|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
The perpetual calendar
On Feb 27, 12:20*am, "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
On Feb 26, 9:04*pm, " wrote: On Feb 26, 6:57*pm, "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: On Feb 26, 6:33*pm, " wrote: On Feb 26, 3:49*pm, "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: On Feb 26, 10:10*am, " wrote: On Feb 26, 9:21*am, "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: On Feb 25, 10:51*am, " wrote: FWIW, the Catholic resources I've looked at don't seem to limit their use of "Christian" to those who believe in the Nicene Creed.. *Hardon's _Modern Catholic Dictionary_ says: Christian: A person who is baptized. A professed Christian also believes in the essentials of the Christian faith, notably in the Apostles' Creed. The Apostles' Creed is a later document. I've never noticed it included in a Missal. (But then, I haven't looked at a Missal in decades.) It's the creed usually said in Protestant churches (and also at Episcopal Morning Prayer) when a creed is recited. Historically, the content of the Apostle's Creed predates the Nicene Creed (its credos are found, for instance, in the writings of Irenaeus c. 200 AD, over a century before the Council of Nicea), though the precise wording used by modern churches has changed some since then. The Protestant version that you refer to, used by Episcopalean Churches among others, is a _much_ later formulation--it's also obviously not what the Catholic dictionary I quoted has in mind.. Then perhaps you should say what you mean by "the Apostles' Creed" if you don't mean the Apostles' Creed. _I_ don't mean anything by the Apostle's Creed--it's the Catholic dictionary that uses "the Apostle's Creed" in the quoted definition, and (being Catholic) what they mean is quite clearly not a Protestant formulation. It ought to be pretty obvious that Catholics generally mean the Catholic version of the Apostle's Creed when they use that phrase. Once again you have not addressed the key point about the Nicene Creed and have instead dwelt on a tangent.- Did you have a "key point"? Yes: that the Nicene Creed is not used by all Christian churches. For some reason you deflected the discussion to the Apostles' Creed The introduction of the definition which mentioned the Apostle's Creed was completely responsive to the original question that involved me in this thread, not a deflection: The discussion was about whether there are Christians who don't use the Nicene creed. I'm sure there are, and gave examples of Christians who may believe in the Nicene dogma but not use the creed (e.g. most Quakers--Mike Lyle pointed out that not all Quakers are Christians) and also of Christians who don't believe in the dogma of the Nicene creed at all (a long list, still available upthread). At that point you claimed they are "by definition, not Christians". Sigh. The essence of Christian dogma is encapsulated in the Nicene Creed. That is a different statement than the original, and would appear to admit Christians who don't use the Nicene creed (e.g. Christian Quakers). It still omits many sects who are by common English usage Christians (including the 10+ million Christians who belong to the denominations I listed earlier in the thread). To my mind, there are certain dogmas that all Christians accept, and there are other Trinitarian dogmas that are not accepted by all Christians. The Nicene Creed contains the latter, and none of the definitions of "Christian" I've posted so far indicate that accepting Trinitarianism is necessary to be considered a Christian. I think in common parlance, many Gnostics would be considered Christians by most English-speakers, and they'd be included under the English dictionary definitions, but the Catholic definition excludes them. I offered English definitions of "Christian", which include no mention of the Nicene Creed or Trinitarianism. *I also offered a Catholic dictionary definition as one example of how even the largest Christian denominations don't require belief in the Nicene creed to fall within their definition of "Christian": according to that Catholic definition, a Christian is one who a) is baptized and b) believes in the Apostle's Creed. For some reason, you then completely avoided the core point (that the definition of Christian used doesn't include any reference to the Nicene creed) and stated that the BCP version of the Apostle's Creed is newer than the Nicene creed. *I responded saying that the timeline is irrelevant, but also pointing out that the BCP version wasn't relevant to the definition of "Christian" cited. *You then asked what I meant by the Apostle's Creed, to which I replied that _I_ don't mean anything by it, I was citing a definition from a Catholic dictionary and so the relevant