Talk:Nicene Creed

Discrepancies in Greek text of AD 325
The Greek text given in has some discrepancies from the Greek text given in the article:

I have no idea whether the article text, which appears to come from this website, represents a superior text, but it would be good to find out the reason for these discrepancies. Grover cleveland (talk) 07:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Very well done indeed. In fact, the text given in the article did not correspond even to that in the cited source. Before giving any further consideration to the question you raise, I have made the article text conform to the website text. There are still many differences between that text and the 1880 text. Bealtainemí (talk) 11:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC) By the way, "created" would be better than "wrought": cf. the active form in Rom 1:25 and Col 3:10.  Bealtainemí (talk) 11:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

capitalisation of "catholic church"
Other translations of the Creed, to be found on Methodist and Anglican websites, do not capitalise "Catholic Church". Does the original Greek support this version of history? NeuralWarp (talk) 22:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)


 * As the photograph in the article confirms, the earliest surviving manuscripts did not differentiate between upper and lower case letters. Grover cleveland (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Clarifying note after "mainstream Christianity"
The article currently says "The Nicene Creed is the defining statement of belief of Nicene or mainstream Christianity and in those Christian denominations that adhere to it." I edited it to say "The Nicene Creed is the defining statement of belief of Nicene or mainstream Christianity (not to be confused with Mainline Protestantism, sometimes called Mainstream Protestantism) and in those Christian denominations that adhere to it." reverted my change. I asked why they reverted my edit, and they just said it was "unhelpful." I asked what was unhelpful about it, and after twelve days of no response, I reverted their revert. They then re-reverted my revert, and posted a "disruptive editing" warning on my talk page. When I asked why my edit was disruptive, they said "An explanation has already been given. Refrain from making that edit!" I understand that my revert was a mistake and could be seen as edit warring, but the reason for the original revert was never given. I asked on that thread why the original edit was problematic two days ago, and have not had a response.

what is problematic about adding the clarifying note to the article? 184.21.204.5 (talk) 01:26, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Italian equivalent
This page lacks the link to the Italian equivalent, which is the article on Simbolo niceno-stantinopolitano, https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simbolo_niceno-costantinopolitano. I tried to add it, and got an obscure error message about another site on wikidata, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q13231188, already being linked to the Italian equivalent, and suggesting a merge but with no instructions about how to merge. I don't know enough to know why a wikipedia link would conflict with a wikidata link, and certainly not enough to know when or how to merge a wikipedia page with the wikidata equivalent.

If anyone wants to tackle this, please do!

FYI, the italian page links back to a subsection of this page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed#Niceno-Constantinopolitan_Creed.

Esb (talk) 02:33, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

381 Nicean Creed has the wrong text?
If the Filioque was not added until the sixth-century, how is the Filioque present in a text from the fourth century? I won’t edit it yet but I think the 381 nicean creed text here should be fixed 2A00:23EE:2878:2CBA:55B3:FB2D:E86:490 (talk) 11:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I assume you're looking at this part?
 * And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.
 * Easy misunderstanding, and actually maybe the section on the Filioque should be edited for clarity. The Filioque clause comes a little earlier -- it would say "proceedeth from the Father and the Son", if it had the Filioque.— Moriwen (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think the “and the son” part should be edited from the 381 Nicean-Constantinople creed if it wasn’t there until the 6th century in some Latin texts. I think the sample of “and the son” should be just in the Filioque section 84.71.92.188 (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the confusion here is that there are two locations for "and the Son", with the Filioque referring only to the first. So, with Filioque:
 * And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.
 * And without Filioque:
 * And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.
 * — Moriwen (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)