Talk:Nicene Creed

Initial discussion

Here is the basic article on the Nicaene Creed. It was written from scratch using accessible and credible sources. Thomas Simmons 15:08 14 March 2007 (EPT)

Non-editors cannot nominate articles for approval. See CZ:Approval Process. --Larry Sanger 00:16, 14 March 2007 (CDT)

I have gotten the roles of author and editor reversed. Larry Sanger has pointed out that as an author, I can not nominate this for approval. I would appreciate it if an editor would take a look at this and help establish approved status. Thomas Simmons 16:40, 16 March 2007 (EPT)

Shouldn't this live at Nicene Creed? I don't usually take Google searches as indicative of very much, but "Nicaene Creed" gets a total of 44 hits, while "Nicene Creed" gets 524,000. The other spelling seems extremely rare, even in credible sources. --Larry Sanger 20:01, 14 March 2007 (CDT)

Both I guess. The church documents and literature I consult for this uses the Nicaene spelling. If it is commonly spelled th other way, the two spellings should be referred to given that a number of sources will index 'Nicaene' but not 'Nicene'. How should this be entered in the opening? Thomas Simmons 16:24 16 March 2007 (EPT)

I'll demonstrate--I'll move the article to Nicene Creed. --Larry Sanger 21:59, 1 April 2007 (CDT)

CZ POLICY

There have been massive deletions of text brought here by other authors. Much of what has been used to replace the deletions consistute origial work given that they are unsourced. These actions are in violation of CZ policy. These actions have been reported to the CZ constabulary. Please discuss changes to other authors' contributions and adhere to CZ policies for credibilty and scholarship.Thomas Simmons 21:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The additions made by Peter Jackson ( 00:30, 25 November 2008 Peter Jackson) that were used to replace a large deletion have been repositioned in the subcategory Versions Currently In Use. You will notice that in keeping with CZ policy, the deletions that were never discussed here have been replaced and the additions were NOT deleted but have been maintained in the text. It would be in keeping with CZ policy if these additions were to be given a source since there is no means of establishing authenticity without them and the subsection text could be construed as original work which is not in keeping with CZ policy. Such large scale deletions and unsourced additions place a great burden on the authors here who strive to maintain CZ standards of authenticity. Please be considerate and provide sources for your work.Thomas Simmons 22:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Citations

Here is the excerpt from the article CZ: Mechanics

http://locke.citizendium.org:8080/wiki/Citizendium_Pilot:Article_Mechanics#Citations

See Help:Citation style for details.

We expect citations in about the same quantity as in academic encyclopedias. Citations are not usually needed for information that is common knowledge among experts. But the following categories of claims generally do need citation:

direct quotations

claims with unique sources (such as survey results, or the finding of a particular paper)

implausible-sounding but well-established claims

claims central to the article

Always give an online link for any reference, at least to the abstract (via, for example, a PubMed reference.)

Rather than use several references in a single sentence it is better to include several sources in one citation.

You will notice that this is keeping with the primary statement about how the articles are to be presented

"Citizendium aims to build a body of articles that cover, at a general level, every aspect of their topics. Their purpose is to introduce the topic in an accessible way that is at the same time authoritative. An article is not a mere summary or list of information, but a connected piece of prose, meant to be read all the way through. Articles must be selective and simplified in the information they present, but this does not mean that they need be brief; they should say what they need to as clearly as possible, in a concise and interesting way."

Accessible and authoritative. Citations provide the authority of the statements made here. They also make, and this is crucial, the sources accessible. Without sources there is no way a reader can access the original information and verify accuracy or authority.

Thomas Simmons 23:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Grammar, Spelling, Punctuation etc.

http://locke.citizendium.org:8080/wiki/Citizendium_Pilot:Article_Mechanics#Grammar.2C_spelling.2C_punctuation.2C_and_usage

Strunk and White's Elements of Style is very useful; the first edition is available here.

For American English, please consult The Chicago Manual of Style for matters of formatting, punctuation, etc. and Garner's Dictionary of American English Usage for issues of usage.

For British English, consult Fowler's Modern English Usage.

