Christianity at the great Councils the churches could agree on God and, for the most part on Jesus Christ; but East and West ultimately split apart over the Spirit. The West adhered to the notion that the Spirit comes forth from the Son (filioque) as well as from the Father, a view rejected by the East as an intrusion in the Christian creedal faith. For the East the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone.
The Book of Acts is the story of the church, and so we may deduce that, drawing from the relatively few instances in Jesus' own discourse, the church gave pneuma a major role. Also in the Pauline Letters, the elevation of the Spirit is startling. Already in the opening five verses of 1 Thessalonians, the first extant Christian writing composed about A.D. 50 when Christianity was not twenty years old, we hear of God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit. The famous blessing at the end of 2 Corinthians (13:13) involves the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit. In the divided Corinthian church there are varieties of gifts but the same Spirit; varieties of service, but the same Lord; and varieties of workings but the same God (1 Cor 12:4-6). It is very clear that God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit are already on a level within the first twenty years of the Christian message. But on that level, how do they function?
DiverseViewsoftheSpirit.pdf (rochester.edu)

 

[paradox]

What evidence do you have for that? Please be specific.

I've corrected myself in post #15

One clear evidence for breakup in 1054 is breakup of Roman empire which shows that breakup of the church was affected by new borders of the Roman empire,
this clearly shows political motives for breakup, which is nothing but greed for power.

Version after this time thus have no common ground.