Talk:Nicene Creed/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Judging the quick and the dead?

The section "Traditional (from Book of Common Prayer)" contains this phrase, I'm pretty sure it should be the living and the dead, some just typing too fast?

-phil

Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer has "quick", which was a synonym for "living". Jhobson1 14:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

What does it mean?

I really think somebody should tell us what the Nicene Creed actually means in the introduction. That is what introductions do.

Yeah, for real. I mean, wtf? 99.8.225.97 (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

"What does it mean?" or "What does it mean to you?" ...just a Lutheran plug on inputs...  :-)

Language Choices

Anybody have any ideas, if there is an appropriate spot in this article, to include accepted translations of this Creed into other languages besides English?

--Terence Lung 192.31.106.35 19:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Gender Usage

Omitting 'men' - I've never heard that one in practice, but I'm sure it's done. All of that liturgical-gender-avoidance is post-1990 in parochial usage, though it's been going on in female religious orders since the mid-60s, I've read. The only one I occasionally hear with my own ears is the resolute use of 'God / God's / God' instead of 'He / His / Him' in certain prayers, especially in the response of the people to the "Orate fratres" just before the eucharistic prayer proper:

Priest: Pray, brethren, that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father.

People: May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of his ('God's') name, for our good, and the good of all his ('God's') Church.

--MichaelTinkler

---

re: gender, aaaaagghh. why not sistren or just change it all to it?.... with all due respect, most intelligent people don't really mind He, as they are more interested in the meaning of the statement itself than the importance of being politically correct! Dizzynomes 09:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a "standard" use of inclusive language, like many of the changes in the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible. Is this a top-down change supported by some bishops, or a grass-roots thing that people are just kind of doing at the lay level? I know the American bishops don't always see eye-to-eye with the Pope on everything. --Wesley

dunno. I think it's a movement that is concerted and propagated by lay and clerical groups without episcopal approval but often with the approval of diocesan-level officials - for instance, at diocesan conferences for liturgical planning, etc. Not that there aren't some bishops who are part of it, but it's never come to a vote the way the lectionaries did. The Roman Catholic Church is and has always been a lot less successful at policing practice than either its organizational charts or its critics make out. --MichaelTinkler

I find it hard to believe that the orginal teaching of the first century church has been attacked in such a way through the misleadings of the Nicene creed 325 constantinople 381 by adding the word son of God adopts idolitary attacking the church, for sonship is ordained for the beliver to take on the name Jesus Christ we are now the sons of God. Deu. 6: 4 Hear ye O isreal know that the lord your God is one Lord.....Matthew 28:19 baptise every one of them in the name of (titles) are given no singular name is given therefore no remission of sin is given nor the forgiveness of sin is offered. Luke 24:46 repentance and removal of sin must be preached in my name starting at..... Elder Joseph Mckenzie/www.christianworldtodaytelevision.net

Thank you for sharing, Elder Joseph. --Wetman 09:12, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Hi, I took a stab at Wikifying the statement about gender-neutral language recently. I had never heard of this modification to the Nicene Creed before; as a side question, why does the history of the Nicene Creed page stop abruptly in Nov. 2001? I was surprised we cannot determine what party first created/inserted this statement in the page.
Anyway, searching the web, the only references I have found thus far to such language are protestant, not Catholic. For example:

• http://www.reclaimingwalther.org/articles/500/jmc595.htm (LCMS = Lutheran Church Missouri Synod)
• http://www.concordtx.org/opinions/ncreed2.htm

Harris7 13:34 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I removed this note regarding the change from first person singular to plural, in going from the original Greek to the modern English version that are quoted:

Thus, it is originally a statement of personal belief and pluralization is an innovation.

It's not nearly as much an innovation as that statement seems to suggest. Saying the creed was done jointly at every Divine Liturgy at least as early as John Chrysostom, though probably in singular form; I think (though I'd have to check) that many of the early Councils may have included the Creed in its plural form up front as a statement of what the gathered bishops believed jointly. This was not a matter of "personal belief" in the sense of individual belief, where individuals were free to change or omit parts of it to suit them and still call themselves Christians. If it were, there wouldn't have been nearly as much arguing over the details of how things were worded.

As for the history stopping abruptly, I think you'll find that no wikipedia article goes back much before then. Early on, there were a couple times when wikipedia lost its edit history and we just had to go forward from that point on, for software-related reasons. Wesley 12:06, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Question: Is it worth starting a page on the etymological flow of gender neutrality? The given discourse on the evolution of the Greek, Latin and English word 'man' seems worthy of a document to itself. --Penumbra 2k 15:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Filioque

The Filioque is parenthesized in the Latin and English, but not in the Greek; should it be so there ? (I can't recall, but I'd guess that the Greek Catholic mass says the Greek version without it ?)

The dates don't make sense, how could it be used first in Toledo, Spain in 587 and yet be already acknowledged in Rome by 447? Besides, the Filioque clause articles gives 447 as the year of a Synod in Toledo that first added the clause to the creed. eiaccb 09:21, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The filioque was never part of any Ecumenically-authorized version of the Creed. The Greek text is that Ecumenically-authorized version. As for the AD447 mention, it makes no sense to me, either. I'm deleting it. If someone can come up with a source for the claim (a source OTHER than one of the many copies of Wikipedia out there), it can come back. Dogface 18:12, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I propose after mentioning the Council of Lyons adding that the Eastern Orthodox church considers the Council of Lyons not to be ecumenical. One reason, I believe is that the other non-Greek Patriarchs like Russia rejected the Council at the time (unlike the first 8 councils). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.201.23 (talk) 08:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I have added the idea, in what I think is a neater form. Lima (talk) 12:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Singular/plural

The Greek version of the creed needs to be corrected, since in Greek it was originally written in the plural, and it is recited in the plural. See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11049a.htm http://www.creeds.net/ancient/niceneg.htm http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8062.asp http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8065.asp

The Greek of the Nicene version was plural. The Greek of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan version (which is the complete version of the Creed) may be singular, depending upon the source. I checked this. It depends upon the text that one consults. The modern Greek text, as used by the Orthodox Church of Greece, is singular, not plural. (http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/greek/chrysostom_liturgy7.htm) Dogface 18:24, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes - its recited at nearly all Catholic Masses, aside from weekday Masses. Sometimes, at the discretion of the presider, it is omitted at Masses where it would just "take too long." In the Tridentine Rites, it is recited at both High Mass and Low Mass, and is sung at a Missa Cantata or Sung High Mass.

The Creed, like everything else in the Mass, has prescribed times for when it's said: Sundays and Solemnities in the new rite; traditionally, Sundays, Doubles of the I and II Class, and Feasts of Doctors. At other Masses it's omitted. In the new rite, it's permitted in some places to substitute the Apostles' Creed, but omitting it when it's supposed to be said because it would "take too long" is an abuse. As for the singular/plural issue, it's singular in Latin, and the English "we believe" is an inaccurate translation, regardless of whatever merits it may have. It's Credo, not Credimus. PaulGS 03:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Usage

The article says that it is often recited as part of Christian services. What about saying that it is recited at nearly all Catholic masses and Orthodox liturgies (if this be true) ? That would be a much stronger statement, I think.

It is recited in the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and of St. Basil, the most commonly used Orthodox and Eastern Catholic liturgies, as well as part of some other Orthodox prayers. I suspect it's part of the standard Catholic Mass and some other Catholic prayers, but a Catholic should confirm that. Wesley 18:27, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm Lutheran, ELCA, and we use the Nicene Creed often, for most special days -- about as much as we use the Apostle's Creed.Hollielol (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

History

Such a big text dump, so little history. Nothing about the wrangling. What about filioque, if you don't already know why this was so touchy? Who calls it the "Niceno-constaninpolitan creed"? okay, then say so. I give this a C so far. Wetman 01:07, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Details about the filioque clause and that controversy should be in the filioque clause article, not here. I think that article does say more if I recall, and it's linked from here. I'll add something about the Nicene-constantinopolitan creed, but basically that just identifies specifically the version that was adopted in Constantinople in 381, as opposed to the 325 version from Nicea or much later versions that have the filioque clause added. Wesley 18:17, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Because there are so many irrelevant links in Wikipedia articles (not specifically here) it seems (to me) important to explicitly state the fact when links have further information. But the basic motivation for filioque belongs here too, because how does one comprehend the politics? The effects of the controversy, though not all its details, on the separate developments of the creed are part of why one reads this article. It's fine to have a filioque clause entry, with plenty of detail, but this Nicene Creed entry needs to be complete itself, as well. We can't say, "Oh they didn't understand it because they didn't follow up all the links." I'm sure we all agree in principle. Wetman 18:32, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

"one Being with the Father", seems like a really bad translation of ομοουσιον . It seems to me that it should be "the same substance as the Father". Any comments?