question is what _they_ mean by it (which is obviously the Catholic form). You still have no offered any definition of Christian, let alone explained why it might be a superior definition to that given in Webster's, or the OED, or a Catholic dictionary; in the absence of that, I'm not sure that there's anything left to debate regarding the original question. which you claim exists in Catholic- land as something other than the familliar Apostles' Creed. I find your use of "familiar" here somewhat baffling. *Do you mean more familiar to you? *If so, I'm not sure what the relevance is. *If not, the Catholic version is both older than and used by more people than the Book of Common Prayer version, so in general there's no reason to assume that it isn't the "familiar" version to most people. I'd personally avoid using that term, though, unless I were specifically discussing familiarity with respect to some group. The context should make the version used pretty obvious, anyway. *A Catholic dictionary is generally going to refer to Catholic forms, unless they're specifically discussing other faiths. *If someone quoted the Episcopalian dictionary, the Apostle's Creed would generally refer to the BCP version. I have still seen nothing, other than your assertion, to indicate that there's a "Catholic Apostles' Creed" that's different from the one in any Protestant prayer book. Pull out a Catchecism and compare to the Book of Common prayer. Among obvious differences, the Catholic version is divided into 12 articles; there are also various differences in wording from the authorized Anglican versions. It's much like discussing the Bible--when a Catholic refers to the Bible, they're most likely referring to a book which includes the Book of Baruch (as one example). *When an Episcopalian is speaking, they probably mean a different version from which Baruch is excluded.- One day I happened to notice a plethora of Biblia Sacra's at the local Wal-Mart (in Secaucus) and got curious. Not one of them -- neither the traditional version dating from about the same time as the Douai version, nor recent translations -- contains what since Luther we have called the apocryphal books. Aren't most Spanish-speaking Americans Catholic? Most are; they're about 1/3 Protestant, and 2/3 Catholic. The Catholic canon is not the same as the Lutheran Canon + the Lutheran Apocrypha. There are some books, like Baruch or parts of Daniel (e.g. Bel and the Dragon) that are in the Apocrypha and the Catholic canon. There are other books, like 1 & 2 Esdras, that are in the Lutheran Apocrypha but are not part of the Catholic canon. At least some of those, including 1 & 2 Esdras, are part of the Eastern Orthodox canon. Note also that the Catholic bible doesn't separate out the books in the same order as the Lutheran Apocrypha--e.g. Baruch in a Catholic bible appears in between Lamentations and Ezekiel, so if you were looking for them at the end they'd be easy to miss. If the bibles that you saw didn't include the Catholic canonical books, they're not Catholic bibles--I've never seen a bible in a Catholic Church that omits parts of the Catholic canon. See, e.g., http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm#IV " IV. THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE 120 It was by the apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books.90 This complete list is called the canon of Scripture. It includes 46 books for the Old Testament (45 if we count Jeremiah and Lamentations as one) and 27 for the New.91 The Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zachariah and Malachi. The New Testament: the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the Acts of the Apostles, the Letters of St. Paul to the Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, the Letter to the Hebrews, the Letters of James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2 and 3 John, and Jude, and Revelation (the Apocalypse)." Or http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_INDEX.HTM for one approved Catholic bible text (in English). |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
The perpetual calendar
On Feb 27, 2:29*am, " wrote:
On Feb 27, 12:20*am, "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: On Feb 26, 9:04*pm, " wrote: On Feb 26, 6:57*pm, "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: On Feb 26, 6:33*pm, " wrote: On Feb 26, 3:49*pm, "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: On Feb 26, 10:10*am, " wrote: On Feb 26, 9:21*am, "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: On Feb 25, 10:51*am, " wrote: FWIW, the Catholic resources I've looked at don't seem to limit their use of "Christian" to those who believe in the Nicene Creed. *Hardon's _Modern Catholic Dictionary_ says: Christian: A person who is baptized. A professed Christian also believes in the essentials of the Christian faith, notably in the Apostles' Creed. The Apostles' Creed is a later document. I've never noticed it included in a Missal. (But then, I haven't looked at a Missal in decades.) It's the creed usually said in Protestant churches (and also at Episcopal Morning Prayer) when a creed is recited. Historically, the content of the Apostle's Creed predates the Nicene Creed (its credos are found, for instance, in the writings of Irenaeus c. 200 AD, over a century before the Council of Nicea), though the precise wording used by modern churches has changed some since then. The Protestant version that you refer to, used by Episcopalean Churches among others, is a _much_ later formulation--it's also obviously not what the Catholic dictionary I quoted has in mind. Then perhaps you should say what you mean by "the Apostles' Creed" if you don't mean the Apostles' Creed. _I_ don't mean anything by the Apostle's Creed--it's the Catholic dictionary that uses "the Apostle's Creed" in the quoted definition, and (being Catholic) what they mean is quite clearly not a Protestant formulation. It ought to be pretty obvious that Catholics generally mean the Catholic version of the Apostle's Creed when they use that phrase.. Once again you have not addressed the key point about the Nicene Creed and have instead dwelt on a tangent.- Did you have a "key point"? Yes: that the Nicene Creed is not used by all Christian churches. For some reason you deflected the discussion to the Apostles' Creed The introduction of the definition which mentioned the Apostle's Creed was completely responsive to the original question that involved me in this thread, not a deflection: The discussion was about whether there are Christians who don't use the Nicene creed. I'm sure there are, and gave examples of Christians who may believe in the Nicene dogma but not use the creed (e.g. most Quakers--Mike Lyle pointed out that not all Quakers are Christians) and also of Christians who don't believe in the dogma of the Nicene creed at all (a long list, still available upthread). At that point you claimed they are "by definition, not Christians". Sigh. The essence of Christian dogma is encapsulated in the Nicene Creed. That is a different statement than the original, and would appear to It may be a different "statement," but it conveys the obvious intent of the original statement. Oh, but that's right, you come from a mathematical science (either math or physics), so you harbor the bizarre belief that human language is like mathematical statements. admit Christians who don't use the Nicene creed (e.g. Christian Quakers). *It still omits many sects who are by common English usage Christians (including the 10+ million Christians who belong to the denominations I listed earlier in the thread). To my mind, there are certain dogmas that all Christians accept, and there are other Trinitarian dogmas that are not accepted by all Christians. *The Nicene Creed contains the latter, and none of the definitions of "Christian" I've posted so far indicate that accepting Trinitarianism is necessary to be considered a Christian. *I think in common parlance, many Gnostics would be considered Christians by most English-speakers, and they'd be included under the English dictionary definitions, but the Catholic definition excludes them. Gnostics aren't Christians. (Not that there have been any for about 1500 years.) Did you miss the great outpouring of secondary literature that followed on the long-delayed publication of the "Gnostic Gospels"? I offered English definitions of "Christian", which include no mention of the Nicene Creed or Trinitarianism. *I also offered a Catholic dictionary definition as one example of how even the largest Christian denominations don't require belief in the Nicene creed to fall within their definition of "Christian": according to that Catholic definition, a Christian is one who a) is baptized and b) believes in the Apostle's Creed. For some reason, you then completely avoided the core point (that the definition of Christian used doesn't include any reference to the Nicene creed) and stated that the BCP version of the Apostle's Creed is newer than the Nicene creed. *I responded saying that the timeline is irrelevant, but also pointing out that the BCP version wasn't relevant to the definition of "Christian" cited. *You then asked what I meant by the Apostle's Creed, to which I replied that _I_ don't mean anything by it, I was citing a definition from a Catholic dictionary and so the relevant question is what _they_ mean by it (which is obviously the Catholic form). You still have no offered any definition of Christian, let alone explained why it might be a superior definition to that given in Webster's, or