Ship of Fools: Eccles: Nicene creed challenge

Thread: Eccles: Nicene creed challenge Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000703

Posted by St. Gwladys (# 14504) on :

Booktonmacarthur and two of his friends have spent quite a lot of this afternoon trying to meet a challenge set them by an older member of our church. The challenge was to rewrite the Creed in everyday English with no jargon, so that anyone could understand it. I suggested that it be posted as a challenge to Shipmates - how would you write the Creed in modern English?
(Booktonmacarthur will put their version on the Ship when they've finished)

[ 29. August 2009, 11:19: Message edited by: Doublethink ]

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

Well, as long as it doesn't end up being substituted in church for the real thing . . . . We already have enough of that!

Posted by St. Gwladys (# 14504) on :

The idea wasn't to write something that would be substituted for the creed in church,but rather for them to examine what the Creed was really saying. If the Creed is a summary of the essential truths of the Christian faith, how would you explain that summary in simple terms?

Posted by booktonmacarthur (# 14308) on :

The challenge is to write the creed in a way that anyone can understand. True God from True God gave us a real hard time.

I am working with a Genius, in English language, and a typical valleys boy/teenager/slob.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

Well, then, let us try:

I believe in God the Father, who is all-powerful and who made us all, and who made everything that has ever existed, whether we can see it or not.

And I believe in Jesus Christ, who is God the Father's only son, whom God the Father made before he made anything else, and who is the same as God the Father.

And I believe that in order to save us, Jesus Christ came down to earth as a man, being born of a young girl named Mary, and that he was put to death at the order of Pontius Pilate, and that he suffered and was buried.

And I believe that three days later he rose up from the dead, as the scriptures predicted he would, and that he returned to heaven, where he sits at God the Father's right hand.

And I believe that he will return one day to judge us all, whether we are alive or dead, and that his kingdom will last forever.

And I believe in the Holy Spirit, who is also God, and who gives us life. I believe that the Holy Spirit comes forth from God the Father and from Jesus and is equal to God the Father and to Jesus. I believe that the prophets told us about this.

And I believe that there is one united church throughout all the world.

And I believe that there is a ceremony called baptism in which our sins are washed away.

And I believe that we will one day rise up from the dead and live forever.

This is true.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

Sorry, Miss Amanda, the 2nd clause of your version - having to do with the Second Person of the Trinity - is heretical. God the Son wasn't made, nor created in time, but is eternally "begotten" from the Father "before all worlds", i.e. outside of time and space. He also is not the same as the Father, for that undoes the distinction of persons in the Trinity. Try again.

Posted by booktonmacarthur (# 14308) on :

This is the first draft copy from Bookton Macarthur Productions.

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
who created heaven and earth,
and all other things, even the things you can't see.

We believe in only one Lord, Jesus Christ,
God's only Son,
who always has been and always will be son of God,
fully God, equal with the Father,
both the Father and Son are truly God and are the same God,
the Father did not make him, but he was born of the Father,
and is of one mind with the Father.
Through the Son all things were made.

He came down from heaven;
For us and to save us,

And through the Holy Spirit's power
he took human form and Mary gave birth to him, even though she was still a virgin

He became a man, fully human, but remained fully God
We believe he died for us and was crucified at Pontius Pilate's command;
he suffered greatly on the cross, died, and was buried.
As predicted in the Old Testament, he came back to life after three days;
without dying again, he returned to heaven
and now sits, in glory, at the right hand of the Father.
One day he will come again to Earth, as King of all
to judge all humanity including those who have already died,
and his kingdom last for ever, without ending.

We believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, who gives live to God's creation
who comes from the Father and the Son.

The Holy Spirit is equal with the Father and the Son
and is worshiped and glorified along with the the Father and the Son.
And when the prophets spoke, the Holy Spirit spoke through them.

We believe in one united Church that dates back to the first followers of Jesus Christ
We believe in one baptism for the cleansing of sins.
We wait for the dead to return to life,
and believe that life on earth will continue until Christ returns.

This is what we believe.

We would like people to tell us how to improve what we have written - kinda like a peer review! Thanks for any help.

Rob.

On behalf of Darren and Luke.

PS. Booktonmacarthur is the tag I go by on most websites but it is not just a name that belongs to me. The name applies equally to the other two names as much as to myself. Upon name amnesty I will change my name for this reason! [Smile]

[ 19. July 2009, 17:26: Message edited by: booktonmacarthur ]

Posted by Oremus (# 13853) on :

Sorry also but "a young girl called Mary" is not really precise enough.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

It's a literal translation of the Latin ex Maria virgine. The Latin word virgo literally means "young girl" without any statement made about her intactness. (A gentleman would assume it, though.)

Miss Amanda is not a theologian. She merely rose to the challenge. She does not pretend that her version of the Creed is theologically adequate in all respects. If it offends, she'll withdraw it. She is looking foward to reading other entries but will not presume to critique them.

Posted by booktonmacarthur (# 14308) on :

I would like to say that we have tried to stick to the original version as closely as possible, in order not to change the meaning of the creed.

Sorry, to the Orthodoxen, but we have included the filioque, after lengthy debate, because it is what someone coming to our church would find. We were in two minds over this one!

The team enjoyed reading Miss Amanda's post, so please leave it! We liked having something to compare with...Miss Amanda's is probably much easier to understand!

Rob.