"One in Being" is not the correct translation of Homoousios!!!! It's "Of One Being". plus the english meaning of the latin "substantia" has lost its authenticity in the word "substance" and only maintains some of its validity in substantial and substantiated therefore the word Being must be used. Your suggestion of " the same substance" is open to heretical misinterpretation as it is not contrary to sabellian/arian etc heresies unlike the most precise "Of One Being" Onthesideoftheangels 12:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Better go with historic translations and explain the ambiguities and misunderstandings. "Our"rticulat translations are irrelevent.

I wonder that people are surprised to see the filioque clause in parentheses and conjecture what that might mean! Wetman 15:56, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

I'm not sure what you mean by "historic translation". This English translation doesn't look historic to me. The historic translations would have "only-begotten" for example. Either go for an historic translation, or go for a good modern translation. Which one?

fixed a typo

---

I agree with Wetman, there is little history in this article. E.g. there should be discussion of Emperor Constantine's role in the process of the creation of the Nicene Crede. Wikimsd (talk) 11:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Full Greek Text

I'm confused. I read the article, and thought it would be a lot easier to read if the full creed was written out earlier. Then I saw in the history that the full Greek text was present in earlier versions, but was removed on 9/28/05. Does anyone know why? Does anyone mind me putting it back in? -Chris (not registered, as you can see) 207.172.150.65 01:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Omission in current Greek Text

Concerning the full greek text, the current greek text is missing five words in the section of the anathemas. They are "οὐκ ὄντων ἐγένετο, ἢ ἐξ," which mean "he was made out of nothing or He is of." It should be inserted after "Τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας, ὁτι ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, καὶ πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν, καὶ ὅτι ἐξ."

Compare the current end of the greek text from http://www.creeds.net/ancient/niceneg.htm a page made by a random pastor:

Τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας, ὁτι ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, καὶ πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν, καὶ ὅτι ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσίας φάσκοντας εἶναι, [ἢ κτιστόν,] τρεπτὸν ἢ ἀλλοιωτὸν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, [τούτους] ἀναθεματίζει ἡ καθολικὴ [καὶ ἀποστολικὴ] ἐκκλησία.

with the text on the Italian site on the same subject http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simbolo_niceno-costantinopolitano , which comes from Denzinger (a much more reliable and scholastically credible source):

[Τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας· ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, καὶ πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν, καὶ ὅτι ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐγένετο, ἢ ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσίας φάσκοντας εἶναι, ἢ κτιστόν, ἢ τρεπτὸν ἢ ἀλλοιωτὸν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, ἀναθεματίζει ἡ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία.]

Though the current text does include text criticisms left out by the Denzinger text, it is clearly missing those critical words mentioned above which are even seen in the English translation of the anathema "He was made out of nothing or He is of." Plus, as these words were a direct response to Arius, it is not likely that their lacking be a viable text criticism (though I might be wrong), rather I think that the pastor writting out the greek text on the site mentioned above simply lost his place. The Catholic-Encyclopedia site on the Council of Nicaea, http://www.creeds.net/ancient/niceneg.htm , specifically mentions the greek of the words I found lacking in this article's version of the greek. I've also seen other sites mentioning that the Council condemned those who said "He was made out of nothing."

I purpose that the two texts of the anathemas be mixed, or better that simply the missing words in the current version be reinserted. Chrisgaffrey (talk) 08:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Usage in Protestant Churches

There has been a bit of churn in the first paragraph about who "accepts" the Nicene Creed. I put "most" back in front of Protestant because my understanding is that some protestant churches (e.g., the Church of Christ) do not formally accept creeds (their reasoning is, I believe, that they consider them devisive and the Bible is a sufficient statement of the belief of the church). If people prefer different text, can we discuss it here? Johnh 18:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The reason I had taken it off is that those churches that reject the creed typically do not consider themselves "Protestant" either. Actually, I do not like the word either, preferring "Evangelical", because the word Protestant seems stuck in time and does not reflect the point that has at least historically united the non-Roman western churches. -- Chris 18:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, "protestant" is the word used in English-speaking countries. If you don't like it, you can go back to Germany...just kidding, but "evangelical" has a quite distinct meaning in North America, at least, which is not the same as "Protestant" at all. A point, though: the Church of Christ, whether or not it calls itself Protestant, is a church out of the Protestant tradition, and, as I understand it, its doctrinal beliefs are similar to protestantism. At any rate, do Baptists accept the Creed? My understanding is that Baptists don't like the idea of creeds in general, and that while the doctrines of most Baptist groups do accept the substance of the creed, they do not accept it as a creed. Baptists are most certainly protestants - only a weirdly narrow definition of what a protestant is could reject that. At any rate, am I correct in assuming that the Creed is explicitly accepted in churches in the Anglican, Methodist, Lutheran, and Reformed modes? Do Pentecostals accepts the creed? Adventists? Disciples of Christ? john k 19:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

My guess is that, while both of you are basically right, it will be very difficult to get a statement that is both short and unambigious. In particular, efforts to clearly define Protestant are probably not best the subject of this page. Hence, my suggestion to just qualify it as "most Protestant" and move on. (Since that's both short, relatively clearly, and factually accurate.) Johnh 22:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The inclusion of Church of Christ in the list of groups who "reject the Nicene Creed as an error or a misinterpretation," apparently leading many other Christians to "regard these denominations as not being Christian at all," is probably unfair and maybe even inaccurate. Members of the Church of Christ generally take an entirely orthodox view of the deity of Christ and the trinity. They would, however, share with "evangelical" groups an in-principle rejection of human creeds, preferring instead to use the Bible as their sole textual authority. A few members might take issue with the wording of the Nicean Creed here and there, but as the article makes plain, this is not unusual. Further, the Church of Christ does not have a central organizing body, so it is tricky portraying the Church of Christ as having an official, single voice on almost anything. Tm19 01:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Absent any further comments on this section, I propose removing "Church of Christ" from the list of religious groups rejecting the Creed as "an error or misinterpretation." Tm19 08:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I think all of the sections dealing with the standing of the Creed in various denominations need to be combined and reworked. Any well written article for the individual denominations should have details on their particular attitude towards the Creed, and those attitudes don't need to be detailed here, especially since it's likely that the minutiae of disagreements will make for a horror of clutter here. This article needs to have a brief, cited paragraph on the role the Creed has played in Christian church history, and another on the Creeds present day standing, with cites, and no mention of particular denominations is necessary. I don't believe any more than that is needed here. Hmoulding (talk) 04:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Article Restructuring

Looking at this article as a whole, it seems like it could use some restructing. A suggested structure:

• introduction, what is the creed
• text, in several versions (current sections: greek, latin, english)
• wording differences (current sections: ammendments, filioque, gender neutral)
• history (current sections: History; Nicene Christianity becomes the state religion of Rome)

I'm willing to try restructing it along these lines. Any strong objections? Or does anyone else want to do this with some other structure? Johnh 22:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Go for it, John. I think it needs pretty serious restructuring. Yes, put in an intro, then put in the full text in several languages, maybe with variants shown somehow, then all the discussion, as you suggest. As you will probably do that, I'm not going to bother to put the full Greek text back in as I mentioned above. 207.172.150.65 17:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC) Chris (not registered).

/* Nicene Christianity becomes the state religion of Rome */

I moved the whole section, as is, to Arianism as it deals with the Arian controversy and not with the creed as such and it contains only the end of the story and mainly from the political view, so it gives, here, a biased impression (there is also a theological side to it) - in the Arianism article, on the other hand, exactly this part of the history has been so far neglected, so it helps there to make the article better balanced. --Irmgard 23:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Misleading statement

There have been many further creeds, in reaction to further perceived heresy, but this one, as revised in 381 was the very last time both western and eastern branches of Christianity could bring themselves to agree upon a Credo.

This is not correct regarding Western and Eastern branches - the Chalcedonian formula is of 451 (less known as not used liturgically) is also Eastern and Western. Also the use of creeds was not only to counter heresy but also to sum up the Christian faith e.g. in liturgy or at baptism. --Irmgard 21:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no Traditional Catholic Version

There is no Traditional Catholic version so I will add it.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by StThomasMore (talk • contribs) 02:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The US Catholic Vernacular Creed

I am of the strong opinion that the present US Catholic version in the vernacular is potentially material heresy - One in Being does not mean homoousios or consubstantialem, and is not conducive to authentic catholicism. I also find other grammatical errors plus an insertion!! So I felt obliged to add Notes on Variants to the Modern Usage form. The US conference of Bishops is presently reforming the vernacular liturgy and repeating the same errors when a highly orthodox and dogmatically precise version of the Creed is already in use in the British Isles.Onthesideoftheangels 13:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The section discussing the creed as it appears in the Roman missal in the United States should be edited and then removed. It contains assertions that are unsupported by any citations to authority. For example, the section suggests the supposed reasons for changes from the 1973 version to the 1975 version but does not cite the drafters of the 1975 version (or some other recognized scholar) explaining the reasons for the differences from the 1973 version. The section also violates the requirement of NOPV. For example, the section states that the use of the phrase "he was born of the Virgin Mary" in teh 1973 version rather than "incarnate from the Virgin Mary" somehow "favour[s] abortion." That is a highly non-obvious reading of the language and appears to be based solely on the author's negative opinion of the version of the creed currently used in the Catholic Church in the United States. Such an opinion is the author's business and should not be included in a wikipedia entry. Once edited and properly supported, the section really belongs in a separate entry discussing controversies within the Catholic Church over English translation of the Roman missal. 68.175.106.173 05:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Died

In the comparison of the 325 and 381 versions, "died" is marked as an innovation of 381. However, the Greek version of the Creed of 381 contains no corresponding word:

Σταυρωθέντα τε ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου, καὶ παθόντα καὶ ταφέντα.

