Apostles Creed

BrianCalgary

A bit of fun exercise. Supply the biblical verses that support the belief statements in the creed. (I've done one to get us going)

I believe in God,
the Father Almighty,
Creator of Heaven and earth. Genesis 1

I believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died and was buried.
He descended to the dead.
On the third day, He rose again.
He ascended to Heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Holy Catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting. Amen.

keano_afc

BrianCalgary wrote: »

A bit of fun exercise. Supply the biblical verses that support the belief statements in the creed. (I've done one to get us going)

I believe in God,
the Father Almighty,
Creator of Heaven and earth. Genesis 1

I believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died and was buried.
He descended to the dead.
On the third day, He rose again.
He ascended to Heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Holy Catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins, 1 John 1:9
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting. Amen.

In post.

philologos

A bit of fun exercise. Supply the biblical verses that support the belief statements in the creed. (I've done one to get us going)

I believe in God,
the Father Almighty,
Creator of Heaven and earth. Genesis 1

I believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died and was buried.
He descended to the dead.
On the third day, He rose again.
He ascended to Heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Holy Catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins, 1 John 1:9
the resurrection of the body, 1 Corinthians 15:12
and life everlasting. Amen.

In post.

Slav

BrianCalgary wrote: »

A bit of fun exercise. Supply the biblical verses that support the belief statements in the creed.

I would put Hosea 13:14 and the whole New Testament against "He descended into Hell" but I don't like your translation of the Creed!

Hosea 13:14 wrote:

I will ransom them from the power of Sheol. I will redeem them from death! Death, where are your plagues? Sheol, where is your destruction?

BrianCalgary

Slav wrote: »

I would put Hosea 13:14 and the whole New Testament against "He descended into Hell" but I don't like your translation of the Creed!

In the whole creed that is the one line I have difficulty with.

postcynical

Slav wrote: »

I would put Hosea 13:14 and the whole New Testament against "He descended into Hell" but I don't like your translation of the Creed!

Is it just that one line? If more, could you post a translation that you do like?

What are other Christians' views on the 'Nicene' creed that we RCs usually recite on Sundays? This has no mention of Him descending to the dead or to Hell but just that He died (and rose again).

prinz

I thought this thread was about that fella from the Rocky movies

I quite like the Creed, sums things up quite nicely tbh.

Slav

postcynical wrote: »

Is it just that one line? If more, could you post a translation that you do like?

Everything else is OK!
When that line is translated as "descended into Hell" it more accurately reflects the idea the Jesus went fully through the "normal" human death and destroyed it. Hell does not exist anymore. So it was not the dead that He was visiting really but the Death and Hell itself.

What are other Christians' views on the 'Nicene' creed that we RCs usually recite on Sundays? This has no mention of Him descending to the dead or to Hell but just that He died (and rose again).

There is nothing wrong with the Nicene creed. This is the creed used in my Church as well (in its original form without the filioque clause). I just think that this "descended into Hell" bit is a good one and we'd better keep it in the Apostles Creed.

PDN

Slav wrote: »

Everything else is OK!
When that line is translated as "descended into Hell" it more accurately reflects the idea the Jesus went fully through the "normal" human death and destroyed it. Hell does not exist anymore. So it was not the dead that He was visiting really but the Death and Hell itself.

There is nothing wrong with the Nicene creed. This is the creed used in my Church as well (in its original form without the filioque clause). I just think that this "descended into Hell" bit is a good one and we'd better keep it in the Apostles Creed.

Slav, not for the first time I'm going to have to disagree with you. (It's nothing personal, honestly!)

I agree with the Apostles Creed in its original Greek form - where it says that Christ descended into the katotata (literally 'lower regions'). But I believe translating this as hell is IMHO misleading, and hence I cannot subscribe to such a translation. As far as I can see this error occured when the Creed was translated into Latin (katotata became inferna).

Most people understand 'hell' as referring to a place of eternal torment, and that is not what 'katotata' or 'hades' denotes. Both the OT sheol (Hebrew) and the NT hades (Greek) appear to refer to the place of the dead where both the righteous and the wicked go.