[ 19. July 2009, 17:56: Message edited by: booktonmacarthur ]

Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :

Rob, Darren, and Luke, the attempt is not bad at all, IMHO. I'm curious why you reworded "seen and unseen." I don't really see how anybody could misunderstand that.

Conversely, you kept "crucified," but that might not really be an Everyday-English word.

Also, would "Old Testament" need to be explained further?

These are simply my humble observations. This is an interesting exercise, but one I certainly hope doesn't create a new trend of Creed rewriting for liturgical purposes!

[ 19. July 2009, 18:02: Message edited by: Martin L ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
Conversely, you kept "crucified," but that might not really be an Everyday-English word.

The Street Bible has 'executed him Roman Style'

The Message Bible has "Nail him to a cross!"

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

This thread treads a fine line. As booktonmacarthur has already posted a full version I'll take it on trust this is not a homework thread - in the sense of getting others to do the work for one.

Eccolytes, please can we keep this thread focused and not stray too far into purgatorial discussions of filioque and the general theology of the nature of the trinity - else it will moved or closed.

Thanks,

Doublethink
Eccles Host

Posted by Saint Chad (# 5645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Miss Amanda is not a theologian. She merely rose to the challenge. She does not pretend that her version of the Creed is theologically adequate in all respects. If it offends, she'll withdraw it. She is looking foward to reading other entries but will not presume to critique them.

Miss Amanda, it isn't a question of whether or not it's adequate, it's Arian.

Posted by Laetare (# 3583) on :

quote:
Originally posted by St. Gwladys:
The idea wasn't to write something that would be substituted for the creed in church,but rather for them to examine what the Creed was really saying. If the Creed is a summary of the essential truths of the Christian faith, how would you explain that summary in simple terms?

I think this is a very good idea - to help people understand the real thing - an introduction to the basic Christian faith we say in our worship.

Good project and a good attempt I think.

Posted by booktonmacarthur (# 14308) on :

Doublethink.

Myself and StGwladys weren't really sure where to post this thread. If this is not the place for it please move it.

Martin L.

Thanks for the feedback.
We changed the "seen and unseen" because we wanted to emphasise that god made everything.
Some of the wording is slightly Jargonese! We are youth from church family and sometimes we forget that not everyone has heard of the term crucified - anyway Christianity is an integral part of our Religious Education system, so most youngsters will of heard the term crucifixion! This term may well be revised in later drafts.

Don't worry we are not about to re-write the liturgy. This will be used in posters, I think. The challenge has allowed three teenagers to think about what some terms mean, particularly "God from God" etc!

Thank you all for positive feedback. I would love to see other peoples versions, mainly for purposes of comparison! We were inspired by the alternative for Amen in Miss Amanda's post, so thank you! [Biased]

Rob.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

I am assuming that was an unfortunately timed crosspost, St Chad.

Doublethink
Eccles Host

Posted by Saint Chad (# 5645) on :

Yes, it was, Doublethink.

Unless I'm misunderstanding St. Gwladys they have engaged in a theological exercise.

I'm not sure how else to respond to the thread except with theology.

I'll get me cope.

Posted by Laetare (# 3583) on :

As I see it this is a text to help people understand a chunk of words often found in the liturgy. I welcome that - the liturgy often uses words people don't use, and so a help to iunderstand is a great idea.

I for one look forward to this developing and seeing a final version.

Posted by chiltern_hundred (# 13659) on :

Just a couple of tweaks by way of suggestions, and apologies for any UK spellings to those who might object to them:

"We believe in one God,
the Father, to whom all power belongs,
who created heaven and earth,
and all other things, even the things you can't see.

We believe in only one Lord, Jesus Christ,
God's only Son,
who always has been and always will be God's son,
fully God, equal with the Father,
both the Father and Son are truly God and are the same God,
the Father did not make him, but he was born of the Father,
and is of one mind with the Father.
Through the Son all things were made.

He came down from heaven;
For us and to save us,

Even though Mary was still a virgin, it was through the Holy Spirit's power
that she gave birth to him. And so he became a human being.

He became a man, fully human, but remained fully God;
He died for us by being put to death on a cross on Pontius Pilate's orders;
he suffered greatly, died, and was buried.
As predicted in the Old Testament, he came back to life after three days;
without dying again, he returned to heaven
and now sits in glory, in a place of honour beside God the Father.
One day he will come again to Earth, as King of all
to judge all humanity including those who have already died,
and his kingdom will last for ever, without ending.

We believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, who gives live to God's creation
(who comes from the Father and the Son).

The Holy Spirit is equal with the Father and the Son;
he is worshiped and glorified together with them.
And when the prophets spoke, the Holy Spirit spoke through them.

We believe in one Church, the same always and everywhere
We believe in one baptism for the cleansing of sins.
We wait for the dead to return to life,
and believe that life on earth will continue until Christ returns.

This is what we believe."

Posted by Laetare (# 3583) on :

Almighty is a bit unusual but power talk leaves me a bit cold.

Posted by booktonmacarthur (# 14308) on :

quote:
originally posted by Chiltern_Hundred:
We believe in one God,
the Father, to whom all power belongs,
who created heaven and earth,
and all other things, even the things you can't see.

I like your emphasis on the way all power belongs to the father.

quote:
Even though Mary was still a virgin, it was through the Holy Spirit's power
that she gave birth to him. And so he became a human being.