Neither does the Latin translation:

Crucifixus etiam pro nobis sub Pontio Pilato, passus et sepultus est,

Nor does either traditional English version:

He was also crucified for us, suffered under Pontius Pilate, and was buried. (RC - in passing, note the dislocated Pontius Pilate, caused by moving the comma in the Latin from after "Pilato" to after "nobis")

And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried: (CofE)

I therefore see no evidence for "died" being interposed as early as 381 (indeed, I see no pre-1960 evidence for it), and I am therefore going to remove it from the 325/381 comparison. A435(m) 16:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. Thanks. Wesley 17:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The vernacular in use amongst catholics in the British Isles do not insert died [besides which it is grammatically incorrect in english] they translate passus as "suffered death" which is intrinsically more appropriate.Onthesideoftheangels 13:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes

This appears to be attributed in the article to Nicea 325. Actually it is found in Cyril's letter to Nestorius (Council of Epheseus 431) and possibly the Council of Chalcedon 451. Whatever one's view of Nicea, if they did not include anathemas in the text, then this has to be cleaned up. As a newbie on the topic, I will wait for others, you can simply put the anathama phrase into Google and find the references. Shalom, Praxeus 08:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the text as is should be ok. Turns out the sources intermingle some, and the text that has the cross-out appears to be from the Athanasius account of the Eusebius letter to his church, which is strong enough. We discussed it on a thread at .. http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/3/14141.html?1143608659 And you can find various versions of the Nicene Creed with the anathama clause. While many versions leave it out (a point that could be noted). Praxeus 09:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Catholic

I don't believe the word Catholic should be capialized on the line "We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church". It is not capitalized in Catholic missles, and I was taught in Theology at my Jesuit high school that the word refers to the secular word catholic, meaning universal, not Catholic, as in Church. The above text comes from my missle - apostolic is secular as well.

You are right. Normally with the upper case "C" we understand it to be the Roman Catholic Church as a denomination among other Christian denominations. I wonder if the sources from which these texts have been taken have the uppercase "C" in them. In that case the texts are simply reproduced as they are. I commend the Roman Catholic Church for lower casing the "c"! Drboisclair 19:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The Catholic Church is not a denomination, it is the original Christian Church and was practiced by all Christians for over 1500 years before any other "denominations" were formed. It is why the original Church was referred to as the "catholic" Church because it was the universal Christian Church. The word catholic comes from two Greek words Kath Halou which I believe is "On the whole". --38.96.192.115 14:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid the above comment is dissappointingly based in emotion rather than fact. Although not a Christian scholar, I'm quite certain the Ethiopion Orthodox Church, the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Syriac Christians and others can quite convincingly argue their origins apart from the Catholic Church and well before the Nicene Creed, let alone predating your 1500 years of math. I appreciate your enthusiasm but your statement would be much more appropriate if you lost the first, highly opinionated sentence as this is not the place for it. Thanks Bristus (talk) 09:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Bristus forgive me. But no. They say they where the correct part of the church and broke away to keep it pure (as is most common to this position for anyone and everyone). When people speak of "politics" playing into the schisms of the church what probably should be said is "old pre-christian conflicts". Now the schism between East and West is over the pagan substance theory and if the Pope has the authority to force it on the other patriarchs. Reconcillation is not a matter of agreeing to disagree, it is a matter of if God is "personal and selfless" or if God is a tyrant. Or if the Pope will have the final say (authority) in things for all the catholic East and West. A final say that forces the Popes position (Rome) over the other equals to him (patriarchs or the rest of the world). Which is a power the role of Pope never had which is unfortunate given that Augustine and Aquinas are not compatible with eastern theology and allot of wrong is going to have to be forced to be accepted as correct at the expense of Orthodoxy. So as Orthodox there is no real benefit (I mean if I want to be Roman Catholic I can just go be Roman Catholic). Unity is not truth and truth should not be given up, for the sake anything, including unity. All of this at the expense of Christianity while the old pagan elements re-establish themselves. And of course Protestantism is being overtaken with paganism, so much so that even the Slavophils back over 100 years ago predicated that most Protestants would fall into paganism. After it was shown that the bible was written by the Christian community and not the specific Apostles per se (some bible or text will be discovered that supposely shows this but after the damage is done will be refuted or something like that as the story goes). Soloviev went to far as to say that Christianity would lose its world position because power became more important than theosis, philosophical (pagan) reason more important then trust and faith in God.

LoveMonkey (talk) 12:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure I could have wonderful conversations regarding all of this but my simple response was in regards to the fact that numerous 'denominations' existed well before even the Nicene Creed came to pass. One could argue the various groups the Apostles wrote to in their letters were denominations due to the different practices the apostles tried to correct. If the Roman Catholic Church was the one to continue use of the title "catholic", this does not take away from those denomonations already in existence nor their perpetuation throughout the ages. I make no statement here in Wikipedia as to who I feel is correct. I myself belong to none mentioned here.Bristus (talk) 15:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Notes on variants

While I think this is useful and interesting, it could be improved by eliminating passive voice sentences like 'It has been argued' or 'it could be argued.' If it has been argued, state who has made the argument. If a proposition hasn't been argued by anyone, but could be, it needs to be stricken from the article until it actually is argued somewhere that can be verified. Otherwise it would be original research. Wesley 16:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

"Greek Orthodox English version"

A source is required for this insertion. The Greek Orthodox Church recites the Creed in Greek, the original language of the Creed, not a translation - even into modern Greek. Do Greek Orthodox in, I suppose, the United States - I do mean Greek Orthodox, not other Eastern Orthodox - celebrate the liturgy in English? I doubt it. If they do, give a reference to the published service book of the liturgy. The English translation that has been posted here may be just an unofficial translation found in some booklets meant to assist Greek-less worshippers in following the liturgy. Even if such a translation were made by a priest and approved by a bishop, that would not make it an official text like the official texts of the Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches. I think it would then deserve no more than a footnote to the original Greek text. If it cannot be sourced, it does not deserve even that. Lima 04:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

In most Greek Orthodox Churches in the US, the service is in both English and Greek. At my church we alternate English and Greek with the Creed and Lord's Prayer. Once week Creed in Greek, Lord's Prayer in English, next week the opposite. Grk1011 (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Crossed out and underlined

The line:

Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down from the heaven and became incarnate

had "from the heaven" crossed out and underlined. What does this mean? Mistake? Morwen - Talk 16:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the differences between the earlier and later forms of this Creed are more clearly presented in the tabular form which I am now inserting in the article, and that the existing text, with its underlining and strikeouts, should be deleted. I leave it to someone else, if they agree with this idea, to do the deleting. Another problem with the existing text is that it uses a translation not found on the Internet, and vandals have been deforming it, confident that others will find it difficult to check the correct text. The table I am inserting uses an Internet text that anyone can easily check. Lima 18:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you put the Greek in the table as well without making it too big? I do prefer a word-for-word diff though, as opposed to corresponding paragraphs. Morwen - Talk 20:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no book that gives the Council texts in Greek, and I have not found those Greek texts on the Internet. I only have the Greek text as used in the Church's liturgy. Lima 20:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Morwen, now that I have divided the tabular text up into smaller portions, do you still prefer the "word-for-word diff", i.e. the underline/strikeout presentation? Lima 13:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I have now found the two Council texts in Greek on [this site] and have, I think, responded to Morwen's request, not by putting the Greek in the same table as the English, which would indeed make it too big, but by making a separate table for it. The text on the site has many spelling errors and has very few accents. I have tried to remedy these defects. On the other hand, I have not wished to impose uniformity in capitalization: the text on the site varies in its use of upper-case letters for God, for the Father, the Holy Spirit ... I have just left these words as I found them. Lima 15:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree we can do without the now redundant -strike- text. Lostcaesar 10:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The need for English translations of what Eastern Orthodoxy uses

Noting the disclaimer given in reference #3 I have added this text of the Niceno-Constantinopolitanum that comes directly from an Orthodox church's translation of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom in liturgical use in that church, which is a congregation of the Orthodox Church in America, which celebrates the Divine Liturgy in English. We should also have the present English text from the Roman Catholic mass liturgy in use. The Orthodox and the Roman Catholic tradition predate the Anglican tradition. I will also add the present liturgical text from my own Lutheran tradition.--Drboisclair 19:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

In most countries, as the article states, Roman Catholics use the 1975 ecumenical version. In the United States, as the article also states, they use instead the 1973 draft for this ecumenical version. A new Catholic (not produced by an ecumenical body) English version has been approved by at least some episcopal conferences and has been confirmed by the Holy See, but has not yet been put into use. When it is officially published, we can put that version here and, most likely, remove entirely the two versions Catholics use at present, since I doubt if any other Church now uses the 1975 text, and nobody but the impatient United States Catholic bishops conference adopted the 1973 draft, except perhaps in a merely experimental way.