I would understand 'hell' as referring to the Lake of Fire which, far from being destroyed, has not even come into existence yet.

BrianCalgary

Thank you for clearing up that difficulty PDN.

All other lines are good for me. In tha Anglican church we used to say either the Apostles or the Nicene, depending on the Sunday. I have no idea how they decided which one to say.

postcynical

Slav wrote: »

When that line is translated as "descended into Hell" it more accurately reflects the idea the Jesus went fully through the "normal" human death and destroyed it. Hell does not exist anymore. So it was not the dead that He was visiting really but the Death and Hell itself.

Before Jesus' death was Hell synonymous with natural death? What is the current situation? (as you understand them of course)

Where were Moses and Elijah at this time?

santing

postcynical wrote: »

Before Jesus' death was Hell synonymous with natural death? What is the current situation? (as you understand them of course)

Where were Moses and Elijah at this time?

They were in a place described as fellowship with a person Abraham. See

(Luk 16:22-23) The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried, and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side.

PDN

Santing, I would agree with you about Moses. He died and went to Sheol.

As for Elijah, I wouldn't be so sure. He and Enoch are the two guys in the Old Testament who never actually experienced death.

getz

the apostles creed was writen by man in the 2nd century AD, not by god

PDN

getz wrote: »

the apostles creed was writen by man in the 2nd century AD, not by god

I don't think anyone will disagree with you there.

getz

PDN wrote: »

I don't think anyone will disagree with you there.

thank you ,but why do people believe the apostles creed are the words of god, and not just some holy men making it up ?

JimiTime

santing wrote: »

They were in a place described as fellowship with a person Abraham. See

Here's a question. Where did the wicked and the righteous dead go before Abraham? Abel, Noah etc from the righteous side, and Cane etc from the wicked side? Also, what of Adam and Eve?

JimiTime

getz wrote: »

thank you ,but why do people believe the apostles creed are the words of god, and not just some holy men making it up ?

Well, isn't it just paraphrasing what the bible tells us? Condensing it down into the crux of faith?

philologos

getz wrote: »

thank you ,but why do people believe the apostles creed are the words of god, and not just some holy men making it up ?

The Apostles Creed has Biblical basis. That's a pretty good reason I find. No claims are made there that aren't made elsewhere within Scripture.

getz

JimiTime wrote: »

Well, isn't it just paraphrasing what the bible tells us? Condensing it down into the crux of faith?

yes you are right i do understand what you are saying,but i would prefer it if the church [of any domination] just sticks to jesus/gods teachings and leaves the ,i think it means crap out of it .

getz

Jakkass wrote: »

The Apostles Creed has Biblical basis. That's a pretty good reason I find. No claims are made there that aren't made elsewhere within Scripture.

so i take it , its pick and chose what suits you,so if it sounds good except it ,if it dosent reject or ignore it,

philologos

getz wrote: »

so i take it , its pick and chose what suits you,so if it sounds good except it ,if it dosent reject or ignore it,

What?

My point was, the Apostles Creed sums up Christian belief rather nicely. There is nothing there that is anything new. All of these things can be found in the Bible.

PDN

getz wrote: »

thank you ,but why do people believe the apostles creed are the words of god, and not just some holy men making it up ?

I don't know any Christians who think the Apostles Creed is the words of God, but neither do I think it is holy men making anything up.

The Apostles Creed is a summary of the major doctrinal points that are in the New Testament. As such it is useful in the same way that we use a dictionary definition, a statement of the Law of Gravity, or a formula that helps us understand Pythagoras' theorem.

God gave us a brain for a reason. It is perfectly in order to discuss interpretations of Scripture and to say, "We believe that interpretation A is consistent with the various scriptural passages addressing that subject, and we also believe that interpretation B is not consistent with those passages."

BrianCalgary

getz wrote: »

thank you ,but why do people believe the apostles creed are the words of god, and not just some holy men making it up ?

No one thinks that the creed is the word of God.

Holy men did not 'make-it up', they were trying to articulate a Christian statement of faith that was short, sweet and could be easily memorised.

The word 'creed' Im sure comes from a latin word which means 'to believe', as teh Italian verb to believe is 'credare'.