I think your wording is much prettier than ours!
[Axe murder]

quote:
He died for us by being put to death on a cross on Pontius Pilate's orders;
he suffered greatly, died, and was buried.

I prefer the word "command", I feel it sounds far more final! I do like the way you have moved the word "cross". It makes better reading, IMHO!

quote:
, in a place of honour beside God the Father.

Thank you! I wasn't altogether happy with "sitting at the right hand" as it doesn't really mean much to me - what is so important about the right hand of the father?!

quote:
(who comes from the Father and the Son)

Thanks for that. I wasn't really happy with the original. I would hate to offend the Orthodoxen.

Some of these ideas, along with others, will likely go into the final draft. The style of formatting is based on the Gold Book of the CiW, though we have added paragraphs here and there to ease reading.

Hopefully I will be meeting with Darren tomorrow...I am sure he'll be interested in the feedback! Thanks all! Keep up the good work!

Rob.

[ 19. July 2009, 20:35: Message edited by: booktonmacarthur ]

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
It's a literal translation of the Latin ex Maria virgine. The Latin word virgo literally means "young girl" without any statement made about her intactness. (A gentleman would assume it, though.)

Sorry, but virgo absolutely means virgin. Any first-year Latin student can tell you that. There are other words for young girl or maiden, including filia and puella.

Posted by chiltern_hundred (# 13659) on :

Thank you, booktonmacarthur, for those compliments. I shall now go into the working week with a warm glow.

I think you have grasped the rationale behind my changes, so I won't say much about them. "At the right hand of" doesn't actually mean anything to anyone nowadays; the incarnation section was turned round so that the equivalent to "and was made man" was at the end (the genuflection point for those of us who still do that sort of thing), and my idea was that "always and everywhere" as a description of the church was less verbose than the alternative.

Changes to the possessives (apostrophe + s instead of "of the" were made in the interests of colloquialism, on the assumption that you want this to be as down-to-earth (street level) as possible without becoming irreverent.

Blessings on your labours!

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Yes its the original Hebrew that means "young woman" rather than "virgin". It is the Septuagint that changes the meaning and that is what Matthew quote. So Matthew 1:23 would have read if he'd used the Hebrew:

quote:

A young [pubescent] woman will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"--which means, "God with us".

Jengie

Posted by Charles Had a Splurge on (# 14140) on :

For what it's worth, here's my version. I've tried to take out the churchy bits

We trust in one God,
the All-powerful Father,
who made where God lives and where we live,
and all other things, even the things you can't see.

We trust in one Master,
Jesus the King, the unique Son of God
Who the Father called into being before time began,
fully God, equal with the Father,
both the Father and Son are truly God and are the same God,
the Father did not make him, but he was born of the Father,
Through the Son everything was made.

He came down from the Father to save humanity.

Even though Mary was still a virgin, it was through the Holy Spirit's power
that she gave birth to him. And so he became a human being.

He died for our benefit.
He was executed on Pontius Pilate's orders;
he suffered greatly on a cross, died, and was buried.
As predicted in the Bible, he came back to life on the third day after he died;
without dying again, he returned to the Father
and was given a place of honour beside God the Father.
One day he will come again to Earth, as King of all
to judge all humanity including those who have already died,
and his kingdom will never end.

We trust in the Holy Spirit,
Who is God, and gives life to creation
who comes from the Father (and the Son).

The Holy Spirit is equal with the Father and the Son.
We are to worship and praise him together with them.
The Holy Spirit spoke to us through the Prophets in the Bible.

We believe in one Church, the same always and everywhere, that faithfully teaches the same truths as Jesus’s Apostles did.
We believe in one Initiation Ceremony that washes away our wrongdoings.
We wait for the dead to return to life,
to live forever in the new world that God will make for us.

This is our truth.

Posted by Oremus (# 13853) on :

Sorry Miss Amanda but that is the danger of literal translation-when the Bible is translated into the vernecular we need to use the original meaning not the literal translation. For instance the title Miss used to be used for unmarried women and therefore it used to be assumed that any "Miss" an unmarried woman AND a virgin.

Posted by Oremus (# 13853) on :

Charles had a Splurge on - a Great version but I prefer "He died for us" rather than "He died for our benefit" or maybe "He died to save us"

Posted by Stranger in a strange land (# 11922) on :

Chiltern Hundred. Are you on the CofE's Liturgical Committee? If not, wht not? I will nominate you; that is an excellent piece of work.

Posted by Patrick the less saintly (# 14355) on :

I would use this:

We Believe in GOD the Father almighty,
Maker of Heaven and Earth,
And of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God,
Begotten of his Father before all worlds,
God of God, Light of Light,
Very God of very God,
Begotten, not made,
Being of one substance with the Father,
By whom all things were made;
[bow] Who for us men, and for our salvation came down from heaven,
And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary,
And was made man, [/bow]
And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate.
He suffered and was buried,
And the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures,
And ascended into heaven,
And sitteth on the right hand of the Father.
And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead:
Whose kingdom shall have no end.

And we believe 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 worshipped and glorified,
Who spake by the Prophets.