With regard to English translations of the Creed, I suppose that the oldest tradition is indeed the Anglican. Lima 13:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

ICET and filioque

Dear Lima, when I removed that text, I was under the impression that the "and the Son" was in brackets in the text as well. I was wrong on that. However, I do think that this is the way to present it here, to bracket that phrase and to restrict the explanations to a minimum. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The difficulty is that, to limit the number of English translations in this page, only those in official liturgical use are included. I strongly doubt that any Church other than the Catholic continues to use the 1975 ICET version (and the Catholic Church will cease to do so in about two years' time). The others, as far as I know, use some variant of the 1988 ELLC ecumenical version, or perhaps some version of their own, like the Lutheran and the Orthodox Church in America ones. So it seems that the only form of the 1975 ICET text still in use is the one with "and the Son".

When it is published, the new Catholic (ICEL) translation will presumably replace both Catholic-used versions now included in the article, and the 1975 ICET version, with or without "and the Son", will only be a matter of history. Lima 18:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Clutter

Reading this article for the first time in a while, I was struck by how cluttered it seemed, with what felt like a laundry list of almost-identical translations. Fixing this is not a trivial change, since there is a point to be made by most of the versions present (I'm not arguing they're superfluous), but I wonder if the flow of the page might not be improved by somehow shifting most the actual translations off to a separate, linked page, and here just summarising why they're relevant. /blahedo (t) 21:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I was bold and did a ton of restructuring. I'm still not satisfied with everything (especially the side articles), but at least I think the articles are well-structured and each of consistent granularity of information. Thoughts? /blahedo (t) 04:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

My immediate reaction was to think that, before making so radical an alteration, Blahedo should have proposed the matter for discussion, but I intended to open the matter for discussion myself while trying, in the meantime, to remedy some of the most evident faults in the Blahedo version. For instance, Blahedo opened the article with a particular English translation of the Nicene Creed presenting it as the text of the Creed. We don't say that any particular English translation is "the text" of, for instance, St John's Gospel. Contrary to what Blahedo says, this particular English translation is is liturgical use: the English-speaking Roman Catholic Church uses it, except in the United States, where a version that is only slightly different is used.

That, I thought, could be remedied, but on then seeing how many other matters also needed adjusting in the Blahedo version of the article, which I sincerely find more confusing that the preceding version, I have reluctantly decided to revert to the earlier version. I will, of course, abide by whatever the Wikipedia community thinks it best to do about the article. Lima 07:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

My negative reaction was not against Blahedo's removal to a separate article of the currently used English translations. I think there will be no objection to accepting that change by Blahedo, and I have made the necessary adjustment to the previous version. Lima 08:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I did propose the matter for discussion, and I got no response despite the fact that a bunch of editing was going on, so don't be accusing me of anything. I made a number of structural changes, which you simply reverted without addressing. I did head the article with a section called "Text", since someone unfamiliar with the creed would probably want something to refer to, but in the body I was clear to note that it was a translation, and I gave specific reasons for my choice of which version (which I knew would be contentious). This is the English-language Wikipedia, and there simply is not an "original" version of the Creed in English, so a translation is just the best we're going to do. Including the Greek and Latin versions somewhere in Wikipedia are good, but for someone who doesn't read them, putting them in this article, a general one about the Creed, is just posting so much junk for them to scroll past. That's what I meant about "consistent granularity". The discussion about the ancient-language versions of the Creed, with individual words and their transliterations, will be much more accessible to the interested English-speaking reader. Even for the English translations of the two Greek versions, presenting this in a poorly-annotated tabular form is much too fine a level of detail for someone who is just reading to see generally what changes were made (though it does belong somewhere on WP—in its own article). The English translation of the Armenian version doesn't belong here, although a (properly cited) analysis of it might, and the actual Armenian version would belong on the source-language page.

Basically, your objection appears to be that I did the edits too fast and/or without your approval. What are your actual objections to, say, starting off the article on the Nicene Creed with the English (translation of the) text of the Creed? Or to putting three and a half screenfuls of Greek text on a different page? /blahedo (t) 18:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I apologize to Blahedo for my ill-chosen expression. Yes, Blahedo did propose for discussion moving the English liturgical translations into an article apart, something with which I am in agreement. I did not intend to accuse Blahedo of anything: he chose "to be bold", and opinions may vary on whether his boldness was justified by the result. I do not question his right to be bold; I just doubt that the result was felicitous. With the English translations now removed, I think - others may well disagree, and I look forward to reading their views - that the article on the Nicene Creed can and should all the more concentrate on and give details about the origin of this Creed, a highly important element of which is what exactly are the differences between the 325 and the 381 texts, what the Second Ecumenical Council added to, omitted from or otherwise altered in the text of the First Ecumenical Council. This matter is so essential, I think - but again I would like to hear what others think - should not be hived off to another article. I think that, without a concrete side-by-side confrontation between the two texts, it would be very difficult to understand properly what changes were made in 381. (The comparison between the two texts in the original language is put immediately after the confrontation between an English translation of both texts. I think Greek-less readers will automatically skip the second table; but if the Wikipedian community thinks that readers would instead get bogged down in trying to understand it, it can be put as a footnote to the first table.) This important confrontation between the 325 and the 381 texts is the sort of thing that I felt required the previous text of the article (except for the section on English translations) to be brought back, not the minor question of beginning with a particular English translation. As I said above, this minor question could easily be solved by making a few adjustment to the words by which that English translation was introduced.

I think the 325-381 confrontation should certainly be kept in the article on the Nicene Creed. (It was the point that I found most interesting when I first read the article.) Blahedo thinks it should not. What do others think?

Another matter that I thought unacceptable in the Blahedo version of the article was the arrangement by which it had a section that it called "Textual analysis" of the Creed in Greek and Latin, but gave no Greek or Latin text to go with it.

As for the Armenian text, this is not just a translation of the 381 text of the Creed. If it were merely a translation, it would, in spite of its antiquity, be no more significant that a modern translation into Swahili or Esperanto. It is an adaptation (for instance, "he became man" was elaborated into "By whom He took body, soul, and mind, and everything that is in man, truly and not in semblance" and "who spoke by the prophets" was developed into "Who spoke through the Law, prophets, and Gospels; Who came down upon the Jordan, preached through the apostles, and lived in the saints"), showing how that ancient Christian Church thought it useful to elaborate further the teaching of the Creed, as the Western Church also did with its "Deum verum de Deo vero" and its "Filioque".

I think that the earlier text was more suitable than the Blahedo text. Blahedo thinks the opposite. What do others think? Lima 19:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Nicene

Would someone be able to add the proper American English pronunciation of Nicene? Onionmon (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Some notes

First, some of this appears to be copyvio from http://www.thenazareneway.com/nicene_niceno_constantinopolitan_creed.htm . The repetition of the sentence "No doubt debate will continue as to the author's intentions both in the New Testament, as well as the separate issue of the intended meaning in the creeds." is particularly suspicious.

Second, no Greek version I can find has the "God from God" part of "God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God". Does anyone know where this came from? It seems fairly common, but not universal, in English translations.

mkehrt (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

"God from God" comes from the Western (Latin) version. (Note, too, in the original Nicaean form: "θεὸν ἐκ θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ".) Lima (talk) 04:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Gah, simultaneously editing the same page doesn't work well. As I said in an alternate version of this page that was destroyed by the ravages of editing, thanks! I put the text you removed below for future reintegration. mkehrt (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Text removed by Lima

The following text was removed by Lima due to my concern that it was copyvio from http://www.thenazareneway.com/nicene_niceno_constantinopolitan_creed.htm. However, I think the information contained here is both interesting and relevant, if somewhat confusingly written. I may at some point attempt to reintegrate it into the article; others are welcome to do so as well. mkehrt (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Most modern scholarly opinion believes that μονογενή means "only" or "unique" coming from μονο — "mono" meaning "only" and γενή coming from γενος "genus" meaning kind - "only one of its kind", thus the translation "only Son" in the above modern translation of the creed. One possible mistake at this point is to translate "genus" according to its Latin meaning. In Greek, however, "genos" (γένος) may mean offspring, a limited or extended family, a clan, a tribe, a people, a biological entity (e.g. all the birds), or indeed any group of beings sharing a common ancestry. Therefore its meaning can vary from the very narrow to the very broad. A telling example of Greek usage of the word "genos" would be "Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, to genos Bouvier" (i.e. née Bouvier).