JimiTime

getz wrote: »

yes you are right i do understand what you are saying,but i would prefer it if the church [of any domination] just sticks to jesus/gods teachings and leaves the ,i think it means crap out of it .

If I may appeal to our similarities for a moment getz. I am a non-denominational Christian. I too have been disillusioned by institutional religion for some time. In fact, I often think that religion seems to have turned (stumbled even), so many people from Christ that it is both sad and frustrating to witness. How often as a Christian have I been bombarded with religious shortcomings as if its something to do with me or in fact Jesus or God.

However, if you don't mind me saying, you remind me a bit of how I 'was' a couple of years back with regards to denominational religion. You are maybe a little more forceful than I was. To this day, I am 'still' very wary and skeptical of denominational religion. I would even say a little paranoid. Now, I don't think many will doubt the obvious issues that have occurred within the walls of many organised religions, 'However', I feel we must stop ourselves as Christians from going too far in relation to our caution. It really is not 'all' bad. Its good to maintain an enquiring mind, and question doctrines etc. Now, in relation to the apostles creed, it may have been put together by members of institutional religion, but it is accurate with regards to NT teachings. It is also a handy way to remember the basis of ones Christian faith be you non-denominational or otherwise. I just feel you may be just going a bit far with your angst towards organised religion.

I say this in the nicest tone, as one christian to another.

Soul Winner

PDN wrote: »

Santing, I would agree with you about Moses. He died and went to Sheol.

Jude states that Michael and Satan fought over the body of Moses and that Michael won, so Michael must have taken it somewhere. Do you think that he would have taken him to Sheol? Plus it was Moses and Elijah who were transfigured with Jesus on the mount. How do you think Moses got out of Sheol to do that and do you think he returned there after they left Jesus? Not asked to be smart just curious to know what you think. I don't know where Moses went after he died so its not a trick question or anything.

PDN

Soul Winner wrote: »

Jude states that Michael and Satan fought over the body of Moses and that Michael won, so Michael must have taken it somewhere. Do you think that he would have taken him to Sheol?

Note that it is the body of Moses, not his soul or spirit, that was the source of the dispute. Many scholars think that there is a reference here to an apocryphal book, The Assumption of Moses, but the only manuscript we have of it is a fragmentary Latin copy from the Sixth Century - and what we have left of it doesn't contain this incident. The most likely explanation of this reference in Jude is that the burial place of Moses was unknown, and Satan wanted to reveal it to the Jews so it would become a shrine and a source of idolatry. However, Michaell resisted him and it remained hidden.

Plus it was Moses and Elijah who were transfigured with Jesus on the mount. How do you think Moses got out of Sheol to do that and do you think he returned there after they left Jesus?

I believe that the Transfiguration was a vision of the Second Coming, so that Moses and Elijah did not physically stand on the mount with Jesus.

Slav

postcynical wrote: »

Before Jesus' death was Hell synonymous with natural death?

I think that hell/sheol was synonymous with unavoidable death caused by the sinful human nature. In this context death is understood as a separation from God and not just the physical death of the body.

What is the current situation?

The death is not unavoidable now. That's how I understand it.

Slav

PDN wrote: »

Slav, not for the first time I'm going to have to disagree with you. (It's nothing personal, honestly!)

I agree with the Apostles Creed in its original Greek form - where it says that Christ descended into the katotata (literally 'lower regions').

In my turn I must disagree with you that we are in disagreement.

Undoubtedly Hell in Apostolic Creed means Sheol and not the Lake of Fire.

But I believe translating this as hell is IMHO misleading, and hence I cannot subscribe to such a translation. As far as I can see this error occured when the Creed was translated into Latin (katotata became inferna).

I would not blame Latin translation. The Latin infernus, English hell, Greek katotata and Hebrew sheol are very close etymologically (and btw for this reason Hell probably was not the best choice to name the Lake of Fire). In KJV Bible it was not unusual to translate sheol as hell but now such a translation is usually avoided. This issue of the modern English language causes κατελθοντα εἰς τα κατωτατα to be sometimes translated as He descended to the dead which in my opinion is not the best translation from the theological point of view as it's missing the point that Christ was targeting the Death itself.