What would be the significance of the word "suffering " in the context of the Creed without mention of HOW. this suffering occurred which also rendered the Christ a "sacrifice" for mankind?
If the Creed is accurate, then there must have been a reason both for the absence of crucifixion and of any Jewish connection to the life of an ostensible historical Jesus figure according to the Creed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvduv
I was summarizing my thoughts after reviewing the information after thinking over the issue of the original Nicene Creed. Now I am digesting whether the celestial concept could be read into the original Creed along with Xreston and creation Logos, and if devoid of any Jewish implications, unrelated to the teachings of the gospels, and hence a different religion entirely from gospelist Christianity. However, there could be some further relationship in a metaphorical sense, including "suffering" and later "judging". But why wouldn't the link to the Chi-Rho celestial cross be EXPLICIT here?
|
AFAIK most sources on Nicaea also explicitly mention an agreement at that time concerning the celebration of the vernal equinox, which was to serve for the celebration of the "Christian Easter". This agreement implied agreement (or otherwise) related to an essentially astronomical - celestial - concept.
When this astronomical "agreement" is studied, it would certainly seem probable that Constantine rejected the advice of non-christian astrologers when he decided to chain "Easter" to the Vernal equinox. Not a good thing. This had totally disasterous effects for the entire concept of "astrology" and "astronomy". The knowledge of the celestial precession of the equinoxes was literaly crucified. Further info here.
Therefore, one reason why it the link to the Chi-Rho celestial cross would not need to be be EXPLICIT here is because the "Celestial Issues" were supposedly discussed (explicitly) under the subject of the proper and due celebration of the Vernal Equinox in the year 325 CE, at which time it was legally hijacked as the celebration of Constantine's very own Easter Bunny parade.
The Earthly Cross OTOH was also real for these people but a separate issue altogether. If Helena really discovered it, we might suppose that Constantine publically displayed it. Moreover I cannot find any reports that experts at that time found it to be other than 1st century timber. We can be reasonably sure that Bullneck had his experts, since he refers to them before Nicaea, at the "Council of Antioch", during his momentous "Oration to the Saints", in relation to the truth of the Sibyl's prediction of the 1st Appearance in the Flesh of Bilbo Jesus Baggins ....
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Pontifex Maximus Constantinus at Antioch, some time immediately prior to the "Council" of Nicaea
"Our people have compared the chronologies
with great accuracy", and the 'age' of the Sibyl's verses
excludes the view that they are a post-christian fake."
|
|
03-07-2012, 08:24 PM