Older English translations as well as the Latin contain "only-begotten", "unigenitum" on the belief that γενή comes from the word for γενναω "born". On the other hand Old Latin manuscripts of the New Testament translate μονογενή as "unicus", "unique". No doubt debate will continue as to the author's intentions both in the New Testament, as well as the separate issue of the intended meaning in the creeds. It may be noteworthy that "only-begotten" is currently deemed an acceptable translation into English within Orthodox Christian jurisdictions that routinely use liturgical Greek.

A considerable part of this confusion is due to the similarity of the key Greek verbs "gennao" and "gignomai".

"Γεννάω" (gennao) means "to give birth" and refers to the male parent. The female equivalent is "τίκτω" (tikto), from which derive the obstetric terms "tokos', labor, and "toketos", delivery, and words such as "Theo-tokos", Mother of God, and the proparoxytone "prototokos", firstborn, as opposed to the paroxytone "prototokos", primipara (one giving birth for the first time).

Γίγνομαι (gignomai) means "to come into existence".

The etymological roots of the two verbs are, respectively, "genn-" and "gen-", and therefore the derivatives of these two verbs exhibit significant auditory and semantic overlap.

Auditorily speaking, while the ancient Greeks pronounced double consonants differently from single ones (example: the double N was pronounced as in the English word "unknown"), by Roman times this had become the same as pronunciation of single consonants (example: the double N was then pronounced as in the English word "penny").

Semantically speaking, the Greek word for "parent" can derive both from "gennao" (γεννήτωρ, gennetor, strictly applicable only to the male parent) and from "gignomai" (γονεύς, goneus, which applies to both parents). In ancient and modern Greek usage however, the word "monogenes" invariably refers to a son without other brothers, or a daughter without other sisters, or a child without other siblings. In this context, both "only-begotten" and "only one of its kind" are equally valid translations.

Furthermore, the word "monogennetos" (a father's only son) and "monotokos" (a mother's only child) do not exist, while "monotokos" means a female who can only have one offspring at a time. Of course any -tokos derivative would be out of the question in this case, as the Nicene Creed seeks to clarify the parentage of God the Son in relation to God the Father.

The Greek word ὁμοούσιον indicates that the Father and the Son are "consubstantial", i.e. of the same substance, essence or being, because the Son is begotten of the Father’s own being (ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkehrt (talk • contribs) 21:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Creed and History

There is no easy to read accessible copy of the Creed in this article. It should be here. It is public domain and is the core of the article. It seems silly to have several broken up versions in several languages and not the actual creed, available to be read without going to another page. I have added it under content, near the top of the article. I also added a short sentence or two to explain the Arian controversy that provoked the Creed. Another essential addition to the article. Xandar (talk) 10:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

More exact

I think Trinity refers nowadays to the well-defined concept of three persons, each being God, and yet they are one God. The Apostles' Creed says nothing explicit about the divinity of neither Jesus nor the Holy Spirit. The sonship of Jesus, although related, is another subject: David is also a begotten son according to Psalm 2:7 in the Jewish interpretation, Jesus has called others sons of God as per Matt 5:9, etc. As for the Holy Spirit, did the church fathers forget that he's God in the Nicene Creed of 325? If you carefully read and compare all creeds I think you may agree that Trinity as understood today is only explicit in the Athanasian Creed. As such I disagree with this edit. --Observer99 (talk) 13:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope I'm not indulging in OR. There are sources (example [1]) that confirm the above, and sources that don't. Not sure how best to deal with such issues? --Observer99 (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The most that can be said about the Athanasian Creed's delineation of the Trinity is that it is fuller than that in the other two creeds mentioned. I don't think you can say that any particular exposition of the doctrine of the Trinity is a (the?) full delineation of it. Are we to say that the expositions by later theologians such as Aquinas are less full than that in the Athanasian Creed, on which these later theologians built?

To say that, according to the 381 creed, the Holy Spirit is merely "worshipped and glorified" unjustifiably leaves out the highly important phrase about the way the Holy Spirit is worshipped and glorified: "with the Father and the Son". The First Council of Constantinople, which inserted these words into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, seems certainly to have thought it was thereby asserting the divinity of the Holy Spirit against the "Macedonians". Abraham too was "worshipped" and glorified while still alive, but not with the Father and the Son.

Though here you use the word "explicitly", in the article you changed "The Nicene Creed explicitly affirms the divinity of Jesus" to "The Nicene Creed affirms the divinity of Jesus", and then, with your "In contradistinction to the Apostles' Creed", thereby suggested that the divinity of Jesus is not affirmed even implicitly in the Apostles' Creed. You know, of course, that the Apostles' Creed, as we know it - I don't mean the Old Roman Symbol - is much later than the Nicene Creed: we should not give readers the impression that those who drew up the Apostles' Creed did not believe in the divinity of Jesus! In my text I did not state that the Apostles' Creed does affirm the divinity of Jesus: all I said was that the most that can be said (i.e. claimed) about it is that the idea of the divinity of Jesus is implicit in it. Lima (talk) 18:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you define trinity in one/two lines? --Observer99 (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you define the General Theory of Relativity in one/two lines? How much detail do you want? A one-line definition of the Trinity, taken from the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, is already in line 4 of the body of the article on the Trinity. Lima (talk) 04:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you tell why the 325 creed says nothing about the divinty of the Holy Ghost? Can you say which creed says "one God exists in three Persons and one substance, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"? I see three Gods in Nicene! --Observer99 (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

If I say nothing about someone's humanity, it doesn't mean I believe him not to be human. I think the Nicene Creed begins with an affirmation of belief in one God. Lima (talk) 05:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Mistaken Multimedia

Hi! The multimedia file "Pronunciation of the Credo in Latin" is actually of the Apostles', not Nicene Creed. Thanks! -J —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.45.250 (talk) 18:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC) hj —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.95.132.51 (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Church Slavonic

The previous version of the Church Slavonic was completely wrong and it was in some other Slavic language or dialect, but definitively not Church Slavonic. I added an image from the Russian Wikipedia as the full OCS Cyrillic alphabet is not supported in Unicode. Please note that there are many variations of Church Slavonic (this one is New Church Slavonic, as used in Russia). Thanks, Vladimir Boskovic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.243.79 (talk) 02:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Nicene Creed English translation

The link to the Armenian Church library is dead, at least tonight. Was trying to confirm the capitalization of One, Holy..., etc. Could not find any examples of English translations of the Creed at Armenian Church Web sites that capitalize any of the words. Found examples of both "catholic" and "universal" on the same Web site. The one I've listed is from the standard liturgy. The one with lower-c catholic is in the Armenian Church standard wedding ceremony liturgy. I'm just assuming that the standard liturgy's English translation may be the more correct one. Afaprof01 (talk) 01:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I see that my correction was un-corrected. Let me explain why my change was right and the current translation is wrong. The English translation of the 381 Creed references (via footnote 18) the Greek text further down on the page. The Greek says "ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου". For those who don't read Greek, that says "of/by/from the Holy Spirit AND Mary the Virgin." The Greek has always said AND. At first it was correctly translated into Latin as 'et', but in the calligraphy of the day it was hard to tell 'et' from 'ex', and other Latin liturgical texts said 'ex Maria Virgine', so the erroneous Latin version became standard in the West. (The East has never made a big deal of this error since it was never used to support a heresy.) Until the last 30 years or so, all English liturgical translations of the Creed were based on the Latin (and most still are), so they read 'of'. But if, as the article seems to indicate, you are trying to give an English translation of the original Greek text of 381, it should read 'and', not 'of'. BALawrence (talk) 02:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

On your main point, I agree. However, the article's comparison between the two versions of the Creed is a quotation, and we cannot attribute to that source what it did not say. Why not add to the article a note about the required correction of what the source says? Wikipedia does not allow you to present such a note as your own research, but it should surely be possible to find and then quote a source that makes the point you want to make. I would prefer this to be done by you, but if for some reason you do not feel up to doing it, just ask me and I am confident that I could find such a source and insert what it says into the article, with a citation of the source. Esoglou (talk) 09:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Spirit vs. Ghost

The correct English translation for the Greek word which is pronounced "Pnevma" is "spirit" NOT ghost. I am fluent in modern Greek, Ancient Greek and i am Greek. This is the correct translation.