And we believe one Catholick and Apostolick Church.
We acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins.
And I look for the Resurrection of the dead,
And the life of the world to come (+).
Amen

It's the Creed from the BCP rendered into the first person plural in accordance with the Greek text (but with the filioque). Like all of the BCP, it is written in perfectly modern English and lacking in theological jargon. A major cultural difference between Western Christians and Orthodoxen is that the Orthodox tend to say things like 'Pantocrator' and 'homooúsios' whilst Western Christians, even when familiar with the Greek terms, prefer 'all-mighty' and 'of one substance'. For this reason, the Creed in the BCP needs no translation, although it certainly requires some explanation of the rather dense theology behind it.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Patrick the less saintly:

It's the Creed from the BCP ... Like all of the BCP, it is written in perfectly modern English and lacking in theological jargon.

Nope. Not by a country mile -- at least, not in the UK or Canada or any english-speaking country of which I am aware.

And in any case, the interpolated rubrics -- which ought not to be part of a "lacking in jargon text" -- are extremely dubious because they are suggesting devotional practices that are not normally part of the use of a creed in the Anglican church/CofE, or for that matter in the RC church. Let alone anyone else.

John

Posted by cg (# 14332) on :

quote:
Originally posted by booktonmacarthur:

We believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, who gives live to God's creation

live should read life

Posted by Foaming Draught (# 9134) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Sorry, but virgo absolutely means virgin. Any first-year Latin student can tell you that. There are other words for young girl or maiden, including filia and puella.

Double your sorry, any student (or scholar) who proceeded beyond first year agrees with Ms Amanda. Certainly a forty year classicist of my very close acquaintance does.

I also share others' concern about how Amanda represents the co-eternal Son, and I can't see how we can comment on her updated version without pointing it out, however tangentially, but as an exercise in ungobbledygooking a Creed, Amanda's reads well, better than the OP's I think.

FD

[ 20. July 2009, 03:13: Message edited by: Foaming Draught ]

Posted by Patrick the less saintly (# 14355) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:

quote:
Originally posted by Patrick the less saintly:

It's the Creed from the BCP ... Like all of the BCP, it is written in perfectly modern English and lacking in theological jargon.
Nope. Not by a country mile -- at least, not in the UK or Canada or any english-speaking country of which I am aware.

And in any case, the interpolated rubrics -- which ought not to be part of a "lacking in jargon text" -- are extremely dubious because they are suggesting devotional practices that are not normally part of the use of a creed in the Anglican church/CofE, or for that matter in the RC church. Let alone anyone else.

How is the creed not written in modern English? As far as I am aware, modern English is modern English whether in Canada or Britain or the U.S. or anywhere else. The BCP, like the Authorized version of the Bible and the works of Shakespeare, is one of the stellar achievements of the early period of modern English writing. I suspect that the OP actually intended submissions to be in contemporary English, which is an entirely different kettle of fish. As many will know, I don't see the point in contemporary translations of the liturgy, not when the old ones, so well known and well beloved, are still easily within the comprehension of any English speaker.

As for the rubrics, well, that is what I do when I say the creed, and I think that I am hardly alone. Those are also the rubrics found in most liturgical manuals, although I believe that they have fallen out use amongst our RC brethren and have never been entirely popular with low-church Anglicans.

Posted by Patrick the less saintly (# 14355) on :

P.S.:

'Virgo' can indeed many any young woman as, historically, could the English 'virgin'. It was, of course, assumed that virtuous unmarried young women were virgo intacta. However, both scripture and tradition make it clear that the Virgin Mary was a virgin in the contemporary English meaning of that word and that is clearly the meaning intended in the creed.

Posted by chiltern_hundred (# 13659) on :

No, I am not, but I look forward to them getting in touch with the minimum possible delay.

Thank you for brightening up my day.

quote:
Originally posted by Stranger in a strange land:
Chiltern Hundred. Are you on the CofE's Liturgical Committee? If not, wht not? I will nominate you; that is an excellent piece of work.

Posted by Saint Chad (# 5645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laetare:
As I see it this is a text to help people understand a chunk of words often found in the liturgy.

No, this is a rewrite of the text of the creed. As St. Gwladys herself posted:

quote:
The challenge was to rewrite the Creed in everyday English with no jargon, so that anyone could understand it.

What you define as "a text to help people understand a chunk of words" I would understand as a commentary written alongside the "chunk of words".

quote:
the liturgy often uses words people don't use...

Indeed it does - what St. Gwladys apparently dismisses as jargon. I'm not sure that's easily avoidable.

St. Gwladys's challenge is:

quote:
If the Creed is a summary of the essential truths of the Christian faith, how would you explain that summary in simple terms?

I'm not sure you can. Not without distorting or misrepresenting the essential truth.

The Creed is a distillation, a very compact, tight use of just the right words.

quote:
and so a help to iunderstand is a great idea

Absolutely. Couldn't agree more. I'm following the thread with interest,(it's sent me off looking up the various translations I have of the Creed), and I'll be glad if they prove me wrong.

Posted by ChaliceGirl (# 13656) on :

I think the Creed is pretty clear the way it is!

In short:
We believe in God, we believe he made Jesus, we believe God spoke through Him, we believe he was killed for our sake, and he will come back again. We believe our church's clergy are successors to the original Apostles, that our church is holy. We believe in baptism and that God gives us life. And we believe that there will be new life, a new world to come.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

Originally posted by Patrick the Less Saintly:

quote:
As for the rubrics, well, that is what I do when I say the creed, and I think that I am hardly alone. Those are also the rubrics found in most liturgical manuals, although I believe that they have fallen out use amongst our RC brethren and have never been entirely popular with low-church Anglicans.

