No mentioning Jesus death in Nicene Creed

originally posted by: raymundoko
Don't you see how many baseless assumptions you stack on top of each other to support your theory?

I am simply stating what the text says and explaining it by personal experience of a relevant similar/identical injury as the one that made Jesus give up his spirit/breath.

And did I read it right? You think he was taken down before sundown?

He was down way before sundown, mate. I don't think anything here. The text says clearly that Jesus gave up his breath at three o'clock (ninth hour) and the text says the soldiers took the body of Jesus down soon after evening had arrived, which would be just after 3 in the afternoon at even tide. They had a different clock than we do now, and all the times are right there written in the gospel, I hoped I didn't have to be your Sunday school teacher.

Gospel says Jesus gave up breathing in the ninth hour, which is 3 o'clock in the afternoon and what people back then would refer to as evening. While the Romans counted the day from sunrise to sunrise (1st hour 6 in the morning), the Jews counted the day from sunset to sunset (6 at low tide and sundown/sunset). It was important for the Jews that the bodies didn't hang into the Sabbath (erev Pesach, preparation day before first day of Passover which is a Sabbath). The Gospel makes a point of this.

I know when he was killed, I'm showing that you use part of the scriptures to support your idea, yet ignore the same scriptures which say he died.

That's neither here nor there though. The point I've made is that you just make baseless assumptions not grounded in any scripture.

You use the scriptures to say he wasn't killed, yet the very same chapter says he was dead and buried...

You can't use the New Testament to support your theory. You have to use the apocryphal gospels.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Then there's this, in the words of member Magnumopus, from here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Do not touch me, I have not gone to the Father. Which means he never died on the Cross. Else, he would have gone off as his spirit to heaven. The words clearly tell he didn't die, nor will he any time soon. Also, there is no need to worship me, as no miracles occured.

Joseph and Nicodemus just treated Jesus with a 100 pounds of Myrrh, which is the miracle medicine for puncture wounds used to treat gladiators in the times of Hippocrates. It stops bleeding, acts as antibiotic, promotes rapid healing with little scaring. I use this myself and it works. Hippocrates never lost a gladiator using Myrrh, and they were cut to pieces with sword fights.


The problem is you believe in things that can classically have you termed Insane. You readily jump into the world of non-reality without even a question. Nob0dy suspended the rules of the Universe and it is crazy to suggest that, but you do.

You might also appreciate the info in this thread of his too. Church based upon the worship of a Holy Tree Sap that saved Jesus and annointed the Ark

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Interesting. I've been lapsed for some years, but I thought I recalled death being in the Creed. Looking it up, sure enough... this is the Creed I remember from the Parish I attended in Tucson for 4 years:

That's the one on page 880 of the United Methodist Hymnal. The one we used when I was a kid in Tucson was on page 881 which says that Jesus "suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; the third day he rose from the dead;".

I don't know whether the Methodist 'borrowed' their version or rewrote it themselves, but both versions mention that he died.

a reply to: rnaa

Neither of these two are the originals, but the products of nearly 2000 years of splitting hairs.

The original profession of faith that was agreed on in 325 AD and yet again in 382 AD does not say Jesus died. As far as I can see the Catholic Church didn't include the word «died» until 1973 actually, after the Vatican II council and the Nova Vulgata. Forgery in motion.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Then there's this, in the words of member Magnumopus, from here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Great stuff. I'll have to stalk that user a bit and see what else he has going. Sounds like a sensible chap.

Do not touch me, I have not gone to the Father. Which means he never died on the Cross. Else, he would have gone off as his spirit to heaven. The words clearly tell he didn't die, nor will he any time soon. Also, there is no need to worship me, as no miracles occured.

Joseph and Nicodemus just treated Jesus with a 100 pounds of Myrrh, which is the miracle medicine for puncture wounds used to treat gladiators in the times of Hippocrates. It stops bleeding, acts as antibiotic, promotes rapid healing with little scaring. I use this myself and it works. Hippocrates never lost a gladiator using Myrrh, and they were cut to pieces with sword fights.


The problem is you believe in things that can classically have you termed Insane. You readily jump into the world of non-reality without even a question. Nob0dy suspended the rules of the Universe and it is crazy to suggest that, but you do.

You might also appreciate the info in this thread of his too. Church based upon the worship of a Holy Tree Sap that saved Jesus and annointed the Ark

The quote you provided by Magnum Opus is spot on. Also, to fully embrace a patient with a healing wound in his lung isn't very smart. That meeting between Jesus and Rosie in the park is one of the loveliest passages in the bible, with Jesus going all «No need for tears or grief, I'm not dead yet!»