Also i am in agreemt with the "Is this a joke" author. The Nicene Creed was indeed formulated by the WHOLE Christian church body as it was prior to the Schism of 1054. However, if anything, it is more Eastern Orthodox than Catholic or protestant since it was created in Nicaea, a Greek city in Asia Minor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ygkaravas (talk • contribs) 05:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• That may be so, but the translation is given with reference to a reliable source, this one, by Philip Schaff. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 06:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• That may be all well and fine that Philip Schaff, essentially a nobody of the 20th/21st century, decided to use the term "holy Ghost" as opposed to the true translation which has been used for centuries; essentially for as long as the Nicene Creed and the English Language have coexisted. In conclusion, I am not interested in what a 21st century writer or "theologian" whatever you wish to call Philip Schaff claims is the "true" translation; rather I am interested in what indeed IS the true tranlation, passed on through the centuries by the Nicaean and post-Nicaean Church Fathers, the true leaders and shepherds of the Christian faith. Thus it would be much appreciated if this heretical term "holy Ghost" was in fact replaced with the true term "holy Spirit" in MY religion's creed. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.138.178 (talk • contribs)
  • And the issue here is that you claim to have access to the "true" translation--precisely that is why, above, I linked to a specific section of a specific essay, "But I know the truth!". It seems you did not have a look at that essay, or at any of our other core guidelines, such as WP:V. Besides, this is not about how your religious creed can be appeased. Mine says "ghost"--so what? What matters here is not what you (or I!) think is right, but what the references say. If you have a better one, bring it--that would change the discussion. Right now you are simply disruptively changing text to where it no longer agrees with the references, claiming "I am right." That's not how Wikipedia works.

    One more thing: if you get an account, stop editing as an IP. It is confusing, and accusations of sock puppetry are just around the corner. Drmies (talk) 04:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• The Nicene Creed was written first in Greek. This is a fact we can all agree on because it is common knowledge and is stated in the article i believe. The word "πνεῦμα" was a word in the original Nicene creed which I claim translates to "Spirit" (This is also a fact we can agree on since it is also in the Wikipeida article). This is the entry for the Greek word "πνεῦμα" from the "Liddel and Scott Greek Lexicon" the most widely used one, recognized to be the most accurate as well. Not once is the word "Ghost" used. Several times is the word "Spirit" and even "Holy Spirit" used. here it is:

πνεῦμα πνέω I. a blowing, πνεύματα ἀνέμων Hdt., Aesch.: alone, a wind, blast, Trag., etc. 2. metaph., θαλερωτέρῳ πν. with more genial breeze or influence, Aesch.; λύσσης πν. μάργῳ id=Aesch.; πν. ταὐτὸν οὔποτ᾽ ἐν ἀνδράσιν φίλοις βέβηκεν the wind is constantly changing even among friends, Soph. II. like Lat. spiritus or anima, breathed air, breath, Aesch.; πν. βίου the breath of life, id=Aesch.; πν. ἀθροίζειν to collect breath, Eur.; πν. ἀφιέναι, ἀνιέναι, μεθιέναι to give up the ghost, id=Eur.; πνεύματος διαρροαί the wind-pipe, id=Eur. 2. that is breathed forth, odour, scent, id=Eur. III. spirit, Lat. afflatus, Anth.: inspiration, NTest. IV. the spirit of man, id=NTest. V. a spirit; in NTest. of the Holy Spirit, τὸ Πνεῦμα, Πν. ἅγιον:— also of angels, id=NTest.:—of evil spirits, id=NTest.

Please consider changing THE creed, not just MY creed to the TRUE creed. Thank you. Ygkaravas (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Ἠγαπημένε Ygkaravas, this article states: "The following table juxtaposes the earlier (325 AD) and later (381 AD) forms of this Creed in the English translation given in Schaff's work, Creeds of Christendom. In that English translation "Holy Ghost" is used. We cannot make the article say that Schaff wrote "Holy Spirit".

I presume you are familiar enough with the English language to know that "ghost" is still used, even if in a somewhat archaic way, to mean not only φάντασμα, but also πνεῦμα. Even your lexicon quotation says so: "πν. ἀφιέναι, ἀνιέναι, μεθιέναι to give up the ghost" (emphasis added).

Your observation is correct with regard to less archaic, more modern English, and if you look up the article English versions of the Nicene Creed in current use, you will find that all modern translations have "Holy Spirit"; the only version with "Holy Ghost" still in use is that of 1662 that continues to be employed in many churches of the Anglican Communion. So Wikipedia has a whole article registering the fact that you wish to see included. Δεν είναι σωστό; Esoglou (talk) 07:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Esoglou: this is very helpful. I had seen the link to that article, but your reply is much better than I could have formulated it. Drmies (talk) 21:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Armenian

I'm familiar with Latin and Greek as being integral languages in Christianity, as well as Hebrew and Aramaic, but I have no idea why the Armenian text is given such a prominent position. Can someone explain this? Bigpeteb (talk) 05:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I think its presence is useful as showing how this ancient church thinks it is right to recite the Nicene Creed with glosses giving further specification of the contents. Esoglou (talk) 07:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but why specifically Armenian? And why isn't that explained in the article? And why does the Armenian version get an English translation but the Greek and Latin versions don't? I don't read Greek or Latin any more than I read Armenian, so the Armenian version is not helpful if I have nothing to compare it against. Bigpeteb (talk) 05:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I hope my addition to the article answers your queries. Esoglou (talk) 07:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Comparison between Creed of 325 and Creed of 381

Problems here. Says that square brackets indicate what the 381 version omits or moves, and the italics indicate what it adds. But going thru these indicators, one cannot reproduce either text unambiguously. Why not just give the two texts side by side? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.2.143.28 (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Also translates "credo" and "pisteuo" as "we believe," when it is in fact first person singular, "I believe." 2600:1008:B104:A01D:9C8C:BF2E:AFB1:134A (talk) 01:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Profession of Faith

"Profession of Faith" right now redirects to the general "Creed" but should come here instead. 72.54.254.49 (talk) 16:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. The Apostles' Creed has been called "The Basic Profession of Faith]]. Esoglou (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Alternate Version of the Creed

I don't see the actual document on which the text of the creed is based. Do we have actual manuscript of the creed? Or just quotations of later councils?

Theodore of Mopsuestia, few years before Council of Ephesus, in his commentary of Nicene Creed says: "Our Fathers at wonderful council of Nicaea didn't overlook the human nature of our Lord, and because of this added a phrase: 'firstborn of all creation'."

Today's version of the creed omits this verse, and I think I know why it was removed - it was thought to be Nestorian at Council of Ephesus and that's why bishops removed it.

In any case, this article should at least claim the fact that there are alternate versions of the creed. --Otherguylb (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

"and" vs "of"

There has been a recent edit controversy over using "by the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary" vs "by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary" If we are going to stick with citing it from Schaff as it is, we must stick with the wording he uses. However, the last editor was correct in saying that the Greek word "kai" translates as "and". Considering that "the virgin Mary" appears in the genitive, the proper translation would be "and of the Virgin Mary" incorporating both words... Should we stick with Schaff's translation, or should I try to find a translation that preserves both word usages more faithfully to the original Greek?ReformedArsenal: ὁ δὲ θεὸς 15:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

There is the problem that the Schaff quotation is more than a translation of the two versions: it indicates by italics and by square brackets the differences between the 325 text and the later text; and those differences, not the wording of the translation, are the point of the section. It would be difficult to find another source that does that. Translating "σαρκωθέντα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου" as "was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary" is not the only point in Schaff's translation that could be questioned. Even within that phrase itself, some might ask why does the translation add the definite article (absent in the original) to "πνεύματος ἁγίου".

The reason that the definite article is added is because "πνεύματος ἁγίου" is considered a monadic noun (phrase) which is a "one of a kind noun" that is definite because of what it is, not because of the presence or absence of an article. See: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2000-August/012969.html ReformedArsenal: ὁ δὲ θεὸς 17:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps one could leave the Schaff quotation untouched and add a (sourced) note about more literal ways of translating one or more words or phrases in the quotation. Esoglou (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

merge --JFH (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Pretty much the same material as found at Nicene Creed#Comparison between Creed of 325 and Creed of 381 is at Comparison of Nicene Creeds of 325 and 381. It should be merged here, and the Greek removed. --JFHutson (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. The material in the other article is not enough for a real article. Make the other a redirect to here. Esoglou (talk) 12:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Versions in foreign languages

I don't see the value of any foreign language text of the creed in an English language encyclopedia. In the edit summary that reverted my deletion of several foreign language creeds, I was told that they should be retained because "this is where I come when I want to see the Greek or Latin." Perhaps this person should try el:Σύμβολο της Νικαίας and la:Symbolum Nicaenum, which are in the Greek and Latin Wikipedias respectively, or better yet, wikisource:el:Σύμβολο της Πίστεως and wikisource:la:Symbolum Nicænum Costantinopolitanum, since Wikisource is a more appropriate place for the hosting of texts. The English Wikipedia is supposed to be in English. Furthermore, an encyclopedia focuses on facts rather than texts. I think it is appropriate to present one English language text for the same reason we include illustrations. Any issues related to differences between texts and how the text has been translated should be presented in original, sourced prose with short quotations where necessary. --JFH (talk) 03:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree (notwithstanding my having recently added another) and methinks that this section should be reduced to links to the texts of these versions in the appropriate non-English Wikipediae. However, at least the links should be there since one may come to Wikipedia to find the original version or ancient translations.

