Nicene Creed

George F. Somsel polycarp66 at
Sat Jan 18 15:00:11 EST 2003

I attempt to not interpret the text through the lens of theology (though
that can be a daunting task) but to understand theology in light of what
the text states.  Of course, here we are faced with a situation where the
Council of Nicea, whose formulation we have before us, is the very place
where the trinitarian formula was enunciated.  Nevertheless, even here it
would be well to understand what the council said by examining the text
which has been left to us rather than imposing our understanding of the
doctrine upon their formulation.

I'm not sure what your point might be in stating "While it is true that
TON KURION is not a participle, neither is TO AGION!"  I'm not aware that
I stated that TO hAGION was a participle.  If, however, I should have said
anything to so indicate, I repent in sackcloth and ashes and beg your
forgiveness.  It is quite obviously an adjective qualifying TO PNEUMA.  TO
PNEUMA is in turn governed by the preposition EIS (requiring an
accusative) which is used with the verb PISTEUOMEN to signify the object
of trust.

Yes, ZWiOPOIHQEIS in 1 Pet 3.18 is in the aorist.  It is always dangerous
to judge regarding the state of the event which is described by resorting
to reliance upon the tense of the verb and even more hazardous to base
one's theology upon a tense.    If you will note, LALHSAN in the text of
the creed is likewise an aorist.  Are we to assume thereby that God is
said to have only spoken ONCE through the prophets?  Such a judgement must
fail upon any consideration.  Let's just read what the text says.


More information about the B-Greek mailing list