Personally, I do much the same but I would hardly insist that it is a requirement to do this when saying the Nicene Creed.

Posted by Cyprian (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Patrick the less saintly:
A major cultural difference between Western Christians and Orthodoxen is that the Orthodox tend to say things like 'Pantocrator' and 'homooúsios' whilst Western Christians, even when familiar with the Greek terms, prefer 'all-mighty' and 'of one substance'.

I have never encountered this difference. I have access to various English translations of the Liturgy here at home: the Sourozh diocese of the Russian church, the Thyateira Greek archdiocese, the default ROCOR text, the Antiochian text, the Ukrainkian Exarchate's text, and the text used by ACROD. None of them uses the terms Pantokrator or homoousios. It is usually "almighty" and either "of one essence" or, in one book, "consubstantial". I have never encountered those Greek terms used liturgically when anything but the Greek language was being used.

As for it being rendered in the plural, I think it is preferable to retain the baptismal and subsequent liturgical tradition of rendering it in the singular. It is a recalling of one's baptism alongside one's brothers and sisters also baptised into Christ, therefore uniting the personal affirmation of faith of one's Baptism with the communal affirmation of the Faith of the Baptismal priesthood, just prior to offering the Eucharist. It is both personal and communal. Without personal faith, how can one take part in the whole? The balance is lost with the plural liturgical form of some modern versions. The Latin, Slavonic, English, and Greek all render it in the singular form in the liturgical version. Only the conciliar version has in the plural, and that is because it is a pronouncement of the faithful gathered in council. So it says, "We believe", just as other conciliar statements say "We anathematise", "We uphold", "We affirm", and so forth.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ChaliceGirl:
... we believe he made Jesus ...

But it doesn't say that at all! In fact the Creeds were written to oppose that very idea.

quote:

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
.... Jesus Christ, who is God the Father's only son, whom God the Father made before he made anything else...

Ditto. That's not what it says. "Before all the worlds" is about logical priority, not location in time.

Jesus, the human being, is of course part of creation (has a "human nature"), located in time and space, and can be said to be created by God in the same sense that every other human being (or animal or plant or bacterium) can be said to be created by God

God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, is uncreated, outside time, has the "divine nature".

The Nicene Creed scandalously claims that the two are the same person. But it doesn't try to explain how that could possibly be true - it just asks us to say some things which an Arian. or a Docetist, or a Unitarian could not honestly say.

So saying it is an act of faith, and a declaratio of trust in God, more than a summary of systematic theology.

[ 20. July 2009, 13:48: Message edited by: ken ]

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Sorry, but virgo absolutely means virgin. Any first-year Latin student can tell you that. There are other words for young girl or maiden, including filia and puella.

Why, because some Latin teacher told them so? Miss Amanda taught Latin for ten years. Virgo is a girl of marriageable age, nothing more, nothing less. Filia is daughter, without reference to her age or status. Puella implies that the girl has not yet reached puberty and is cognate with puerulus, meaning a little boy.

And please, no more consideration of Miss Amanda's version of the Creed, which she has withdrawn.

Posted by Cyprian (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by ChaliceGirl:
... we believe he made Jesus ...
But it doesn't say that at all! In fact the Creeds were written to oppose that very idea.

Indeed.

The Nicene Creed explicitly added:

quote:
And whosoever shall say that there was a time when the Son of God was not, or that before he was begotten he was not, or that he was made of things that were not, or that he is of a different substance or essence or that he is a creature, or subject to change or conversion, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them.

I take it this isn't the creed that we're reworking because I could have lots of fun with this. [Devil]

Speaking of the making of Christ, and then as an event in history, is not a reworking of the Creed for simplicity at all, which is the subject of the OP, but is rather something different altogether.

I think there is indeed scope for making the Creed accessible to people but I think that the main way of doing that is to take the time to teach them what it means and what it is all about, and to engage them in serious thought about their faith and what Christianity means by these things. Instilling the idea of instant accessibility is to simply encourage the McChurch mentality of fast food and fast religion, both with little nutritional value and a complete failure as a grounding for the Christian life, dooming them to crash and burn when faced with the reality.

Now I can see that there are cases where a person's particular needs or abilities may mean a careful simplification of the language Creed may be beneficial or even necessary, although expressing complex ideas with simple language runs the risk of misleading people entirely.

FWIW, I think that booktonmacarthur and chiltern_hundred's efforts are both good, although even they could potentially cause more confusion.

For instance, "equal" does not have the same meaning as "consubstantial". It is perfectly possible to be equal but different. Two items could be equal in height but made of completely different stuff. Two tins at the supermarket could be of equal value but pineapples and hotdogs are far from being the same.

"Three days later" and "on the third day" are numerically different.

Catholic isn't rendered by "the same always and everywhere".

Also, I would nuke the "God of God". We got rid of that at the Synod of Constantinople in 385, at the same time we included the Mother of God in the Creed and expanded the section on the Holy Spirit. No need to go re-inserting it now.

Here's my effort at rewording the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed:

quote:
I believe:

-in one God, Father, almighty,
Maker of heaven and earth,
and of everything, both visible and invisible,

and...