the OED, or a Catholic dictionary; in the absence of that, I'm not sure that there's anything left to debate regarding the original question. which you claim exists in Catholic- land as something other than the familliar Apostles' Creed. I find your use of "familiar" here somewhat baffling. *Do you mean more familiar to you? *If so, I'm not sure what the relevance is. *If not, the Catholic version is both older than and used by more people than the Book of Common Prayer version, so in general there's no reason to assume that it isn't the "familiar" version to most people. I'd personally avoid using that term, though, unless I were specifically discussing familiarity with respect to some group. The context should make the version used pretty obvious, anyway. *A Catholic dictionary is generally going to refer to Catholic forms, unless they're specifically discussing other faiths. *If someone quoted the Episcopalian dictionary, the Apostle's Creed would generally refer to the BCP version. I have still seen nothing, other than your assertion, to indicate that there's a "Catholic Apostles' Creed" that's different from the one in any Protestant prayer book. Pull out a Catchecism and compare to the Book of Common prayer. *Among obvious differences, the Catholic version is divided into 12 articles; there are also various differences in wording from the authorized Anglican versions. There's no such thing as "a Catechism." When I was little, the few Catholics I knew had to memorize something called "the Baltimore Catechism," which had no parallel whatsoever in either my Presbyterian church or my Episcopal school. The Baltimore Catechism, however, was rendered obsolete by Vatican II. I don't know what "a Catechism" would be, fifty years later. But anyway, how does breaking a text down for the purpose of discussion make it a different document? And you're still refusing to enumerate the "various differences in wording"? It's much like discussing the Bible--when a Catholic refers to the Bible, they're most likely referring to a book which includes the Book of Baruch (as one example). *When an Episcopalian is speaking, they probably mean a different version from which Baruch is excluded.- One day I happened to notice a plethora of Biblia Sacra's at the local Wal-Mart (in Secaucus) and got curious. Not one of them -- neither the traditional version dating from about the same time as the Douai version, nor recent translations -- contains what since Luther we have called the apocryphal books. Aren't most Spanish-speaking Americans Catholic? Most are; they're about 1/3 Protestant, and 2/3 Catholic. The Catholic canon is not the same as the Lutheran Canon + the Lutheran Apocrypha. *There are some books, like Baruch or parts of Daniel (e.g. Bel and the Dragon) that are in the Apocrypha and the Catholic canon. *There are other books, like 1 & 2 Esdras, that are in the Lutheran Apocrypha but are not part of the Catholic canon. *At least some of those, including 1 & 2 Esdras, are part of the Eastern Orthodox canon. Note also that the Catholic bible doesn't separate out the books in the same order as the Lutheran Apocrypha--e.g. Baruch in a Catholic bible appears in between Lamentations and Ezekiel, so if you were looking for them at the end they'd be easy to miss. What do you take me for? If the bibles that you saw didn't include the Catholic canonical books, they're not Catholic bibles--I've never seen a bible in a Catholic Church that omits parts of the Catholic canon. I wasn't in a Catholic Church. I was at a book display catering to the large Spanish-speaking community of Hudson County, New Jersey. See, e.g.,http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm#IV " * *IV. THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE * * 120 It was by the apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books.90 This complete list is called the canon of Scripture. It includes 46 books for the Old Testament (45 if we count Jeremiah and Lamentations as one) and 27 for the New.91 * * The Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zachariah and Malachi. * * The New Testament: the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the Acts of the Apostles, the Letters of St. Paul to the Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, the Letter to the Hebrews, the Letters of James, 1 ... read more »- I really don't need to read more of you teaching your grandmother to suck eggs. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
The perpetual calendar
On Feb 27, 9:57*am, "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
