Originally Posted by sotto voce

Surely, from Nicea to Duvduv, everyone supposed that 'suffering' meant 'crucifixion'.

Originally Posted by Duvduv

How do you know that? And whether or not there really was a Nicene Creed, if whoever authored it did not include the crucifixion, this would suggest the relative absence or unimportance of the crucifixion in relation to the salvic nature of the Christ after his resurrection. For that matter, it is evident from the Creed that other elements of the epistles and gospels were unimportantt to the salvic nature of the Christ, i.e. the virgin birth, Pilate, Judea, seed of David, etc. etc.

Originally Posted by Duvduv

What is behind the "profundity" of that statement, Sotto Voce??

Originally Posted by mountainman

Hey duvduv,

Have a summary read through of the NHC 7.3 The Apocalypse of Peter translated by James Brashler and Roger A. Bullard.

You will need to disambiguate The Apocalypse of Peter and the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter.

My notes from these:


There in response to your question, the evidence suggests that there were people manufacturing codices that did not consider the Nicaean Bishops representative of any form of religious authority. At the same time they appear to have Jesus laughing at the crucifixion - Jesus has become docetic.

The problem is that when we try and research and understand the Christian sects of that epoch, the evidence about these so-called sects is comprised of pseudo-historical heresiological polemic. Our official information is corrupt. Another text in the NHC (11.1) states that the Gnostics fled before the Onrush of "Christians":

The text of The Interpretation of Knowledge translated by John D. Turner, commences ... (13 lines missing) ...

"they came to believe by means of signs and wonders and fabrications. The likeness that came to be through them followed him, but through reproaches and humiliations before they received the apprehension of a vision they fled without having heard that the Christ had been crucified."

This section seems to indicte that people fled before the onrush of the Christian message. Reproach and humiliation preceeded the message, and therefore the generation of the author fled the revolution. The text continues ....

"But our generation is fleeing since it does not yet even believe that the Christ is alive"

It would appear that some doubted whether the Christ ever lived at all in an historical sense, especially considering the author has just admitted most people of the generation fled in advance of hearing about the Christ having been crucified.

Do I have to repeat this? The Christian onrush was so savage that people didn't stick around to wait for the punch line about the resurrection because they had fled the arena even before they heard he was crucified.

What TF was going down?

Extreme Docetism.

These authors thought that the "Official" Jesus story was bullshit.

The heresiologists naturally want to classify these authors as heretical sects.

Only the "Official Jesus Story" and its Business Operation was to be tolerated.

The Greek intellectual tradition, and its critical questioning, was to be suppressed.

And the spirit of the Christian Emperors moved upon the face of the Roman Empire like an oil slick.

And lo and behold! A New Rome and a New MiddleEarth.