Thomas Simmons 23:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Approval Standards

http://locke.citizendium.org:8080/wiki/CZ:Approval_Standards

"Encyclopedic. Articles must resemble encyclopedia articles. This means that there are many things that they are not, such as dictionary definitions or personal essays. Some other ancillary, helpful reference material, in the form of tables and lists, are also permissible. See what Citizendium articles are not."[1]

NOTE: Not personal essays. By refraining from providing sources, authors may breach the policy forbidding personal essays.

"Accurate. Articles are to be held up to a high standard of accuracy. Editors should review every substantive claim made by an article, and be of the opinion that the claim is well justified by the relevant evidence, before approving the article."

NOTE: To review the accuracy and supportive evidence of a statement, it is imperative that the Editors and the readers in general have sources.

"Coherent. Articles must be coherent or unified, that is, integrated by a single style and plan, or "narrative flow." An incoherent article appears written by different people or at different times, or with different conceptions about the article's proper structure and style. Typically, an incoherent article repeats information pointlessly and leaves out crucial information where an expert would expect to find it."

NOTE: Simply inserting text in an article does not mean that contribution maintains coherency. It must be placed in context and with related statemens and sources. Numerous occasions arise when one author's text with citations is expanded by another without maintaining consistency with the verifiable evidence provided for the original statements.

"Not original research. Articles should be aimed to serve as excellent encyclopedia articles, and thus are summations of what is known about a topic. Hence, while articles may sum up their topics in novel ways, they should not do so in ways that imply new theories or analyses that in academic contexts would require peer review for publishing. In other words, they should not contain original research or observations. See the original research policy."[2]

Thomas Simmons 23:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Original Research Policy

http://locke.citizendium.org:8080/wiki/CZ:Original_Research_Policy

The following text is what appears on Approval Standards:

"Articles should be aimed to serve as excellent encyclopedia articles, and thus are summations of what is known about a topic. Hence, while articles may sum up their topics in novel ways, they should not do so in ways that imply new theories or analyses that in academic contexts would require peer review for publishing. In other words, they should not contain original research or observations."

This policy eventually will be expanded and clarified.

NOTE: Without authoritative sources, there is no way the reader may infer other than original and unsourced statements from the text. It is imperative that authors identify their sources to avoid the appearance of original work.

Thomas Simmons 23:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Source for Ancient Christianity

The standard for years was the Erdman (sp?) collection. It has now been digitialised and is all in public domain. Calvin College in Grand Rapids MI has placed this all on the web here. Memberships is free to everyone. Thomas Simmons 14:41, 2 March, 2007 (EPT)

Sounds great. This can and will happen more and more, with more public domain sources. --Larry Sanger 21:59, 1 April 2007 (CDT)

Schism

Hi folks. Edgar's insertion "and the addition of the three words "and the son" was responsible for the breaking off of the Eastern part of the Catholic church. " needs some good solid historical sources to back this up. It might be that there are some articulate scholars who have taken issue with this and would be a good source for such an assertion. Anyone have any support for this?--Thomas Simmons 10:22, 29 April 2008 (CDT)

This question is one of the timeless debates in church history. To be sure, the Filioque was the central doctrinal difference between the churches in the East and West. Whether you believe that the doctrinal difference was the central cause of the Schism depends on who you ask. I will keep my eyes open for discussions of the point... Brian P. Long 21:47, 2 May 2008 (CDT)

Subordinationism = Arianism?

Hey-- I expanded the History section a little bit. I also thought it was a little weird to talk about modern subordinationist Christology as 'Arianism'-- I generally think of Arianism as the historical phenomenon, and modern theology as 'subordinationist theology' or something similar. As always, if there are contemporary/recent theologians who do subscribe to 'Arianism', I am open to correction. Thanks, Brian P. Long 22:24, 2 May 2008 (CDT)

Hi Brian, The inserted text " Even more radically, he claimed that the creation of the Son happened after the beginning of time (one of the Arianist jingles was "there was a time when He was not.") For historical reasons, this was deemed ‘heresy’ and the position is known as Arianism. Arianism persisted through much of the fourth century, but suffered a decisive setback with the ascension of the emperor Theodosius I. Despite this, some later thinkers and theologians have returned to subordinationist Christology."