On Feb 27, 2:29*am, " wrote: On Feb 27, 12:20*am, "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: On Feb 26, 9:04*pm, " wrote: On Feb 26, 6:57*pm, "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: On Feb 26, 6:33*pm, " wrote: On Feb 26, 3:49*pm, "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: On Feb 26, 10:10*am, " wrote: On Feb 26, 9:21*am, "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: On Feb 25, 10:51*am, " wrote: FWIW, the Catholic resources I've looked at don't seem to limit their use of "Christian" to those who believe in the Nicene Creed. *Hardon's _Modern Catholic Dictionary_ says: Christian: A person who is baptized. A professed Christian also believes in the essentials of the Christian faith, notably in the Apostles' Creed. The Apostles' Creed is a later document. I've never noticed it included in a Missal. (But then, I haven't looked at a Missal in decades.) It's the creed usually said in Protestant churches (and also at Episcopal Morning Prayer) when a creed is recited. Historically, the content of the Apostle's Creed predates the Nicene Creed (its credos are found, for instance, in the writings of Irenaeus c. 200 AD, over a century before the Council of Nicea), though the precise wording used by modern churches has changed some since then. The Protestant version that you refer to, used by Episcopalean Churches among others, is a _much_ later formulation--it's also obviously not what the Catholic dictionary I quoted has in mind. Then perhaps you should say what you mean by "the Apostles' Creed" if you don't mean the Apostles' Creed. _I_ don't mean anything by the Apostle's Creed--it's the Catholic dictionary that uses "the Apostle's Creed" in the quoted definition, and (being Catholic) what they mean is quite clearly not a Protestant formulation. It ought to be pretty obvious that Catholics generally mean the Catholic version of the Apostle's Creed when they use that phrase. Once again you have not addressed the key point about the Nicene Creed and have instead dwelt on a tangent.- Did you have a "key point"? Yes: that the Nicene Creed is not used by all Christian churches. For some reason you deflected the discussion to the Apostles' Creed The introduction of the definition which mentioned the Apostle's Creed was completely responsive to the original question that involved me in this thread, not a deflection: The discussion was about whether there are Christians who don't use the Nicene creed. I'm sure there are, and gave examples of Christians who may believe in the Nicene dogma but not use the creed (e.g. most Quakers--Mike Lyle pointed out that not all Quakers are Christians) and also of Christians who don't believe in the dogma of the Nicene creed at all (a long list, still available upthread). At that point you claimed they are "by definition, not Christians". Sigh. The essence of Christian dogma is encapsulated in the Nicene Creed. That is a different statement than the original, and would appear to It may be a different "statement," but it conveys the obvious intent of the original statement. No, it conveys a different intent, which is obvious if you reread your original question: "Doesn't _every_ extant Christian church use the Nicene Creed? (With or without the _filioque_.)" That's clearly asking whether the Creed itself is used, and even goes so far as to specify a precise difference in wording. In fact, you brought it up because of a word issue: the Nicene Creed contains the word "catholic". The use of that word, as opposed to some synonym, is clearly a question of the actual Creed language and not one of religious dogma. Others in this thread took your question the same way (see, e.g., Dave Hatunen's response on the subject). That said, it's still an incorrect statement by what I understand "Christian" to mean. That you don't consider some large Christian denominations (e.g. many Adventists) to be Christian strikes me as a highly idiosyncratic position that doesn't accord with what the word "Christian" means in English. I've offered numerous definitions to try to convey this point. Until you offer a definition of "Christian" with an explanation and evidence as to why it's superior to those generally accepted by lexicographers, there's not really much left to discuss. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
The perpetual calendar
On Feb 27, 9:57*am, "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