Also, while I'm typing, I question the appropriateness of the existence of the section "English translations" when there is a separate article "English versions of the Nicene Creed". Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 12:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

One option would be to use this template and add a page to the multilingual wikisource with links to each language, something like oldwikisource:Bible, perhaps with a section for "Ancient liturgical versions."

(I think it is showing up funny because it is on a talk page. Here's what it looks like normally.)

For the English translation section, I'd like to just keep the BCP version on this page as the best example we can provide (due to copyright) of an English translation. The section should exist per WP:SS.--JFH (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

One substance

The original Greek word translated "one substance" is "homoousios" which etymologically means "of the same substance". However, etymology only tells us what the word meant when it started life not what it means in any later user. ("Nice" is etymologically derived from the Latin "nescius" which means "ignorant".) The exact understanding of the word "homoousios" by the bishops at Nicea is a debatable question. It may well have been understood as doing no more than affirming the full divinity of Jesus Christ. However, later reflection led to the opinion that when applied to the the Godhead it implied identity of substance as the Cappadocian fathers realized. Of the two possible translations: "of the same substance" and "of one substance/being" the second represents more clearly the developed understanding of the Churches and is found in the four BCP's I have consulted: (ECUSA 1977/Australia Revised PB/ASB & the old 1662 BCP) Jpacobb (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

In Church Slavonic, this is translated as "single" (an adverbial form of "one") and the gerund of the verb "to be", that is, literally in English, "single being" or "one being" or "one existence". Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 11:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It is perhaps useful to note that (at least) some Orthodox prefer "of one essence" as a translation of "homoousios", rather than "one substance". Determining the meaning is easily confused by problems of translation. English translation is the least of it. The ancient bishops themselves were confronted by differences between Latin and Greek which made expressing the nature of Jesus Christ problematic in a way that could be clearly related through both languages. Moreover, the history of theological discussions before Nicea had to deal not only with differences of understanding of that nature, but with differences of emphasis in the words used to describe it in those languages, and the differences easily produced misunderstanding or controversy, at least for a time. Etymologies are quite insufficient to resolve the issues, whatever the language. We do know the Nicean council wrote in Greek, and also spent considerable effort on resolving understandings coming from both Latin-based and Greek-based theologies. Indeed, "homoousios" had first been used in support of an earlier belief that had been rejected as heretical in the century before, so all the bishops were highly cautious about (even initially opposed to) its application at Nicea. It can only be conjectured to what degree they were all satisfied with "homoousios" in the end. But they had largely decided against Arianism by the time they began constructing a creed, and they needed to be sure they could be clear on how to express that in the creed; "homoousios" was the eventual result. When the creed was later translated to Latin, for the sake of the church where that was the the vernacular, the translation of theological terms met with the same difficulties that theologians had been dealing with for a considerable time. The difficulties of breaching the word and language barriers were always present in the ancient church as well as in all later times. To this day, there is no real disagreement between the Roman Catholic (descendant of the Latin-speakers) and Eastern Orthodox (descendant of the Greek-speakers) as to the fundamental meaning of the nature of Christ as expressed by "homoousios", but there is still an ancient flavor of shift of emphasis that points back to ancient times and languages. The English word "substance" as opposed to "essence" is as close as we can come today to represent that shift in our own language, but both words contribute to understanding if applied carefully. Evenssteven (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Eastern Use of Apostle's Creed

I have clarified the statement on this, with a citation pointing at a relevant article in the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia, that the Eastern church does not use the Apostle's Creed liturgically. Most Eastern theologians I've read do not disagree with the content of the Apostle's Creed, rather, it, like the Book of Revelations, simply is not a part of their liturgy. I had clarified this statement initially; which lacked a reference of any sort, but another user reverted it. I have reposted it with a reference and hopefully it will remain unmolested; the prior statement was overbroad. Wgw2024 (talk) 04:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your edit, but would point out that the reference from an encyclopaedia which is over a hundred years old it hardly a reliable guide to current practice. In this particular case the situation has not changed, but in many others the source is hopelessly out-dated.

Jpacobb (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The source is valid in this instance, we all agree. Eastern Orthodox liturgy has not changed radically in the last hundred years. Esoglou (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

In response to Jpacobb, I would point out that most of the information in the Catholic Encyclopedia accurately describes the history of the Catholic Church and other Christian communities up until that point. A huge swathe of that is still accurate today, given how slowly things change in parts of Christendom, particularly in the realm of the Eastern churches (both Eastern Catholic and Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches use the same liturgy now that they used in 1800, albeit with very minor changes in things like the diptychs, the change in the litany regarding the language used in praying for civil authorities, and so on). From the standpoint of liturgical history, 1900 is practically yesterday; most of the Roman Catholic liturgical rites have not changed since then; only the Latin and Ambrosian Rite liturgy has changed substantially since Vatican II. The other rites have either continued unchanged, or with minor changes in music to remove Latinizations, or have been mostly discontinued (for example, the rites of the religious orders, which have become exceedingly rare in the past 40 years, or the Rite of Braga, which has apparently vanished). Many Wikipedia articles are the result of copy-pasta from the Catholic Encyclopedia, and a contemporaneous Jewish Encyclopedia of the same era. I myself have had to go through and clean many of these up, to remove the offensive terms "Monophysite" and "Nestorian", replacing them with "Miaphysite" and "Assyrian Church of the East" (as the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrians now maintain they do not adhere to the Monophysite and Nestorian heresies associated with some of their founders, such as Pope Dioscorus and Nestorius, and since this represents a heartfelt attempt at full Orthodoxy we certainly don't want to interfere by referring to them in language they find offensive). Wgw2024 (talk) 06:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Armenian Version

Greetings. The Armenian Version given here is a Modern Eastern Armenian translation. It is a partial translation because the final section of the text, the so-called anathema, has been omitted from this translation. In the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Nicene Creed is most often chanted in its Classical Armenian form, the form into which it was translated from Greek and/or from Syriac around AD 400 at the latest. For a complete text of the Classical Armenian Nicene Creed as it is used in the Armenian Apostolic Church, there are numerous websites one can consult. In writing this, I do not wish to make or imply any judgment as to the quality or character of this Modern Armenian translation, or as to its use in any Armenian Christian liturgical setting.

Robert Phenix, PhD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.199.133.23 (talk) 09:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Would you please point to a particular source from which to get the classical Armenian text and an English translation? Esoglou (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Other ancient liturgical versions

On reading this section again, it struck me as odd that there is mention of the filioque here. First, it is not really ancient (which is the subject of the section), but more Middle Ages. Second, it did not stem from language that originated at any of the ancient ecumenical councils. "Filioque" has always been controversial, and continues to be so. Indeed, this is pointed up again by the small edits made in late July regarding current (and changing?) liturgical application in Roman Catholic churches of eastern orientation, which in itself is an outgrowth of that controversy (how "eastern" to be, sans filioque, as opposed to "western", having it present, and what does that mean to those churches).

Contrast the difference in nature of these matters to that of the question of translations that produce "I believe" or "We believe", which is material that belongs solidly to this section.

As an eastern orthodox, I hesistate to touch "filioque" myself, lest I change something in the text that others find meaningful, however benign it might seem to me. But it does strike me as appropriate that the content be moved, perhaps to the "Filioque Controversy" section. Does that seem controversial to anyone? Evenssteven (talk) 17:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

There is the problem of "How ancient is ancient?" According to the article - I haven't checked sources - Filioque was in use from the sixth century. Surely that's ancient enough. For all I know (although I doubt it), it might even be more ancient than the inclusion of Deum de Deo in the Latin version - a phrase absent in the Greek Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, commonly called the Nicene Creed, though present in the original 325 Nicene Creed. And what do we know about when exactly Πιστεύω (and Credo) began to be used in the Divine Liturgy in place of Πιστεύομεν (and Credimus)? Was that so much more ancient? I don't see how anyone can remove Filioque from the report about the Latin text. After all, Filioque has to be mentioned immediately after the lead of the article, where an explanation is given of the different senses in which the name "Nicene Creed" is used. Esoglou (talk) 20:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think filioque originated in sixth-century Spain, but it didn't gain a lot of currency immediately. The momentum really shifted around the time of Charlemagne, who pressured Rome for its inclusion. The main point is, the Roman Empire had ceased to exist some centuries before that. While the Byzantine Empire emerged in the east, the rise of Islam also changed the political (and military) situation throughout the Mediterranean. By that point, the "ancient" order (politically) was gone, and a new era had begun, call it what you will. But the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed was fully formed before that era (though not by a lot of time). Filioque arose in the new era, and in the extreme regions of the old Roman Empire then gone for over a hundred years.

