|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
The Apostles Creed
« Back to club forum| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
tennesseehiker 16-Nov-17, 08:43 |
 Deleted by tennesseehiker on 13-Dec-17, 16:16.
|
||
|
The Apostles Creed creator of heaven and earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried; he descended to hell. The third day he rose again from the dead. He ascended to heaven and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty. From there he will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Christian church*, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen. *that is, the true Christian church of all times and all places |
||
|
solascriptura 16-Dec-17, 07:54 |
www.christian-history.org Origin of the Apostles Creed It was quite funny to me as I researched this to find Protestant and Catholic web sites claiming the Apostles Creed is older than the Nicene Creed, and Eastern Orthodox web sites claiming it is later than the Nicene Creed. The Eastern Orthodox churches are sometimes called, collectively, "the Church of the Councils." They base the foundation of their faith on the seven ecumenical councils (listed on that page I just linked), and, thus, they accept the Nicene Creed—formulated by the Council of Nicea and authorized by the Council of Constantinople—but not the Apostles Creed, authorized by no council at all. It was formalized by the Council of Trent, but that was a 16th century Roman Catholic council, not accepted by the Orthodox churches. The answer to the question of which Creed is older can't really be determined with certainty. We know that the wording of the Nicene Creed comes from the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325. We also know that Rufinus wrote a commentary on the Apostles Creed just after A.D. 400, and his version has wording very similar to what I give above. Since he claims his version came from the apostles, we know it's older than he remembers. How much older, no one will ever know. The pre-Nicene (prior to A.D. 325) versions of the rule of faith do not use the same wording as the current Creed's wording. The ideas are the same, but the wording can vary greatly. Irenaeus' version is quite long, and Tertullian gives several. It's obvious, then, that the rule of faith for Tertullian was not an official "creed" or "statement" but a summation of the faith once for all delivered to the saints. Its wording could vary. It is worth noting that Rufinus comments on his church's creed in A.D. 405 (or so) and not on the Nicene Creed. He also mentions that various churches have various versions, some having added to theirs to defend against heresies. His comments are made in northern Italy about 80 years after the Council of Nicea and about 24 years after the Council of Constantinople, the council which made the Nicene Creed authoritative. Yet Rufinus ignores it. Hmm. Not that there's much difference. In fact, there's very little. You can compare them; the Nicene Creed is here. Apparently, the councils may not have been so authoritative as we make them out to be. In the decades after the Council of Nicea, very little attention was paid to its decision on the Arian controversy. The sides continued to fight for decades. In fact, the biggest difference before and after Nicea was that afterwards the government was involved, everyone turned Christian, and so the fights became literal, physical fights in which many lost their lives. www.christian-history.org |
