Talk:Apostles' Creed

message: Really needs improvement. Bad pronunciation, unclear and no attempt is made to say it as it would actually be said by someone who understands what they're saying.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.249.195.72 (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Recording of Credo being recited

message: 16 April. The article is well structured if I may say so, but in many instances throughout, some genius started jamming on his/her keyboard, obscuring words both in the Creed and in context. It's ridiculous. I suggest the article be locked after the nonsense is undone. I am very new to the editing community but will personally see about fixing this myself. Obviously I leave it to the community to decide what's best as far as locking goes. Lahs0n (talk) 01:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: The last paragraph indicates that the Nicene Creed was formulated *after* the Apostles' Creed. Isn't the truth the other way around? I was always under the impression that the Apostles' Creed  was formulated sometime between AD 700 and 900. Can we get a date on this page? BeakerK44 01:18, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have provided some minimal informantion on this subject.--Mm35173 19:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dating of Creed 

message: OK, an anonymous author decided to add an outline of the US Episcopalian Rite of Baptism and presumably accidentally subordinated the Catholic and Lutheran stuff to a sub sub section...
I renamed the section Rites of Baptism in Western Christianity and subordinated all the stuff about particular churches to it, adding an explanatory blurb.
I fear that this section is gradually going to turn into a place where everyone wants to make sure that his or her denomination gets named with all of its particular nuances pertinent to Baptism. This is not the Baptism article. A lot of the Anglican stuff was redundant to the Catholic and Lutheran stuff, mostly because the current Catholic, Anglican, and Lutheran rituals are all derived from the same ancient Roman Catholic ritual.
A rite of Baptism has particular common features to all of these groups (let's call them western liturgical Christians). Intent is established (either by asking the catechumen or parents what is desired, etc). A scrutiny follows, which may or may not include the creed in its entirety. If the creed is not worded into the questions or responses, it is then recited. In all cases, the creed is a symbol of the faith into which the person is being baptized, and its profession is covenental. In some cases, sponsors (godparents) may enter into the covenent with or on behalf of the catechumen.
I do not think we need to necessarily regurgitate this sequence for every particular ritual which is derivative of the ancient Roman ritual. Maybe there needs to be a unitfied article on Western Christian ritual, but this is outside the scope of Apostles' Creed.
So, how do all of you propose we trim this section down and keep it NPOV? Inclusion of the ancient Roman liturgy in Latin is way NPOV but not very helpful to those who don't understand Latin... any thoughts? --Mm35173 16:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rites of Baptism 

message: Why is the apostrophe not in the title of this article?  Would anyone mind if I move it?  --Doric Loon 21:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, doing it now. --Doric Loon 20:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Duhh, no I'm not!  When I tried I found it was blocked by a redirect.  We'll have to ask an administrator. --Doric Loon 20:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. – ABCD✉ 13:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Apostrophe - proposal to move

message: The dating issue seems weird in this article.  Britannica seems to basically say that the content of the creed dates back to perhaps third century Roman baptismal creeds, but that its current form derives from France in the late 6th century.  Shouldn't we state this, rather than the odd mishmash we currently have?  Also, should perhaps the traditional view (that it was written by the 12 Apostles after Pentecost) be mentioned in the intro as well? john k 19:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The precursor Old Roman Symbol can be dated to as early as 100 CE. It does not contain the "descent into hell" but most of the other concepts are there. drboisclair 00:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mishmash indeed.  The lead dates it as both earlier than the Nicene Creed (325 A.D.) and later.  Thomasmeeks 01:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text:   No mishmash.  Drboisclair, of 19 April 2006, states it correctly.  L. Thomas W. (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dating 

message: Do we need the term "symbol" in the description of the creed as in the current version (the final word of the sentence):
:The Apostles' Creed (Latin: Symbolum Apostolorum), sometimes titled Symbol of the Apostles, is an early statement of Christian belief, creed, or "symbol."
We need to ask the question, does it contribute to readers' understanding? Thanks. --Dpr 00:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Characterizing the Creed - "Symbol"

message: I am a Lutheran, of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, and in our church, we recite the Apostle's Creed about 1-2 Sundays a month, usually at baptizings. However, instead of "holy Catholic church, we have always recited that part as "holy Christian church". Should 1 type of Christianity's way of reciting the creed be significant enough to add? Thanks, 
Edit: Never Mind, couldn't see it before. Man, I swear I'm going blind.--Imhungry 19:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Imhungry, you are not going blind.  I added the Lutheran English version precisely because of your comment, for which Wikipedia should be grateful to you.  Lima 04:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this the version of all  Lutherans, or merely of the LCMS and associated churches? john k 19:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The custom of using "Christian" comes from the 15th century Holy Roman Empire (Germany), so I have relegated the material in the paragraph about this into a footnote on "Christian." I have also supplied the source that supplies the needed information.--Drboisclair 22:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The holy Catholic Church?