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: rnaa

Neither of these two are the originals, but the products of nearly 2000 years of splitting hairs.

The original profession of faith that was agreed on in 325 AD and yet again in 382 AD does not say Jesus died. As far as I can see the Catholic Church didn't include the word «died» until 1973 actually, after the Vatican II council and the Nova Vulgata. Forgery in motion.

It also doesn't mention crucifix or cross but you're all so adamant he was on a cross - he wasn't.
It was a pole or stump.
But hey, that's fine - continue.

a reply to: stargatetravels

Fair enough. We don't know the shape or nature of the Gr. σταυρός «Stauros». We may actually have the idea of it being cross-shaped from language and the extended alphabet used by the early copyists of Christian manuscripts. Certain names and words were considered sacred, so they applied a number of «Nomina Sacra» often shortened acronym-like abbreviations, like how they'd use IS in short of IesouS, by taking the first and last letter of his name. They would also use various ligatures, you probably know the Chi-Rho (below, first and second letter of ChRistos) and a few others, like the & for Lat. ET (and, also) and @ instead of Lat. AD (to, against).



There was also the Staurogram, a Tau and a Rho superimposed to form one letter or symbol. Stauron (cross or pillar) was shortened S[Staurogram]ON or similar.



The Staurogram is nearly identical to the ancient Egyptian Ankh-cross, the Key of the Nile and the main symbol for Egyptian royalty, Life and the divine-like power the pharaohs in that they had power over the Nile.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim


Indeed so the actual 'nailed to the cross' thing - you know, the main symbol and most iconic image of The Christian faith, is another addition that is not not original nor authentic.
Much of the phrases, images, symbols and 'supernatural' events of these biblical tales come, as you've mentioned, from translations, mistranslations and blatant fabrications and additions.
The words and teachings of JC are what is important and all that one needs.

a reply to: stargatetravels

Indeed so the actual 'nailed to the cross' thing - you know, the main symbol and most iconic image of The Christian faith, is another addition that is not not original nor authentic.

Eh, that depends. Julius Caesar's effigy was placed on a cross, and Romans used the symbol in their temples.







But, it is kinda hard to imagine that they'd use the same symbol to crucify their worse criminals.

originally posted by: stargatetravels
a reply to: Utnapisjtim


Indeed so the actual 'nailed to the cross' thing - you know, the main symbol and most iconic image of The Christian faith, is another addition that is not not original nor authentic.

It's likely, yes.

Much of the phrases, images, symbols and 'supernatural' events of these biblical tales come, as you've mentioned, from translations, mistranslations and blatant fabrications and additions.

Which is how even the most mundane or casual thing turns into something miraculous or seemingly impossible. I made a thread about the magic of carpentry a while back. With simple tools you can walk on water, walk through and see through walls, you can lift the heaviest weight in the world with carpentry and even make fire fly through the air to come down from the sky miles away. Most of these things are wordplay, humour and idioms, gags, I bet Jesus and the others laughed a lot when Jesus took his boat out and walked across the lake or fed the 5000 with two fish. There's always a bigger fish, so it all got out of hand being shot waaay out of proportion. There were no miracles. There ARE no miracles.

The words and teachings of JC are what is important and all that one needs.

It's hardly ALL one needs, but in that book? I'd say you're just about right.

a reply to: windword

The earliest symbols adopted and used by Christians were the Ichthys-fish (vesica pisces) and the pentagram/octagram (Venus, morningstar). The cross starts showing up around here and there in the 3rd century, and was adopted for real during the 4th century when it started becoming synonymous with the Church and the Christian movement. My guess is that Nicaea 325 AD is important here somehow. What we do know is that the earliest Christians probably loathed the cross if the good lord was indeed crucified on a cross.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

I was thinking more about your suggestion of a Jesus-Cesarian connection. Have you read Ovid's account of the Deification of Julius Caesar, Metamorphoses? A lot of it, darkened sky, earthquake, walking dead, was dropped right into the New Testament's account of Jesus' crucifixion and his ascension later.

a reply to: windword

Yes, and just like when Julius Caesar was murdered, one of the central people was named Longinus. The Centurion that was present at Calvary was traditionally named Longinus.

a reply to: windword

I have piled up a few books on or by Julius Caesar that I plan to read when I get the Rome-munchies, and Ovid is one. Any particular translation you'd recommend or vice versa?

a reply to: Buz.....no sir.it's not fabricated or fairy-tailish....the track record of prophecies astound mathmaticians.....and what about the history and archaeology being proven...I think that's right is it?