needs sources. Have you got anything you could drop in here. It is not covered by the citation I provided in the text that follows and thus might give the impression that it is referenced. The reference to subordinationism theology is also rather vague. Are you planning to expound in a separate article?--Thomas Simmons 11:52, 13 May 2008 (CDT)

Hey Thom-- a good general work on Arianism and late paganism is 'A Chronicle of the Last Pagans' by Chuvin, or the Frank C. Trombley's 'Hellenic Religion and Christianization c. 370-529', if we need references for this article. However, I'm not convinced that we do; much of this is common knowledge for people who work on this, and covered under the general policy that "citations are not needed for information that is common knowledge among experts" (cf. CZ:Article mechanics). It wouldn't hurt to add the Chuvin and Trombley books to the biblio, though, if you feel compelled to.

Do you have any more specific commentary on the content, specifically about subordinationism and latter-day use of "Arianism"? Thanks, Brian P. Long 19:22, 13 May 2008 (CDT)

Common knowledge? Can't agree. I would need a good survey to accept that. Common knowledge invariably reads 'anecdotal'. Got to have specific references. Ask the average person about Arianism and they will give you a blank look. People who read in this area may look here to see if we are accurately representing legitimate scholarship, but an encyclopedia is not a source for the scholars in any area. Furthermore, the citation I gave does not cover this and thus the added information clearly gives the impression that the source does when in fact it does not. Got to have a source. The operative word in the quoted article mechanics is not 'needed'. [3] The article is not written for experts and the sources do need to be made available. --Thomas Simmons 09:59, 15 May 2008 (CDT)

Citing Sources

We are getting some interesting comments in the text. However, the contributors are hampering the development by leaving out specific sources. Citations are imperative if the article is to have credibility. Personally I would love to see these reversions restored WITH good source work provided.--Thomas Simmons 16:51, 28 June 2008 (CDT)

Advanced subpage?

Hey all--

Excitingly, I think we may finally have a justification for a non-science and math Advanced subpage. Upon reflection I think it would be very helpful if this page were to have the text of the Nicene Creed at all of the stages of its development in the original languages and with translations. This way, interested readers can look at the texts in the original and their translations, which, for some readers at least, might help them to understand some of the issues involved. I don't have all of the texts at hand; if anyone else does, please put them up. Otherwise, I will try to pull them together.

Thanks, Brian P. Long 16:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, only make sure you're really asking for advanced pages as opposed to catalogues. If you're writing a specific analysis/discussion of the issues using advanced concepts, or a specialised article, then yes. If however you're merely putting up version X, version Y and version Z, I would think you would use the Catalog tab. Aleta Curry 04:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see how this pans out too. Sounds like a good idea. Chris Day 04:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Churches

What are Orthodox Catholic churches? And isn't non-denominational church a contradiction in terms? Peter Jackson 16:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Lots of (usually) little churches use the title 'Orthodox Catholic' Sort of a catch all for 'one-true-catholic-and-apostolic' churches unaffiliated with Rome or Canterbury or Constantinople, as I understand it.

No, 'non-denominational church' isn't a contradiction in terms.

Aleta Curry 05:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Can the reader be expected to understand all that? Peter Jackson 16:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, I see that later on OCC is linked to EOC. Peter Jackson 16:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

It's obviously biased to give only a minority version. I've made the necessary changes to give a conspectus of different versions: not many are needed. There may be other ways of doing this, of course, but don't revert to the biased version. Peter Jackson 17:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I can support that, for what it's worth. --Larry Sanger 19:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This edit:

"The final version adopted at the Council of Constantinople in 381, is considered by some to be a revision of the version adopted by the Council of Nicaea in 325 from which its appellation is derived."

is simply misleading. Some refers to what and how many? That the Roman Catholic church agrees that the existing version was made from the original in not in dispute. That the Eastern Orthodox Church has shown as much is not in dispute. So now we are into hundreds of millions over nearly 17 centuries. Sources for the original wording have been cited. The edit simply ignores the facts. It is known by most, not believed by some, to be a version derived from the first version. This is a case where most scholars are not in disagreement. Why the edit? It is certainly not unbiased.Thomas Simmons 21:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I see on checking that the situation is even more uncertain than I thought:

Macmillan Encyclopedia of Religion, 1987, vol 4, p 143: "Until modern times, it was traditionally assumed that the so-called Nicene Creed was the creed promulgated by the Council of Nicaea ... as revised by the Council of Constantinople ... Especially since the researches of Eduard Schwartz ... the tradition has been generally abandoned, but much scholarly disagreement remains. Perhaps tradition does right in linking the Nicene Creed with the Council of Constantinople; hence modern scholarship designates it "the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed" ... But it does not seem to have been a mere revision of the creed promulgated at Nicaea ... rather, the two creeds must be said to belong to a common Eastern type ..."

Oxford Companion to Christian Thought, 2000, p 145: "Our Nicene Creed, though not the actual creed adopted at the Council of Nicaea, belongs to the same family of creeds ... Its precise origin is obscure. The Council of Chalcedon ... refers to it as the creed of the second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople ... though its exact relation to that council is not clear. Like the creed of the Council of Nicaea therefore, it is a development of a typical baptismal creed of the eastern church ..."

Oxford Encyclopedia of Christianity, 2005, p 301: "... creed passed by the ... Council of Nicaea ... Some of its contents were later incorporated into another creed asociated with the second ecumenical council ..."

Perhaps you can think of a suitable in the light of this. Peter Jackson 15:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

A comment here was deleted by The Constabulary on grounds of making complaints about fellow Citizens. If you have a complaint about the behavior of another Citizen, e-mail constables@citizendium.org. It is contrary to Citizendium policy to air your complaints on the wiki. See also CZ:Professionalism.

Text here was removed by the Constabulary on grounds that it is needlessly inflammatory. (The author may replace this template with an edited version of the original remarks.)

Errors

These changes are not based here on historical sources. The original which dates back quite some time as stated in the unedited text have been reproduced from ancient authorities. Imposing them here as if they are the given form is to misconstrue the Original as has been cited. If these variations are used in other places they need to be specifically cited.

To wit:

I/We believe in one God, the Father Almighty,

(God of God,)

I/We confess one baptism for the remission of sins;

I/We look for the resurrection of the dead,

The plural "We" was used in the original formulation by the Council, but the singular "I" is usual in liturgical use.

I would agree that is used in some Protestant congregations but have only heard it used in a few situations and it is not written down as such in my experience. I have not seen it in the symbol as it is written. What are the sources for this?

The phrase "God of God" was not in the Council's original text, but was added from the Council of Nicaea's creed, and is regularly included in the liturgy in both Eastern and Western churches.

The parenthetical phrasing (God of God) placed in this edit is without source. It was most certainly in the ancient forms and not phrased parenthetically. If it is taken from the liturgies of other sources those sources need to be cited.

The edit needs to be reverted until these sources are delineated or the edited version should presented as a separate text within the article with sources and explanation as to who uses them as such. Historical credibility is paramount and it must be demonstrated by citing sources. The APA or the MLA styles are appropriate. Thomas Simmons 22:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I doubt the text given is in use by any church anywhere. It would make more sense to start with the original text and then go on to discuss variations. -Derek Hodges 22:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure which text, the one in which the additions were given? I have never seen it written I/We either but the remainder of the text is consistent with many versions--with lexical variations that reflect changes in the English language. I have sourced quite a few versions in English and the originals in the Greek, and later translations in Latin and Russian.Thomas Simmons 07:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thomas, despite your English name, I often find your English hard to follow, so please understand if my remarks don't necessarily seem to be replying to what you were intending to say.