message: The article says:
:The theological specifics of this creed appear to have been originally formulated as a refutation of Gnosticism, an early heresy. This can be seen in almost every phrase. etc...
This cannot be true, since the Valentinians adhered to everything of the ordinary church, but added their own mysticism, "dogmas" and practices. Being a former gnostic (small "g" for a non-personal noun), there is only one word of the Apostle's Creed that absolutely cannot fit into a gnostic world view:
:I believe in Jesus Christ, his  Son, our Lord.
According to any gnostic world view our souls are shed off, split off or otherwise parted from the primeval soul of God. Therefore we are all sons and daughters. One minimal modification of the Apostle's Creed to fit a gnostic world view, would be:
:I believe in Jesus Christ, his  Son, our Lord.
Other statements of the Apostle's Creed directs against other opposing views of the main stream, f.ex.:
:I believe in the Holy Spirit,
is formulated against Arianism. Said: Rursus ☻ 21:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aren't there different versions of Gnosticism? I am under the impression that Gnosticism is a general term that applies to a whole series of believes. This bit goes on to talk about Jesus dying on the cross, which is contrary to one Gnostic belief.  I think that these sentences are good as it explains in part the purpose of a creed -- to clearly delineate what is and what is not X, and what is and what is not heresy. --Bruce Hall (talk) 10:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Gospel of John was written to answer the teachings of Cerinthus, who denied the incarnation and the passion of Christ. The particular error that the Apostles' Creed dealt with was Docetism, which is a form of Gnosticism. I think that the statement is accurate, and ties in with the other creeds, which were composed to combat heresies.--Drboisclair (talk) 04:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Gnosticism ?

message: I've added a new section explaining that the Apostles' creed is used during Mattins and Evensong.
Silas Maxfield (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New section in Liturgical chapter - C of E use of Apostles' Creed

message: Would someone please fix the CoE section. It indicates only one source, and this provides two versions of the Apostles' Creed, the second of which (with "sitteth") must be the older. But it does not have "Catholick".  If "Catholick" is to be retained in the article, an appropriate source must be quoted. Lima (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I though some member of the Church of England would be interested enough to fix it.  Now I've done it, as well as I can, myself.  Lima (talk) 04:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  According to http://www.cofe.anglican.org/worship/liturgy/commonworship/texts/word/morningbcp.html & http://www.cofe.anglican.org/worship/liturgy/commonworship/texts/hc/ordertwo.html it's "the holy catholic Church" changed page to reflect that Bihco (talk) 20:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That is quite correct. While the 1662 Book of Common Prayer has the archaic spelling, "Catholick" - as it uses the word "quick" in its archaic meaning of "alive" - present-day adaptations often have "catholic" (different spelling and lower-case "c"), which is not what is in the BCP text.  Lima (talk) 06:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

text: What is cited (with no less than three Internet links to it) is the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and the text is correctly reproduced with the spelling and capitalization of that time, not for that word alone but throughout.  Esoglou (talk) 14:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

text: What is in the article is what the cited reliable sources say was in the 1662 version of the Book of Common Prayer.  Read WP:OR and, if you want to change the text of the article, cite a reliable source for the text you want to put in its place.  Esoglou (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Church of England versions 

message: Muscovite has placed in the article an unsourced claim that the original text of the Apostles' Creed was in Greek and has provided a similarly unsourced Greek text.  On 17 September 2007, Drboisclair removed the Greek text (which was not then claimed to be the original, but perhaps a translation), saying that there seems to be no authoritative Greek text, since the text that the Triglotta gives is without source, "so it probably was conjectural".  In addition, the sources quoted in the article say that the Apostles' Creed was based on the Old Roman Creed or Symbol, which was in Latin. Some writers posit an unknown Greek original, underlying also the Nicene Creed, for the Old Roman Creed, but none, as far as I can see, says that the Apostles' Creed was based on a Greek text rather than on the (Latin) Old Roman Creed.
Since Drboisclair's change remained unchallenged for eight months, I think Muscovite needs to support his claim (and his text) with a source, before inserting it.  Am I wrong?  Lima (talk) 17:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Schaff is speaking of the baptismal creed in use in Rome in the fourth century, the creed that is dealt with in the article Old Roman Symbol.  It is not the same as the Apostles' Creed, though the latter was based on it.  The two texts that Schaff is speaking about, that of Rufinus and that of Marcellus of Ancyra, are given in the article on the Old Roman Symbol.  Lima (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was the Apostles' Creed originally in Greek? 