-in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God - uniquely born - born of his Father outside of space and before time began. He is Light of Light, and God indeed, born of true God. He always is, and was never made in time, but is born eternally from the Father, so He is also God, and all things were made by Him.
For mankind and for our salvation, He came to earth from the company of the Father, and was born, physical body and all, from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, thus becoming truly human. He was hanged on a cross for us, under the rule of Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried,
and rose again on the third, fulfilling what was said in the holy writings. He returned from earth to his place of honour and in the company of the Father. He will come again, in glory, to bring justice, calling all to account - both living and dead - and his reign shall continue beyond space and time,

and...

-in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and the Giver of life, Who proceeds from the Father (and not the Son because that would be a stinking latin heresy and we don't want that now, do we? No, I didn't think so)
outside of space and before time began, and Who, with the Father and the Son is together worshipped and together glorified, Who was the voice behind the words of the prophets.

-in a united, holy, Church, that is whole, complete, and lacking nothing - at one within itself - and which has the same Faith and mission as the Apostles.

And I confess my faith in one Baptism, which washes away sins. I eagerly await the dead coming to fullness of life, and the life of the coming age. Amen.

[Edit: very long words break the scroll lock on some browsers.]

[ 20. July 2009, 15:53: Message edited by: Hart ]

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

I'm afraid mine is more Nice than Nicene. It goes:

Come in.
Have a seat.
Tea?
How are you?

Posted by Cyprian (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally noted by Hart:
[Edit: very long words break the scroll lock on some browsers.]

The all-rolled-into-one device was meant to convey humour. Now it just looks as though I'm sniping.

[ 20. July 2009, 16:16: Message edited by: Cyprian ]

Posted by Max. (# 5846) on :

Somebody had to post this

Max.

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cyprian:

quote:
Originally noted by Hart:
[Edit: very long words break the scroll lock on some browsers.]
The all-rolled-into-one device was meant to convey humour. Now it just looks as though I'm sniping.

Still humorous from here, never fear.

Posted by booktonmacarthur (# 14308) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Foaming Draught:
I also share others' concern about how Amanda represents the co-eternal Son, and I can't see how we can comment on her updated version without pointing it out, however tangentially, but as an exercise in ungobbledygooking a Creed, Amanda's reads well, better than the OP's I think.

FD

I agree that Amanda's one reads better. This will probably be rectified on the second draft...we tried to stick as close to the original in order to avoid making heretical statements!

quote:
FWIW, I think that booktonmacarthur and chiltern_hundred's efforts are both good, although even they could potentially cause more confusion.

For instance, "equal" does not have the same meaning as "consubstantial". It is perfectly possible to be equal but different. Two items could be equal in height but made of completely different stuff. Two tins at the supermarket could be of equal value but pineapples and hotdogs are far from being the same.

"Three days later" and "on the third day" are numerically different.

Catholic isn't rendered by "the same always and everywhere"

Thanks Cyprian! We ourselves came across this issue...it is hard to know what is the correct term to use in discussing the trinity, particularly in a way that makes sense to an incomer. My genius kept coming up with fallacies in the terms I was thinking off! It is extra difficult to write a document that won't confuse everyone but the writers [Help]

I am hoping to meet up with my genius tomorrow, so hopefully I will be able to post our 2nd Draft tomorrow. Thank you for all the feedback and different versions posted, it has been most interesting so far....keep up the good work please!

Rob.

Posted by Cyprian (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:

quote:
Originally posted by Cyprian:

quote:
Originally noted by Hart:
[Edit: very long words break the scroll lock on some browsers.]
The all-rolled-into-one device was meant to convey humour. Now it just looks as though I'm sniping.
Still humorous from here, never fear.

Thank you. [Smile]

Posted by BalddudeCrompond (# 12152) on :

OK I have one too.. the Amplified Creed. I added items, rather than subtracting them.
We believe in one God—our Father, who made heaven, Earth—everything---everything we can see, and even the things we cannot see…

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, God’s only Son---not born as we were born, and not created , but simply equal in presence and power and eternity with the Father. He also is God; always was, always is, and always will be. Through Jesus everything came into its being. He is the Word, the Way, the Truth and the Life. Whoever believes in Jesus will not die, but will have eternal life.

To demonstrate His great Love for us and to save us from our wicked ways, the Holy Spirit visited a pious virgin-girl, Mary, and using her as an instrument for his Glory, impregnated her and caused her to give birth to GOD-in human form, Jesus.

Jesus proved both his divinity and humanity while on Earth; and as further proof of his great love he gave his life for us, by being nailed to a Cross, and by suffering a brutal death by direction of Pontius Pilate.

As was foretold in the writings of Moses, the Psalms, and the Prophets , Jesus rose from the dead, freed the captives in Hell who longed for his presence and lived in the love of the Lord, and then walked for forty more days on this Earth until he ascended into heaven, body and soul. He will be returning to judge us—all of us---living and dead, and though this Earth will pass away, God’s Kingdom will go on and on forever.

As Jesus promised, he sent the Holy Spirit, a living remembrance of his presence, no less God than Christ or the Father. He comes from both the Father and the Son and is the third Person of the Trinity, equal to both of them. The Holy Spirit has spoken to us through the Prophets and continues to inspire us to this day.

We believe in one Holy, worldwide Church, which keeps the traditions of the first apostles. We believe in one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We eagerly await the resurrection of the dead and the promised new world to come

Posted by booktonmacarthur (# 14308) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BalddudeCrompond:
OK I have one too.. the Amplified Creed. I added items, rather than subtracting them.
We believe in one God—our Father, who made heaven, Earth—everything---everything we can see, and even the things we cannot see…

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, God’s only Son---not born as we were born, and not created , but simply equal in presence and power and eternity with the Father. He also is God; always was, always is, and always will be. Through Jesus everything came into its being. He is the Word, the Way, the Truth and the Life. Whoever believes in Jesus will not die, but will have eternal life.