The form "I/We" and the use of brackets were simply convenient devices to cover different versions without writing them all out in full. The differences were explained in the text following. To repeat the substance:

1. the council used "we", but normal liturgical use is "I"
2. the phrase "God from God" was not in the council's text (see Denzinger, & the page preceding 1 of the refs I gave above)
3. filioque has of course been endlessly discussed elsewhere

As I said in my original comment above, this isn't the only way of doing it. I've no objection to giving the original text 1st & then footnoting the variations as Derek suggests, assuming there is agreement among scholars on what the original text was. If, on the other hand, there are scholars who disagree with the 2 sources I cited just now, then we obviously can't use that approach. In that case, the only single version we could give would have to be the majority, ie Western, version. I think I prefer my conspectus approach, but I'm not insisting on that. Peter Jackson 11:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

To amplify the citations above:

1. Denzinger, Enchiridion, 38th edn, 1999, pages 83-5, gives Greek & Latin texts with German translations of both. It lists a number of textual editions, which I can give details of if necessary. The Greek is the Council's original text. The Latin is the standard liturgical text. They differ in the 3 points I mentioned:
   1. Greek is plural, Latin is singular
   2. Latin includes deum de deo, Greek omits theon ek theou
   3. Latin includes filioque, Greek omits
2. Oxford Encyclopedia of Christianity, page 300, gives the original conciliar text in English; again, plural, and without "God from God" or filioque.

Another you might find particularly interesting: "The Second Ecumenical Council and its Credo", by Prof. Ioannis Karmiris of Athens [presumably University], in La Signification et l'actualité du IIe concile oecuménique pour le monde chrétien d'aujourd'hui, published by Editions du Centre Orthodoxe du Patriarchat Oecuménique, Chambesy-Genève, 1982, pages 195f: "... the Council ... omitted the Nicaean [196] phrase "God of God" as superfluous, seeing there was the phrase "very God of very God"."

Text here was removed by the Constabulary on grounds that it is needlessly inflammatory. (The author may replace this template with an edited version of the original remarks.)

I thought it was very mild, actually, but never mind. Here's my signature to the undeleted portion, for ID purposes. Peter Jackson 11:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Nestorians?

Do they need to be mentioned? The Arian "heresy" (the Son was inferior and was created as opposed to 'begotten') gets a prominent position in the history section, but the Nestorian ideas (Jesus united two natures, human & divine, as opposed to being divinity incarnate) is not mentioned. Nestorian Christianity was important in Asia. e,g. Marco Polo mentions it as well established in several Persian & Chinese cities. Sandy Harris 15:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The creed was directed against the Arian & Apollinarian heresies. Nestorianism came later, & the definitions of the Council of Ephesus were the response. The surviving so-called Nestorian churches object to the name. Peter Jackson 11:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Muddle & bias

Now we have a minority version, followed by a conspectus of 3 versions including that. This is both muddled & biased. On investigation I find there are actually 7 different versions in current liturgical use, so I don't think e want to write them all out in full, while a conspectus would be very confusing. Therefore I think the sensible procedure is to give the majority version clause by clause with notes of differences. Peter Jackson 10:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Source: Norman, Handbook to the Christian Liturgy, pp 201ff. Peter Jackson 10:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, done that. There may of course be errors in the source I used. They can be checked against published liturgies. Peter Jackson 11:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

An alternative might be to try to write them out interlinearly. That would enable the reader without too much difficulty to read any one version straight through, as well as compare them point by point. On the other hand, it would take up more space and might be hard to format. Peter Jackson 15:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Let us be clear, the massive rewrites taking place are not being discussed, they are excluding factual and well sourced information and as such can constitute a break with CZ policies on collegiality. If this continues, the lack of reasoned discussion and wholesale deletions of the work of other authors, we will simply have to call in the Constabulary to deal with the issues. Please refrain from destroying the contributions of other authors--it violates CZ policy. Please refrain from placing original work here--if there is a source it must be noted: CZ does not allow authors to publish original works here. Thomas Simmons 20:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the only thing I deleted was the original (325) version. Perhaps my implicit explanation above was inadequate. All the detail I added was from the source cited above. It doesn't appear to me to be included in the categories listed in your quotations from policy above. If you disagree you're free to add it to the article. At a quick glance I have no objection to your restructuring of the article. Peter Jackson 09:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the deleted text (797 words with 8 citations) and preserved the text that originally replaced it in the appropriate section.Thomas Simmons 22:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Final