message: I would appreciate knowing WHY the Methodist version omits the "descent" line.  I am a Methodist and I have never heard this explained.  It seems consistent with the fact that "hell" is never mentioned anywhere else in the Methodist liturgy.  Does it mean that Methodists are not required to believe in the existence of hell?
CharlesTheBold (talk) 04:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know for sure, but it kind of contradicts what Jesus said on the cross to the one robber: Today you shall be with me in paradise. The implication being Christ was in heaven, not hell for those days. --74.38.72.84 (talk) 03:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

text: While the mention of paradise was probably a factor, it also appears that John Wesley had at least several other reasons, including the fact that he felt that those who resisted repentence in this life should not have a second chance after they are dead.  There's an interesting article on this particular issue at https://methodistheritagetour.com/2015/04/28/why-is-jesus-descended-to-the-dead-omitted-from-the-methodist-apostles-creed/.  By the way, having grown up in the UMC and having attended two United Methodist seminaries, it was never even implied that we shouldn't believe in Hell.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.60.35.224 (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Methodist difference 

message: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.121.155.250 (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orthodox Church? 

message: Is it correct to say "The Danish National Church still uses the phrase "We ..."?  One would think that the Danish National Church originally used "I ...", a direct translation from the Latin, and that "We ..." was introduced later.  Would it be better to say "The Danish National Church uses the phrase "We ...", omitting the word "still"?  Esoglou (talk) 06:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Danish 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 20 October 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Creed-apos.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: is it not somewhat strange, that the text mentions "that, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, each of the Twelve Apostles contributed an article of a creed", stating that this is eponymous, but then the attribution of the articles of the credo to the apostles is missing... in the german https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostelcredo you can find at least one example of this attribution... it should be added here by someone knowlegeable... thanx! --HilmarHansWerner (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: attribution of the articles of the credo to the apostles is missing...

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Apostles' Creed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110310021305/http://www.lcms.org:80/pages/internal.asp?NavID=3355 to http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=3355
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The section "Liturgical use" currently is very lopsided. It sounds like the Apostles' Creed is being used for baptism only. Has anyone noticed that in most of these churches, this creed is used in every service, no matter if there is a baptism or not? Maybe someone can figure out a way of balancing this out. --93.212.226.140 (talk) 12:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liturgical use 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Apostles' Creed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.reformed.org/documents/apostles_creed_orr.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928180041/http://www.german-lutherans-melbourne.asn.au/en/16311e_confapost.shtml to http://www.german-lutherans-melbourne.asn.au/en/16311e_confapost.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This may be highly deletable, but it is interesting to me that none of these versions mentions the word soul.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.249.146.8 (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  omission from Creeds 

message: What Christians Ought to Believe: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine Through the Apostles’ Creed Hardcover – July 5, 2016
by Michael F. Bird  (Author).
     This is helpful on the subject.  L. Thomas W. (talk) 14:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note  

message: Whoever wrote this, please clarify: "For this reason, it was held to predate the Nicene Creed in medieval Latin tradition." Was its predating of the Nicene Creed held/believed during medieval Latin tradition? By whom? Or was it vaguely (when?) held/believed to predate a version of the Nicene Creed that came from a medieval Latin tradition? By whom? Or something else? Whatever the meaning, can the writer please clarify? (And cite?) Misty MH (talk) 14:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whoever wrote this, please clarify: "For this reason, it was held to predate the Nicene Creed in medieval Latin tradition." 

message: Can someone who actually knows this topic – without a church tradition to support – please clarify, clean it up, and remove wording that creates apparently internal inconsistencies? 
Perhaps just some examples:
* "A creed that is virtually identical to the current one is recorded by Faustus of Riez", before 495 CE.
and
* "the earliest appearance of what we know as the Apostles' Creed was in the De singulis libris canonicis scarapsus ("Excerpt from Individual Canonical Books") of St. Pirminius (Migne, Patrologia Latina 89, 1029 ff.), written between 710 and 714."
and
* Other things referring to other dates.
Having these and other dates all over the place is extremely confusing. 
The article should perhaps be reorganized BY DATE, because acting like the present form is actually a creed of the Apostles, when the earliest appearance of it is 600 years after the last apostle was dead, makes little sense to a common reader, the way it has been worded.
Please word and reword the article in a scholarly way vs. from some believer or church position? Thank you!
Misty MH (talk) 14:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is CONFUSING, and seems to contradict itself 

message: There is no mention of holy catholic church being substituted by holy universal church in some Church of England churches of evangelical persuasion because for newcomers catholic is misunderstood as to it's meaning. REVUpminster (talk) 10:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  catholic- universal 

message: To my knowledge, the creed is said at the end of the liturgy of the word, not during the Eucharistic rite. 80.192.227.82 (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Credo in the Eucharistic rite