To demonstrate His great Love for us and to save us from our wicked ways, the Holy Spirit visited a pious virgin-girl, Mary, and using her as an instrument for his Glory, impregnated her and caused her to give birth to GOD-in human form, Jesus.

Jesus proved both his divinity and humanity while on Earth; and as further proof of his great love he gave his life for us, by being nailed to a Cross, and by suffering a brutal death by direction of Pontius Pilate.

As was foretold in the writings of Moses, the Psalms, and the Prophets , Jesus rose from the dead, freed the captives in Hell who longed for his presence and lived in the love of the Lord, and then walked for forty more days on this Earth until he ascended into heaven, body and soul. He will be returning to judge us—all of us---living and dead, and though this Earth will pass away, God’s Kingdom will go on and on forever.

As Jesus promised, he sent the Holy Spirit, a living remembrance of his presence, no less God than Christ or the Father. He comes from both the Father and the Son and is the third Person of the Trinity, equal to both of them. The Holy Spirit has spoken to us through the Prophets and continues to inspire us to this day.

We believe in one Holy, worldwide Church, which keeps the traditions of the first apostles. We believe in one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We eagerly await the resurrection of the dead and the promised new world to come

That is a cool idea [Cool]

of which I contemplated, but I didn't know how to do it. I am considering the Athanasian Creed for my next challenge [Big Grin]

but we had probably better finalise the Nicene Creed first!

Rob.

[ 20. July 2009, 19:30: Message edited by: booktonmacarthur ]

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Patrick the less saintly:
How is the creed not written in modern English? As far as I am aware, modern English is modern English whether in Canada or Britain or the U.S. or anywhere else. The BCP, like the Authorized version of the Bible and the works of Shakespeare, is one of the stellar achievements of the early period of modern English writing.

Unless you intend to suggest that everything since Chaucer is "modern", then:

"very" with the meaning it has in the BCP is certainly not modern

"ghost" with the meaning it has in the BCP is not modern

"proceed" with the meaning it has in the BCP is not modern

and any verb form ending in "est" or "eth" is not modern.

I suspect that calling the Holy SPirit the "Lord and giver of life" is open to misunderstanding at the very least, the more appropriate (modern in this case) translation is, I believe: the Holy SPirit the Lord; the giver of life (at least in the Latin, Dominus is a describer of spiritus sanctus tout court, vivificantem is not linked to dominus). CAll it jargon if you want to excuse it.

And, frankly, "Catholick" is the purest jargon, leaving aside that the "k" at the end disappeared from modern english some centuries ago everywhere but the 1662.

John

Posted by Patrick the less saintly (# 14355) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Unless you intend to suggest that everything since Chaucer is "modern", then:

Modern English began with the great vowel shift, so Chaucer is not modern, but Shakespeare, the Authorized Version of the Bible and the 1662 Prayer Book all are.

Posted by Cyprian (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:

quote:
Originally posted by Patrick the less saintly:
How is the creed not written in modern English? As far as I am aware, modern English is modern English whether in Canada or Britain or the U.S. or anywhere else. The BCP, like the Authorized version of the Bible and the works of Shakespeare, is one of the stellar achievements of the early period of modern English writing.
Unless you intend to suggest that everything since Chaucer is "modern", then:

"very" with the meaning it has in the BCP is certainly not modern

"ghost" with the meaning it has in the BCP is not modern

"proceed" with the meaning it has in the BCP is not modern

and any verb form ending in "est" or "eth" is not modern.

I suspect that calling the Holy SPirit the "Lord and giver of life" is open to misunderstanding at the very least, the more appropriate (modern in this case) translation is, I believe: the Holy SPirit the Lord; the giver of life (at least in the Latin, Dominus is a describer of spiritus sanctus tout court, vivificantem is not linked to dominus). CAll it jargon if you want to excuse it.

And, frankly, "Catholick" is the purest jargon, leaving aside that the "k" at the end disappeared from modern english some centuries ago everywhere but the 1662.

John

Patrick's right, John Holding. Modern English is a technical term and the creed of the 1662 BCP is in modern English.

You would be right to say that it is not in contemporary English, (that is, contemporary with our time), but that is not the same thing.

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Patrick the less saintly:

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Unless you intend to suggest that everything since Chaucer is "modern", then:

Modern English began with the great vowel shift, so Chaucer is not modern, but Shakespeare, the Authorized Version of the Bible and the 1662 Prayer Book all are.

Which is a wonderful example of you using a jargon term in a way that contradicts with the ordinary meaning that everyone else on the thread was clearly using.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

What Cyprian said.

Beowulf and the Anglo Saxon Chronicle are Old English. To a modern English reader it is like a foreign language, almost as different from Modern English as Dutch or Danish are.

Gawain and the Green Knight is Middle English. A modern reader who is unfamiliar with Middle English needs notes or guidance to help with both grammar and vocabulary.

Chaucer and Gower and Langland are Late Middle English (even though contemporary with the Gawain poet who was writing in a rather old-fashioned local dialect) Its a little bit easier to read, but you still need help. It is not, quite, our language.

Malory's Morte D'Arthur is transitional from Middle to Modern. If you modernise the spelling you can usually just about get the hang of it.