The article says the final version was fixed by Chalcedon. Thta's obviously not true in any useful sense, as only the Coptic Church actually uses that text, & they don't recognize Chalcedon. Peter Jackson 16:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually that is an excellent point. I would say rather that it is true in a limited sense however and in the context of this article, that needs to be stated. I have rewritten the sentence to read, "the last version established within the context of the Seven Ecumenical Councils was set down at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 while later changes were yet to come". Thomas Simmons 23:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The edit from "final" to "following" is likewise a matter of historical accuracy and clarity. Thomas Simmons 23:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

But what's so special about 7? that's a specifically EO concept. Peter Jackson 09:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

See Roman Catholic Church/Catalogs#Ecumenical councils. Peter Jackson 09:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought this was clear to anyone working on this article. So, no, not specifically an EO concept. And in this case the first three councils (Niceae, Constantinople and Chalcedon) are specifically involved in the history of the creed for many churches who left before the 4th council and the Roman Catholic who left after and convened their own councils to the exclusion of other Churches. The Seven distinguish the two largest Christian Institutions from each other and have for more than a thousand years. Asking what is so special about the Seven Councils is like commenting on the US government and asking what is so special about the Senate or the Constitution, or commenting on Habeas Corpus and asking what is so special about the Barons and King John and the Magna Carta. It is a definitive document coming out of a what would be comparably legislative bodies in the US or England. Talking about the Nicene Creed without references to the Church of the Seven Councils and those who diverge from those councils is like discussing the Magna Carta without considering England. The Seven Councils are pivotal in the history of the Nicene Creed as a point of origin and departure. The Roman Church went on in the Western world without participation of the Churches in Asia or Africa and much of Europe. The Ecumenical Councils are all they have in Common from a legislative point of view. None of the Churches in Asia or Africa and certainly not the Reformation Churches, would consider the Roman Councils as Ecumenical in any historic sense, particularly since the Popes have maintained that they are the only authority in any decisions.Thomas Simmons 08:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• RC 21 councils
• EO 7
• Anglicans 6
• Oriental Orthodox 3
• Church of the East 2

So 7 is specifically EO as I said. Peter Jackson 12:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Listing numbers by initials does not make an argument either way. The Iconoclastic Heresy was the last time the Roman and the Eastern Churches interacted ecumenically--with regards to the Council of Florence neither institution agrees on the outcome. There are also churches that left after Chalcedon and then returned sometime later, Georgia for example, again in reference to the Seven Councils. The Canons which are used to construct, amongst other things, the common legislative and administrative structure of the Churches. etc, are wholly within the Seven Councils--Rome went its own way sometime later. I won't go any further with this line of debate since such an approach usually leads to mere quarreling. If you wish to write articles on the Councils as you have decided to present them, please feel free to do so and let the editors decide if they advance the cause of the CZ--"We aim at reliability and quality, not just quantity". Thomas Simmons 15:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Confusion

I was raised protestant but have no expertise in this area, just stumbled in here from "recent changes". Some comments from an outsider perspective:

One paragraph has "The wording of the Creed ... was meant to draw a defined line between those who were Christian (believe that Jesus is both human and divine and consubstantial with God) and those who believe otherwise." Granted, the creed was meant to exclude the Arian "heresy" and to define "Christian" as the including parenthesized phrase, I think the way it is now written begs the question. Both the creed and most? all? modern churches accept that as part of the definition, and we should say so. However in the context of discussing a controversy over exactly that definition, I do not think we should appear to assume it.

It needs much more wikilinking. I'd have many links in this sentence, for example: "first adopted by the Council of Nicaea in 325 from which its appellation is derived, was revised at the Council of Constantinople in 381 and the last version established within the context of the Seven Ecumenical Councils was set down at the Council of Chalcedon in 451". Things like arianism and trinitarian also should be links.

Why does "filoque" link to Eastern Orthodox Church? I would think it needs a section here, perhaps its own article, which would both link to EE Church and be the target of a link from EE Church. Or maybe it should be at Trinity#Filioque_controversy and links should point there? Sandy Harris 08:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I got all that.