On Feb 27, 2:29*am, " wrote: On Feb 27, 12:20*am, "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: On Feb 26, 9:04*pm, " wrote: On Feb 26, 6:57*pm, "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: On Feb 26, 6:33*pm, " wrote: On Feb 26, 3:49*pm, "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: On Feb 26, 10:10*am, " wrote: On Feb 26, 9:21*am, "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: On Feb 25, 10:51*am, " wrote: FWIW, the Catholic resources I've looked at don't seem to limit their use of "Christian" to those who believe in the Nicene Creed. *Hardon's _Modern Catholic Dictionary_ says: Christian: A person who is baptized. A professed Christian also believes in the essentials of the Christian faith, notably in the Apostles' Creed. The Apostles' Creed is a later document. I've never noticed it included in a Missal. (But then, I haven't looked at a Missal in decades.) It's the creed usually said in Protestant churches (and also at Episcopal Morning Prayer) when a creed is recited. Historically, the content of the Apostle's Creed predates the Nicene Creed (its credos are found, for instance, in the writings of Irenaeus c. 200 AD, over a century before the Council of Nicea), though the precise wording used by modern churches has changed some since then. The Protestant version that you refer to, used by Episcopalean Churches among others, is a _much_ later formulation--it's also obviously not what the Catholic dictionary I quoted has in mind. Then perhaps you should say what you mean by "the Apostles' Creed" if you don't mean the Apostles' Creed. _I_ don't mean anything by the Apostle's Creed--it's the Catholic dictionary that uses "the Apostle's Creed" in the quoted definition, and (being Catholic) what they mean is quite clearly not a Protestant formulation. It ought to be pretty obvious that Catholics generally mean the Catholic version of the Apostle's Creed when they use that phrase. Once again you have not addressed the key point about the Nicene Creed and have instead dwelt on a tangent.- Did you have a "key point"? Yes: that the Nicene Creed is not used by all Christian churches. For some reason you deflected the discussion to the Apostles' Creed The introduction of the definition which mentioned the Apostle's Creed was completely responsive to the original question that involved me in this thread, not a deflection: The discussion was about whether there are Christians who don't use the Nicene creed. I'm sure there are, and gave examples of Christians who may believe in the Nicene dogma but not use the creed (e.g. most Quakers--Mike Lyle pointed out that not all Quakers are Christians) and also of Christians who don't believe in the dogma of the Nicene creed at all (a long list, still available upthread). At that point you claimed they are "by definition, not Christians". Sigh. The essence of Christian dogma is encapsulated in the Nicene Creed. That is a different statement than the original, and would appear to It may be a different "statement," but it conveys the obvious intent of the original statement. Oh, but that's right, you come from a mathematical science (either math or physics), so you harbor the bizarre belief that human language is like mathematical statements. admit Christians who don't use the Nicene creed (e.g. Christian Quakers). *It still omits many sects who are by common English usage Christians (including the 10+ million Christians who belong to the denominations I listed earlier in the thread). To my mind, there are certain dogmas that all Christians accept, and there are other Trinitarian dogmas that are not accepted by all Christians. *The Nicene Creed contains the latter, and none of the definitions of "Christian" I've posted so far indicate that accepting Trinitarianism is necessary to be considered a Christian. *I think in common parlance, many Gnostics would be considered Christians by most English-speakers, and they'd be included under the English dictionary definitions, but the Catholic definition excludes them. Gnostics aren't Christians. (Not that there have been any for about 1500 years.) Did you miss the great outpouring of secondary literature that followed on the long-delayed publication of the "Gnostic Gospels"? isn't it better to go along with self-identification? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
The perpetual calendar
On Feb 27, 1:40*pm, " wrote:
On Feb 27, 9:57*am, "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: On Feb 27, 2:29*am, " wrote: On Feb 27, 12:20*am, "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: On Feb 26, 9:04*pm, " wrote: At that point you claimed they are "by definition, not Christians". Sigh. The essence of Christian dogma is encapsulated in the Nicene Creed. That is a different statement than the original, and would appear to It may be a different "statement," but it conveys the obvious intent of the original statement. No, it conveys a different intent, which is obvious if you reread your original question: "Doesn't _every_ extant Christian church use the Nicene Creed? (With or without the _filioque_.)" *That's clearly Since it's my question, I think I am entitled to state what its intent was. asking whether the Creed itself is used, and even goes so far as to specify a precise difference in wording. *In fact, you brought it up "Filioque," in case you don't know, is shorthand for centuries