The Nicene Creed - line by line

[~Anastasia~]

Sorry, I didn't mean to cause a jump-ahead; Kylissa said not to.

It's fine. This thread will take several weeks to run its course unless it seems it has to be speeded up, and if Restoremysoul wants to verify that he'd be interested before getting too invested, that's understandable.

I appreciate you giving him the info.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I was only examining the Church that is mentioned in the Creed. I dont think it will turn into a debate because its clear that the Church referred to in the Creed is not the RC but is the universal Church that the apostles established. I only posted the RC link because that's where i found the definition of the word catholic.

It's ok. It's the Church that was established by the Apostles, and the Creed was codified at Nicea. The Great Schism between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches didn't happen until 1054.

I don't have a problem with your link. I wanted to head off discussion about the Papacy. It's off topic here.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

I wanted to head off discussion about the Papacy. It's off topic here.

Amen.

 

[St_Worm2]

Hi everyone: A couple of things: First, if memory serves, the Nicene Creed was formulated at one Ecumenical council and confirmed a short time later at another one. So I definitely agree with Kylissa, let's leave all the denominational baggage at the doorstep and take a look at this Creed as "Christians" only.

Second, an interesting point to remember as you look up the Scriptural references for this Creed is this, the NT did not exist when this Creed was written (well, not in the form we have it in today anyway). So I have a question, does anyone know if the Nicene Creed officially references/quotes anything beyond the OT and 27 books of what would become the NT? And how about the Apocrypha? Were any of its unique verses quoted or referenced in this Creed's formulation?

Thanks!

--David

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

All biblical references are in common use as seen here

The Nicene Creed

We believe in (Romans 10:8-10; 1John 4:15)
ONE God, (Deuteronomy 6:4, Ephesians 4:6)
the Father (Matthew 6:9)
Almighty, (Exodus 6:3)
Maker of Heaven and Earth, (Genesis 1:1)
and of all things visible and invisible. (Colossians 1:15-16)

And in ONE Lord Jesus Christ, (Acts 11:17)
the Son of God, (Mathew 14:33; 16:16)
the Only-Begotten, (John 1:18; 3:16)
Begotten of the Father before all ages. (John 1:2)
Light of Light; (Psalm 27:1; John 8:12; Matthew 17:2,5)
True God of True God; (John 17:1-5)
Begotten, not made; (John 1:18)
of one essence with the Father (John 10:30)
by whom all things were made; (Hebrews 1:1-2)
Who for us men and for our salvation (1Timothy 2:4-5)
came down from Heaven, (John 6:33,35)
and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, (Luke 1:35)
and became man. (John 1:14)
And was crucified for us (Mark 15:25; 1Cointhians 15:3)
under Pontius Pilate, (John 19:6)
and suffered, (Mark 8:31)
and was buried. (Luke 23:53; 1Corinthians 15:4)
And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures. (Luke 24:1 1Corinthians 15:4)
And ascended into Heaven, (Luke 24:51; Acts 1:10)
and sits at the right hand of the Father. (Mark 16:19; Acts 7:55)
And He shall come again with glory (Matthew 24:27)
to judge the living and the dead; (Acts 10:42; 2Timothy 4:1)
whose Kingdom shall have no end. (2 Peter 1:11)

And in the Holy Spirit, (John 14:26)
the Lord, (Acts 5:3-4)v
the Giver of Life, (Genesis 1:2)
Who proceeds from the Father; (John 15:26)
Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; (Matthew 3:16-17)
Who spoke through the prophets. (1 Samuel 19:20 ; Ezekiel 11:5,13)

In one, (Matthew 16: 18)
holy, (1 Peter 2:5,9)
catholic*, (Mark 16:15)
and apostolic Church. (Acts 2:42; Ephesians 2:19-22)

I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins**. (Ephesians 4:5; Acts 2:38)
I look for the resurrection of the dead, (John 11:24; 1Corinthians 15:12-49; Hebrews 6:2; Revelation 20:5)
and the life of the world to come. (Mark 10:29-30)
AMEN. (Psalm 106:48)

 

[St_Worm2]

The Apostles' Creed begins with "I", but I've noticed that the Nicene begins with either "We" or "I". Does it make a difference, and if so, how/why?

Thanks!

--David

 

[Restoresmysoul]

Hi everyone: A couple of things: First, if memory serves, the Nicene Creed was formulated at one Ecumenical council and confirmed a short time later at another one. So I definitely agree with Kylissa, let's leave all the denominational baggage at the doorstep and take a look at this Creed as "Christians" only.

Second, an interesting point to remember as you look up the Scriptural references for this Creed is this, the NT did not exist when this Creed was written (well, not in the form we have it in today anyway). So I have a question, does anyone know if the Nicene Creed officially references/quotes anything beyond the OT and 27 books of what would become the NT? And how about the Apocrypha? Were any of its unique verses quoted or referenced in this Creed's formulation?

Thanks!

--David

Not to get away from your point, but i heard a preacher talk about this tonight, he said we didn't have the NT until the 2nd or 3rd century, but this cannot be accurate because its clearly obvious that the Gospels were written by eye witnesses who couldn't have been alive after the 1st century. So the gospels must have been written in the first century. Likewise the epistles and Revelation were clearly written in the first century. So we did have the NT in the first century.