I don't know about the dating of credimus, but the two things are simply far different in context. It's not just a matter of dates or age. And the significance of filioque to Latin text is precisely that it was Latin, not Greek, west, not east, and that it led (in part) to the Great Schism. And now we're talking about the controversy, and a context that continues very much alive today. Hence, it's not really so ancient after all. And I'm back to my original point. Evenssteven (talk) 03:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing. The section I'm referring to is "Other ancient liturgical versions", not "Ancient liturgical versions". Your comment makes more sense to me when I read the second section, but that's not where I'm making my point. Are we on the same track now? Evenssteven (talk) 03:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I was about to claim that the "Filioque controversy" section was overreaching in its claim of early acceptance of the phrase in Latin churches, but I find that the Filioque article itself is full of western scholastic references claiming the same. It is not the same story I get from eastern references. What can I say? More controversy, differing opinions even among reputable scholars. But the east/west division of these claims quite clearly point to a connection with the schism. I would prefer all these materials to reflect at least a mention that there is not a uniform agreement among scholars. But I am unable personally to pursue a course to press for that, so I'll just leave the comment here. My original point here about where the material belongs remains, though, as it does not depend on the dating. Evenssteven (talk) 04:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Could someone please explain the connection between the Treaty of Brest Litovsk and the filoque? EoinRiedy (talk) 03:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

This is explained in the main article Filioque#Catholicism. Any more information should be added there, not here. Elizium23 (talk) 05:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Does Credo (card game) belong in the "See Also" section of this article?

There has been an editing war over this matter. I just now reverted to the pre-war status and am putting it here for discussion. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Based on the content of the linked Wikipedia article, I would say that it is extremely relevant and certainly meets criteria for inclusion here. Elizium23 (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I must disagree. The game is not WP:RS. Its characterization (on the front cover) as a game of "dueling dogmas" is itself a misrepresentation of the facts of the Nicene Council. The Council decided very quickly that Arian claims did not represent the faith of the church. The bulk of discussion, resulting in the creed, was how to formulate the faith in such a way as to make it clear that Arian theology did not fit. That was an arduous task for all involved. Historical documentation shows that the context included Constantine's concerns about the civil unrest in the Empire that had preceded the council. People had died, churches had been destroyed, and there had been violence in the streets. To place this matter within the context of fun and games cannot promote understanding of the history, and to base the game on a historically false premise is misleading. Again, the game cannot purport to be a WP:RS, and hence is an unfit teacher of the creed and its history. The article is designed to inform readers about the creed and its actual context. The two are incompatible. Evensteven (talk) 15:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that you (Evensteven?) have not checked any of the external links at Credo (card game), and I'm confident that you have not played it. It was, and arguably still remains, a relevant tool to teach what happened at Council of Nicaea and/or the first ecumenical council, and how today's Nicene Creed came to be. Is it perfect? Of course not. But it's a reasonable distillation of the history of the event(s) leading up to today's Nicene Creed.

On another issue, I seriously doubt that the phrase "editing war" is correct. I asked the relevant persons to explain their actions. Until the move here, I've mostly not received an answer. Labeling my edit as Vandalism smacks of disrespect and and maybe libel. Disagree with me, that's fair; calling my action Vandalism, that is NOT.

LP-mn (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Please look on User talk:Lipsio#Marking edits as vandalism where I have already apologized to you, User:LP-mn, for my misuse of the term "vandalism". Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 17:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

LP-mn, what you suspect or are confident in (about me) are not relevant. The reference in the Credo (card game) article has the context right: it's a playable game, entertainment, not a teaching tool. I've given my reasons as to why it is not a "reasonable distillation" of history, based on WP:RS whose research underlies both the First Council of Nicea and Nicene Creed articles, among others. I did not call your original addition "vandalism", nor have I said "edit war". But when you twice try to insist on it over the top of reversions by two editors, and that without discussion, you are reaching for that category. I am glad that you are here now. Please read some more of the scholarly history even WP can point you to before venturing opinions based on no WP:RS. You have to make a case for those opinions, supported by recognized authorities. Refusal to do that puts you in a weak position and makes it more likely that your edits will come to be viewed as vandalism. Evensteven (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The inclusion criteria for "See also" is not WP:RS but much lower. It is a list of related Wikipedia articles. I cannot see how it would be argued that the card game is unrelated to the Nicene Creed. Elizium23 (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Now that's a point. I see "one purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics" in that policy. But I had seen (and removed) an unsupported statement in the Credo (card game) article that made the "reasonable distillation of history" claim that I have objected to. Just because something has a historical setting does not make it a learning tool. A game is certainly related "tangentially related", but as long as it's presented as entertainment and it is not suggested as a way of learning anything about history, then I would have no objection to its placement in "See also". BTW, I have seen no supporting WP:RS in the game article that suggests "learning about actual history", and doubt they could be accepted as WP:RS on that point if they did. They are WP:RS only when it comes to games. Overreaching statements in the game article would not be good there in the first place, but a "See Also" means those statements would affect the see-also article as well. But on that cautionary basis, it gets a pass from me. Evensteven (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC) added edit with strikeout above Evensteven (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I've read the descriptions of the game in the links given. In the game, the winning dogmas are not at all necessarily those expressed in the Nicene Creed. Indeed, I imagine, without having played it, that the game would never end with all articles as in the Nicene Creed. If the game is added to the article on the Nicene Creed, it should perhaps be added also to those on Manichaeism ("I believe in two gods, one good, one evil"), Arianism, Homoiousianism, Antidicomarianism, etc., etc. If there is one Wikipedia article to which it should be added, it is that on the Council of Nicaea, where the discussion took place, not to the article on what was the council's actual historical decision. Esoglou (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why we should not include the link in those other articles, unless it goes against WP:COMMONSENSE or editorial judgement, or the See Also list is already too long. Elizium23 (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Methinks it belongs, if anywhere, in a section on literary and cultural references. If there were a work of historical fiction on the Council, or if there were notes of references in literature, that's where I would expect to find those; this is what I see in other Wikipedia articles with such references. Perhaps such a section should be started and eventually, I'm guessing, other items would find their way there.

No matter where this may end up, however, I must agree with Esoglou that it belongs in First Council of Nicaea and not here. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 12:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Nicely put. Evensteven (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

There was another attempt today to add claims of accurate historicity to the Credo (card game) article, backed up by five game reviews, none WP:RS with regards to history (as you might suspect). But one reviewer at least familiar with some of the history even said it missed the point of the council. I took out the historicity claim that was added to the article, and left the references to the reviews as being fine for opinions on playability. But if this article is linked to a section of any of the history articles, we are going to need to monitor it for making unwarranted historical claims. Evensteven (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

This game belongs on the history pages in the same way that Risk (game) belongs on the World War I article... ReformedArsenal (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

That's pretty much my own opinion too. Evensteven (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Corrected what appears to be a typo, John 15:16 to John 15:26.

The article referred to John 15:16 – which by all appearances has little to nothing to do with the article topic, and was a typo or mistake – which I have changed to John 15:26 which clearly does refer to the article topic. The Greek texts of both:

[Jhn 15:26 KJV] 26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

"Textus Receptus" of 15:26 Ὅταν δὲ ἔλθῃ ὁ παράκλητος ὃν ἐγὼ πέμψω ὑμῖν παρὰ τοῦ πατρός τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας ὃ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται ἐκεῖνος μαρτυρήσει περὶ ἐμοῦ

"GNT Morph" of 15:26 ὅταν ἔλθῃ ὁ παράκλητος ὃν ἐγὼ πέμψω ὑμῖν παρὰ τοῦ πατρός τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας ὃ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται ἐκεῖνος μαρτυρήσει περὶ ἐμοῦ

[Jhn 15:16 KJV] 16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and [that] your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

"Textus Receptus" of 15:16 οὐχ ὑμεῖς με ἐξελέξασθε ἀλλ᾽ ἐγὼ ἐξελεξάμην ὑμᾶς καὶ ἔθηκα ὑμᾶς ἵνα ὑμεῖς ὑπάγητε καὶ καρπὸν φέρητε καὶ ὁ καρπὸς ὑμῶν μένῃ ἵνα ὅ τι ἂν αἰτήσητε τὸν πατέρα ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου δῷ ὑμῖν

"GNT Morph" of 15:16 οὐχ ὑμεῖς με ἐξελέξασθε ἀλλ’ ἐγὼ ἐξελεξάμην ὑμᾶς καὶ ἔθηκα ὑμᾶς ἵνα ὑμεῖς ὑπάγητε καὶ καρπὸν φέρητε καὶ ὁ καρπὸς ὑμῶν μένῃ ἵνα ὅ τι ἂν αἰτήσητε τὸν πατέρα ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου δῷ ὑμῖν

—SOURCES: http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&c=15&t=KJV#s=t_conc_1012026 AND http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&c=15&t=KJV#s=t_conc_1012016 Misty MH (talk) 06:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC) Minor formatting Misty MH (talk) 06:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC) KJV & SOURCES: Misty MH (talk) 06:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)