of theological dispute. (I gather, from the sources you cite, that you are some sort of conservative Catholic, the type that in Chicago flocked to the one parish in the city that had dispensation from Rome to say Mass in Latin, so I wouldn't be surprised if you don't know anything about such questions.) because of a word issue: the Nicene Creed contains the word "catholic". *The use of that word, as opposed to some synonym, is clearly a question of the actual Creed language and not one of religious dogma. *Others in this thread took your question the same way (see, e.g., Dave Hatunen's response on the subject). That said, it's still an incorrect statement by what I understand "Christian" to mean. *That you don't consider some large Christian denominations (e.g. many Adventists) to be Christian strikes me as a highly idiosyncratic position that doesn't accord with what the word "Christian" means in English. *I've offered numerous definitions to try to convey this point. Until you offer a definition of "Christian" with an explanation and evidence as to why it's superior to those generally accepted by lexicographers, there's not really much left to discuss.- Again I point out, as a linguist, that lexicographers have no special handle on truth, especially as concerns technical terminology. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
The perpetual calendar
On Feb 27, 3:37*pm, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
On Feb 27, 9:57*am, "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: On Feb 27, 2:29*am, " wrote: On Feb 27, 12:20*am, "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: On Feb 26, 9:04*pm, " wrote: On Feb 26, 6:57*pm, "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: On Feb 26, 6:33*pm, " wrote: On Feb 26, 3:49*pm, "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: On Feb 26, 10:10*am, " wrote: On Feb 26, 9:21*am, "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: On Feb 25, 10:51*am, " wrote: FWIW, the Catholic resources I've looked at don't seem to limit their use of "Christian" to those who believe in the Nicene Creed. *Hardon's _Modern Catholic Dictionary_ says: Christian: A person who is baptized. A professed Christian also believes in the essentials of the Christian faith, notably in the Apostles' Creed. The Apostles' Creed is a later document. I've never noticed it included in a Missal. (But then, I haven't looked at a Missal in decades.) It's the creed usually said in Protestant churches (and also at Episcopal Morning Prayer) when a creed is recited. Historically, the content of the Apostle's Creed predates the Nicene Creed (its credos are found, for instance, in the writings of Irenaeus c. 200 AD, over a century before the Council of Nicea), though the precise wording used by modern churches has changed some since then. The Protestant version that you refer to, used by Episcopalean Churches among others, is a _much_ later formulation--it's also obviously not what the Catholic dictionary I quoted has in mind. Then perhaps you should say what you mean by "the Apostles' Creed" if you don't mean the Apostles' Creed. _I_ don't mean anything by the Apostle's Creed--it's the Catholic dictionary that uses "the Apostle's Creed" in the quoted definition, and (being Catholic) what they mean is quite clearly not a Protestant formulation. It ought to be pretty obvious that Catholics generally mean the Catholic version of the Apostle's Creed when they use that phrase. Once again you have not addressed the key point about the Nicene Creed and have instead dwelt on a tangent.- Did you have a "key point"? Yes: that the Nicene Creed is not used by all Christian churches. For some reason you deflected the discussion to the Apostles' Creed The introduction of the definition which mentioned the Apostle's Creed was completely responsive to the original question that involved me in this thread, not a deflection: The discussion was about whether there are Christians who don't use the Nicene creed. I'm sure there are, and gave examples of Christians who may believe in the Nicene dogma but not use the creed (e.g. most Quakers--Mike Lyle pointed out that not all Quakers are Christians) and also of Christians who don't believe in the dogma of the Nicene creed at all (a long list, still available upthread). At that point you claimed they are "by definition, not Christians". Sigh. The essence of Christian dogma is encapsulated in the Nicene Creed. That is a different statement than the original, and would appear to It may be a different "statement," but it conveys the obvious intent of the original statement. Oh, but that's right, you come from a mathematical science (either math or physics), so you harbor the bizarre belief that human language is like mathematical statements. admit Christians who