 

[Gnarwhal]

The Apostles' Creed begins with "I", but I've noticed that the Nicene begins with either "We" or "I". Does it make a difference, and if so, how/why?

Thanks!

--David

I believe the "We" utilized in the Nicene Creed was used as a declaration by the universal church to respond to the rampant Christological heresies of the time. It's something that was, and still is, expressed collectively by the church when they meet together. So I think in essence it's meant to convey solidarity in affirming the truth of the Creed's substance.

Not to get away from your point, but i heard a preacher talk about this tonight, he said we didn't have the NT until the 2nd or 3rd century, but this cannot be accurate because its clearly obvious that the Gospels were written by eye witnesses who couldn't have been alive after the 1st century. So the gospels must have been written in the first century. Likewise the epistles and Revelation were clearly written in the first century. So we did have the NT in the first century.

He was likely referring to the fact that the scriptures weren't canonized into a collective text until that time. Until that point the epistles and gospels were not widely dispersed and difficult for every community to come by.

 

[St_Worm2]

I believe the "We" utilized in the Nicene Creed was used as a declaration by the universal church to respond to the rampant Christological heresies of the time. It's something that was, and still is, expressed collectively by the church when they meet together. So I think in essence it's meant to convey solidarity in affirming the truth of the Creed's substance.

I would assume the same, but then why do the Latin and English translations use "I" instead of "We" I wonder? I have also read that the translation of "We" from the Greek is actually incorrect, that "I" is what the writers actually intended.

 

[WisdomTree]

I actually wanted to do this several months ago but I was concerned about the "fallout".

I hear Fallout is actually a quite a good game.

 

[St_Worm2]

Not to get away from your point, but i heard a preacher talk about this tonight, he said we didn't have the NT until the 2nd or 3rd century, but this cannot be accurate because its clearly obvious that the Gospels were written by eye witnesses who couldn't have been alive after the 1st century. So the gospels must have been written in the first century. Likewise the epistles and Revelation were clearly written in the first century. So we did have the NT in the first century.

That is correct. What the writers of the Nicene Creed didn't have at the time was an official NT "collection" of books to use as their authoritative reference. They had the 27 books, of course (as this was already the early 4th Century), but they had many more books that they could have referenced as well. I believe however that they did not go outside the OT and the 27 books that would shortly and officially make up the NT in writing the Creed, which is something I find both interesting and remarkable.

--David

 

[St_Worm2]

He was likely referring to the fact that the scriptures weren't canonized into a collective text until that time. Until that point the epistles and gospels were not widely dispersed and difficult for every community to come by.

Nuts, I missed this somehow Bagel .. Yes, as you can see from my clearly unnecessary post just above, this is what I meant (plus you stated it better than I did, to boot .. )

 

[Restoresmysoul]

That is correct. What the writers of the Nicene Creed didn't have at the time was an official NT "collection" of books to use as their authoritative reference. They had the 27 books, of course (as this was already the early 4th Century), but they had many more books that they could have referenced as well. I believe however that they did not go outside the OT and the 27 books that would shortly and officially make up the NT in writing the Creed, which is something I find both interesting and remarkable.

--David

Yes, i see your point.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

I believe the "We" utilized in the Nicene Creed was used as a declaration by the universal church to respond to the rampant Christological heresies of the time. It's something that was, and still is, expressed collectively by the church when they meet together. So I think in essence it's meant to convey solidarity in affirming the truth of the Creed's substance.



He was likely referring to the fact that the scriptures weren't canonized into a collective text until that time. Until that point the epistles and gospels were not widely dispersed and difficult for every community to come by.

Yes i understood. However wouldn't it be mere speculation to suggest what was and wasn't widely dispersed?

 

[WisdomTree]

Yes i understood. However wouldn't it be mere speculation to suggest what was was widely dispersed and what wasn't?

Not really, since while the four Gospels were widely dispersed, texts such as the Revelations of St John was not as evident by the older Syrian canons lacking it as well as it being the only texts not used as part of the Byzantine liturgy.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

Not really, since while the four Gospels were widely dispersed, texts such as the Revelations of St John was not as evident by the older Syrian canons lacking it as well as it being the only texts not used as part of the Byzantine liturgy.

I was referring to pre cannon times

 

[WisdomTree]

I was referring to pre cannon times

It applies then as well. A lot of the canonical build up was as a result of what they had access to and what they didn't at the time. That's why there's no absolute uniformity in the Eastern Churches, especially the Oriental Orthodox Church today.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

Byzantine liturgy didn't use revelation. Interesting

 

[WisdomTree]

Byzantine liturgy didn't use revelation. Interesting

Not just didn't, still doesn't.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

It applies then as well. A lot of the canonical build up was as a result of what they had access to and what they didn't at the time. That's why there's no absolute uniformity in the Eastern Churches, especially the Oriental Orthodox Church today.

I would assume that after the apostles established the first Churches, that any offspring churches from those would teach the same doctrine, and even have the same epistles and gospel. Maybe not all the epistles we have now, but they would have enough to know how to serve the Lord. Unless of course these offspring Churches were not offspring churches at all but were actually started by men outside those first Churches.