Chili

No blood was shed as that which died, our ego to be sure, was an illusion that has no blood to shed, but the effective measure is that with the lymbic sytem out of function our entire sense percepton mechanism must be changed so that the mind can taste foul odor from as far away as Denmark is from England.

Duvduv

Then what's the use of referencing blood altogether (even for the sake of comparing him to temple sacrifice) rather than simply on his having died (by whatever means) and been resurrected which is exactly what the Nicene Creed presented originally? Blood of Christ certainly plays a crucial role in Christianity in terms of remission of sins beyond mere death and resurrection, which is the EMPHASIS in the extensive discussion of resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 itself, which doesn't care about blood or even the crucifixion in conjunction with eternal life.

Chili

I am not familiar with the original Creed but if you are going to be infallible as a responsible agent of the myth and so as practical owner of eternal life, you need a reoccurance every now and then to keep abreast of changes made in a universe wherein things are the way they are to make updates and possibly changes as needed when needed, since this is how, when, where and why eternity itself is an exctraction of infinity in just 'to be' as in "I am."

I short myth also has cause to be and in this case is real and really is the cause of beauty and truth around us in a world that once was like in Gen.1:1 and for some people still is said to be a bitch.

Oops, I think in 1 Cor.15 Pauls is just saying that it can rapture as well and that crucifixion just shows the intricate details of the process that puts the Intelligent Design inside the species which there is the unfolding of the same.

Duvduv

Blood and crucifixion play no role of importance in salvation in the First Nicene Creed....In the case of the epistles, blood only comes into the picture in Ephesians and Romans, but not in Galatians or Corinthians, despite the elements all being of vital importance together. Of course we don't see in any of these cases the physical Christ.

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, 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, both which be in heaven and in earth. Who for us men and for our salvation came down [from heaven] and was incarnate and was made man. He suffered and the third day he rose again, and ascended into heaven. And he shall come again to judge both the quick and the dead. And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost. 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 [from the Father] or that he is a creature, or subject to change or conversion--all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them.

sotto voce

Not for pagans, of course not.

sotto voce

CoE Article XXXI.

'Of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross.

The Offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.'

Duvduv

I am not sure what you mean by "not for pagans." In any case I also added below that blood is not always of importance in the epistles either. And the fact that the author of Romans and Ephesians doesn't mention anything about the thorns or the spear makes it important to know what blood is being referred to . Perhaps it is entirely metaphorical, i.e. a sacrifice MUST have blood shed even if it isn't literal and only conceptual. By definition there is blood in a sacrifice, and Christ is a sacrifice. The fact of no actual blood is unimportant. But why the Nicene Creed doesn't mention it at all is intriguing.

Toto

Christianity is a more complex religion than you might guess from some current simplified evangelical belief systems. If people are going to devote their lives to Christian theology, they need lots of intricate references to the Exodus or other items of cultural history to occupy their minds.

Chili

Well Paul says the same in that wheat produces wheat and here the Church is saying that the Son of God is what we would call the monoploid son of the father and so is begotten and not made and always was with God and therefore of the same essence of the father but that since we are from diploid engender we must first die to our own gender to emerge after three days as son of God free and clear of encumbrances that are retained within.

sotto voce

The physical death of Jesus achieved nothing of itself. However, one cannot drive nails into a hand or foot without causing loss of blood, so the blood figure, that began allegorically with those skins in Eden, and continued with Abel's sacrifice; that began in the literal sense with Abraham's ram, and continued at the Passover in Egypt, and on the Tabernacle altar, etc., is satisfied. But Jesus could have died bloodlessly, because

'Blood' (spilled) means death. Not physical death, as commonly supposed, but spiritual.'