don't use the Nicene creed (e.g. Christian Quakers). *It still omits many sects who are by common English usage Christians (including the 10+ million Christians who belong to the denominations I listed earlier in the thread). To my mind, there are certain dogmas that all Christians accept, and there are other Trinitarian dogmas that are not accepted by all Christians. *The Nicene Creed contains the latter, and none of the definitions of "Christian" I've posted so far indicate that accepting Trinitarianism is necessary to be considered a Christian. *I think in common parlance, many Gnostics would be considered Christians by most English-speakers, and they'd be included under the English dictionary definitions, but the Catholic definition excludes them. Gnostics aren't Christians. (Not that there have been any for about 1500 years.) Did you miss the great outpouring of secondary literature that followed on the long-delayed publication of the "Gnostic Gospels"? isn't it better to go along with self-identification?- Of course not! My first example was the "illegal immigrant" who declared himself to be a US citizen. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
The perpetual calendar
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:37:52 -0800 (PST), Yusuf B Gursey
wrote in in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage. english: On Feb 27, 9:57*am, "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: [...] Gnostics aren't Christians. (Not that there have been any for about 1500 years.) Did you miss the great outpouring of secondary literature that followed on the long-delayed publication of the "Gnostic Gospels"? isn't it better to go along with self-identification? Of course. Brian |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
The perpetual calendar
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:49:01 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
wrote in in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage. english: On Feb 27, 3:37*pm, Yusuf B Gursey wrote: On Feb 27, 9:57*am, "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: [...] Gnostics aren't Christians. (Not that there have been any for about 1500 years.) Did you miss the great outpouring of secondary literature that followed on the long-delayed publication of the "Gnostic Gospels"? isn't it better to go along with self-identification?- Of course not! My first example was the "illegal immigrant" who declared himself to be a US citizen. Which is obviously irrelevant for the reason that I gave before. Brian |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
The perpetual calendar
On Feb 27, 4:02*pm, "Brian M. Scott" wrote:
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:37:52 -0800 (PST), Yusuf B Gursey wrote in in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage. english: On Feb 27, 9:57*am, "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: [...] Gnostics aren't Christians. (Not that there have been any for about 1500 years.) Did you miss the great outpouring of secondary literature that followed on the long-delayed publication of the "Gnostic Gospels"? isn't it better to go along with self-identification? Of course. thanks. I agree with you. it would be different if the illegal immigrant merely declared himself as ethnically an "American", since ethnicity is primarily a matter of slef-identification. citizenship isn't. if one doesn't consider religiion a matter of self- identification, one goes the way to morally legitimizing institutions like the Inquisition. Brian |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
The perpetual calendar
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:48:14 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
wrote in in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage. english: On Feb 27, 1:40*pm, " wrote: [...] Until you offer a definition of "Christian" with an explanation and evidence as to why it's superior to those generally accepted by lexicographers, there's not really much left to discuss.- Again I point out, as a linguist, that lexicographers have no special handle on truth, especially as concerns technical terminology. But 'Christian' is very far from being exclusively a technical term. Brian |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The perpetual calendar | Andrew Usher | Astronomy Misc | 1189 | August 9th 11 07:43 PM |
The perpetual calendar | Peter T. Daniels | Astronomy Misc | 32 | March 3rd 10 06:16 AM |
Perpetual Gregorian Calendar | Mr. Emmanuel Roche, France | Astronomy Misc | 22 | November 24th 09 10:34 PM |
(More) Perpetual Motion Machines | G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_] | Misc | 3 | November 9th 09 03:35 PM |
Perpetual motion... | gb6726 | Astronomy Misc | 5 | November 12th 07 04:34 PM |