"I think the way it is now written begs the question. Both the creed and most? all? modern churches accept that as part of the definition, and we should say so. However in the context of discussing a controversy over exactly that definition, I do not think we should appear to assume it."

We currently have "Arius maintained ..." and then the sentence quoted above ""The wording of the Creed ... believe otherwise." I'd replace the quoted sentence with "The Creed explicitly rejects the Arian view." As I see it, the current wording imposes a definition of "Christian" that is far from neutral. No doubt Arius and his followers considered themselves Christian.

Of course, much more might be said about the history and about modern churches that accept the Creed, but I'd say the history would be better dealt with in a separate article and modern Churches are covered elsewhere in this article. Sandy Harris 07:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This is why context is paramount. The Creed was formed by a body of representatives at a distant time in history. Imposing a subjective perception of neutrality 1700 years later on those representatives' perception of the issues, representatives who were specifically not neutral, is just not historically accurate.Thomas Simmons 20:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but no-one is trying to do that. The objective is to make CZ text neutral, while describing the very real conflicts accurately. I object to the parenthesized phrase because it can be read as the definition of Christianity or CZ's definition, not because I doubt that it is part of the Creed's definition. Sandy Harris 01:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

No-one? OK. Never mind.Thomas Simmons 03:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

As for links, make the links you think are appropriate. For my part I usually get a little weary reading overlinked articles that are chock full of red lettered dead links is all. I like to wait until there is a real article to link to.

The Creed as it was finalised at the Council of Chalcedon is used by the Eastern Orthodox Churches and by the Roman with the addition of one small phrase. So linking the Creed to the Roman Church and to the Eastern Orthodox Church is like linking the Magna Carta to England. I am not writing the article on the Roman Church and would not presume to impose. It is a matter of courtesy to the authors of that article. Taking it over there to their discussion would be a good idea though if you are not writing on that article.

And it is also the only article here I know of that mentions the Creed outside of the article on the Creed itself. There are other articles on religion but last time I checked it was not mentioned in them. Be a good idea to keep an eye on them to see if a link could be made. The Creed with earlier versions are used by Churches who did not accept the changes made at Constantinople and ratified at Chalcedon, the Creed with the Filioque as was eventually ratified by the Roman Church appeared after the Seventh Council. There are different versions that have emerged since the First Council. The filioque will indeed eventually have enough here for its own article. I do not feel compelled to write it at the moment. Feel Free.Thomas Simmons 09:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Clicking "what links here" from the Creed article, I find 20-odd links. Sandy Harris 07:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Variants

Is it worth mentioning that Unitarians and the Unitarian-Universalist Association reject the trinitarianism of the Creed? Howard C. Berkowitz 21:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Would that enhance the article, or does it go without saying?

For example, it would be pointless to say that Jews and Moslems, or Pagans for that matter, reject the trinitarianism of the Creed, although this is true, because it is a Christian creed, so naturally non-Christians would not be expected to accept it.

It would be fair, I think, to mention that denominations that see themselves as Christian but non-Trinitarian, a position not recognised as a Christian one by most denominations, would reject the trinitarianism of the Nicene Creed. But is it necessary? Is there any particular reason to include that in this article? Does it enhance the reader's understanding of the Nicene Creed?

Aleta Curry 22:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not think mentioning that is central or essential here, but a brief mention such as Aleta suggests seems a good idea.

We really need an article somewhere that discuses the whole set of issues around the nature of Christ. As I understand it, these were considered very important in the first few hundred years of the Church and quite controversial until they were mostly settled at Ecumenical Councils. There were quite a few — trinitarian with and without filoque, monophystic, Arian, Nestorian Unitarian, ... perhaps even the Moslem notion that he is just another prophet with no higher status than Elijah or Moses. Such an article would have many links both to and from. Sandy Harris 23:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Some of that is at Trinity#Early_debate. I wrote what is there and I'm definitely no expert, so probably others could expand and improve it. Sandy Harris 01:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it is worth mentioning who does and does not simply because it places the creed in its historical context. It is a complex statement of belief that has undergone changes in meaning and wording in different cultures and represents basic differences and similarities. Look at it like an article on the Constitution. They are organic in a way. Thomas Simmons 19:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)