Duvduv

What does that have to do with the absence of the crucifixion from the first Nicene Creed? ?

sotto voce

What does the Nicene Creed, first or otherwise, have to do with anything?

Solo

This would work for Paul's teachings. His earliest letter 1Thessalonians does not mention the cross, or for that matter, the gospel. There may be several schools of thought on this. I think Paul had "revelations" of the theological significance of the cross later, when the Jerusalem missions appeared at Corinth. It is likely there, he developed his paradoxical teaching of the messianic significance of the cross, summarized in 1 Cr 1:18-31. Note that the word 'gospel' (or rather 'preaching of the gospel') directly adresses the salvific power of the cross (1 Cr 1:17).

The Thomasian tradition seems to have dispensed with the crucifixion - slavation motif alogether. Its main teaching tenets were, insight (GTh 1-2), self-reliance (GTh 13), and stoic acceptance (GTh 42).

Best,
Jiri

Duvduv

I asked you first....
Besides, only we Jews are said to answer a question with a question......!!

Duvduv

Hi, Jiri. Christianity as we know it has crucifixion as a central item for the Christ. Yet it would appear that the same salvic result even if the Jesus figure had died a natural death, been tortured or fell off a cliff and been resurrected. So I am questioning the importance of the crucifixion in the early 4th century.

Regarding the term "gospel," what do you think of what I posted in #538 in the thread "Confusion in Galatians 1"? I was suggesting the possibility that the earliest "Christians" did not see a contradiction between the use of the term in relation to the doctrines of the epistles (i.e. Galatians) and the 4 "gospels," since they don't teach any specific doctrines of salvation especially without their Great Commissions. In other words, the 4 stories were technically not gospels in the beginning, but merely stories about Jesus.

sotto voce

So we agree, pagan hypocrites and their lip-serving creeds are irrelevant. So a 'Jesus sect' that did not see Jesus as messiah, but as a prophet or teacher, could exist; and indeed, Islam is just such a sect. But a Jesus who did not atone for sins cannot be messianic, the Christ. Crucifixion was not essential, nor even physical death, because the 'debt' was not paid physically, but spiritually. It had to be the spiritual penalty of a person who was sinless, who did not already deserve to die, that was accounted valid 'payment'.

Toto

The significance of the cross in the fourth century was that Constantine had a vision, and thought that his military victory was connected to the sign of the cross.

Or at least that was the story.

Keith&Co.

Why not?
If Heaven is paradise, he suffered birth, puberty, acne, sharp rocks, paper cuts, splinters...
For one used to Heaven, such torments would make one suspect he was in Hell. he suffered aging, hunger, temptations, inappropriate hard-ons, thirst, all the weaknesses of the flesh that the mortal body is prone to.

If he then died, perhaps by a fall, a fight, thwarting a robbery, then he'd have experienced life as men do, and his resurrection would be more meaningful as a promise that the rest of us can receive the same gift of internal life.

Duvduv

In other words, the Creed does not define what "suffering" actually signifies in relation to the incarnated being who "rose again" on the third day although I had overlooked that it does not say that he died subsequent to suffering....

By the way, is it possible to explain the meaning of "rose again" as opposed to "rose" since it was actually the FIRST time he was resurrected, not the second.

Duvduv

How would Toledot Yeshu address the issue of the salvic power of the Christ without crucifixion?