The BCP, Shakespeare, the AV Bible, Donne, Milton & so on are Early Modern English. They are the same language we speak now, but in effect different dialects of it. You would expect an educated literate reader to be able to read any passage from those works. Of course they won't follow everything, there will probably be some unfamiliar vocabulary and possibly some difficult syntax, but on the whole they'd get the point. (Neither would a literate English speaker from Indiana expect to follow everything in a newspaper from India without some background)

The Wesleys and Wordsworth and Dickens and Robert Heinlein and JR Rowling are Modern English. You would expect a competent reader of English to understand their language without assistance. In fact that sort of is what we mean by a "competent reader of English".

But of those only Rowling is Contemporary English - i.e. the English we speak right now, whenever "now" is. Everyone was contemporary once.

And its unclear whether this thread is looking for a new translation of the Nicene Creed into contemporary English (which is of course a Good Thing); or else a recasting of the ideas in the Creed to fit in with contemporary thought (which would be a Bad Thing)

Posted by booktonmacarthur (# 14308) on :

quote:
this thread is looking for a new translation of the Nicene Creed into contemporary English (which is of course a Good Thing)

Too clarify!

Rob.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Patrick the less saintly:

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Unless you intend to suggest that everything since Chaucer is "modern", then:

Modern English began with the great vowel shift, so Chaucer is not modern, but Shakespeare, the Authorized Version of the Bible and the 1662 Prayer Book all are.

Indeed.

And when I was at Oxford in the late 1960s, modern history ended in 1945 -- at least in terms of what the university said formally.

In terms of how people actually think and use the language, of course, the university was wrong.

I would suggest that the "correct and academic" definition of "modern english" is about as relevent as Oxford's definition of "modern history" was.

John

Posted by Patrick the less saintly (# 14355) on :

I actually seldom hear the term 'modern English' used in anything other than the 'correct and academic way'. Of course, I'm perhaps a little unusual as members of my immediate family can actually read Old and Middle English and my first girlfriend was an aspiring scholar of Medieval literature. I also get shocked and annoyed when I find the 'classics' section at Waterstones filled with Jane Austen and Mark Twain instead of Homer and Cicero, so I may not be an authority on English as she is spoke.

Posted by Seb (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by booktonmacarthur:

quote:
this thread is looking for a new translation of the Nicene Creed into contemporary English (which is of course a Good Thing)
Too clarify!

Rob.

The reason some bits are so tricky (the trinitarian bits) is because the thoughts were not formulated in English and the philosophy behind the trinity doesn't make any logical sense in English.

That's why so much of the creed sounds like balderdash to people uneducated in Christian tradition today

Posted by booktonmacarthur (# 14308) on :

At Last! Here is the second draft with alterations based on the feedback given. I am told that some things are purely to keep Syntax, whomever he may be, happy. [Angel]

We believe in one God,
the Father, who is all-powerful,
and who created heaven and earth,
and all other things, even the things you can't see.

We believe in only one Lord, Jesus Christ,
God's only Son,
who always has been and always will be God's son,
fully God, equal with the Father,
both the Father and Son are truly God and are the same God,
the Father did not make him, but he was born of the Father,
and is of one mind with the Father.
Through the Son all things were made.

He came down from heaven;
For us and to save us,

And through the Holy Spirit's power
he took human form and Mary gave birth to him, even though she was still a virgin

He became a man, fully human, but remained fully God
We believe he died for us, being nailed to a cross at Pontius Pilate's command;
he suffered greatly on the cross, died, and was buried.
As predicted in the Old Testament, he came back to life after three days;
without dying again, he returned to heaven
and now sits in glory, in a place of the highest honour at the side of the Father.
One day he will come again to Earth, as King of all
to judge all humanity including those who have already died,
and his kingdom last for ever, without ending.

We believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, who gives life to God's creation
(who comes from the Father and the Son).

The Holy Spirit is equal with the Father and the Son
and is worshiped and glorified along with them.
And when the prophets spoke, it was the Holy Spirit speaking through them.

We believe in one united Church that dates back to the first followers of Jesus Christ
We believe in one baptism for the cleansing of sins.
We wait for the dead to return to life,
and believe that life on earth will continue until Christ returns.

This is what we believe.

Thanks for all the feedback! Keep up the good work [Smile]

[Deleted duplicate post - DT Eccles Host]

[ 26. July 2009, 16:44: Message edited by: Doublethink ]

Posted by Cyprian (# 5638) on :

[Smile]

Posted by booktonmacarthur (# 14308) on :

Thanks DT! I didn't realise there had been a duplication, although I know how it happend [Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by Darllenwyr (# 14520) on :

Just a small objection, your honour. Is the word 'cleansing' an entirely appropriate choice these days? Whilst it might be 'modern' English (pace those debating this issue!) I doubt that it is contemporary English. It is difficult to know what to suggest in its place; 'erasing' perhaps?

Posted by Patrick the less saintly (# 14355) on :

quote:
Man: You were, I believe, in charge of the contracting out of the council's cleaning department
Mr Wade: Cleansing, we say cleansing not cleaning
Woman: Why?
Mr Wade: Because it annoys people, I suppose
Man: And the company you chose was called Wade Cleaning
Mr Wade: Wade Cleansing. Slogan: 'we know the meansing of cleansing'.

— A bit of Fry and Laurie.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0