aa5874

There is really no corroborative evidence whatsoever that 1 Corinthians 11.23 is an interpolation, no corroborative evidence whatsoever that there is an earlier version of 1 Cor. 11. without the 23rd verse and no corroborative evidence that 1 Cor.11 was composed before c 62 CE.

The exoneration of Pilate is found in virtually all Apologetic writings who mentioned Pilate's role in the crucifixion of Jesus which would indicate that the claim that the Jews killed Jesus the Son of the God of the Jews was most likely found in the early story of Jesus.

Clivedurdle

Why is Pilate in the Nicene Creed as a matter of faith?

Stringbean

Good question. I would like to hear the answer to that myself. Maybe one of the local scholars will chime in here. This ought to be interesting.

Duvduv

He does not appear in the creed of 325.Most likely because the Jesus story was in its earliest stages, whenever the creed was first drafted as a unifying message for the literati of the new religion, and didn't have a specific time period yet.
In fact, Pilate (unlike Mary or the Virgin) did not get a place in a creed at all before 381. In 325 there was yet no dogma in the creed for crucifixion or virgin birth. No historical anchor at all.

.

Clivedurdle

Wiki

Clivedurdle

The source of my stating it is in the Nicene Creed is an Anglican communion service booklet I saw this morning!

Clivedurdle

There seem to be a huge number of theological improvements between 325 and 381!

Like a second coming. Were there political reasons in the late 300's to go anti-Jewish?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed

Chili

Pilate represents left brain authority wherein reason must prevail as outsider to the inner man, and so it is against reason that he, Jesus here as second Adam, must be crucified to die, consciously himself, to liberate the 'emerging' self.

Not to side-track here but this is precisely is why Mary is not borrowed from Isis as archetypal imagery, wherein the image is real and not imaginary as prior to reason itself and thus is first-hand from what we call God, who is only called God until we are God as Lord God made manifest this way . . . wherein we are King of our domain as Freeman in our own world.

To see this just think metamorphosis and accept that the little butterfly does not kill the fat worm to get out of there, nor does the worm say "get out of here, leave me alone" and accept that 'woman' is at work in this from behind the scene, and so is why Mary will never look like Isis, but as the perfect image of [mortal] beauty always seen as 'local' by the visionary throughout Christendom.

And also do not think that humans spin a visible cocoon, but ask yourself why "two by two's" will always wear a suit while on the prowl, if not to hear: "come on in" you timed it right.

In Plato's "chain of division" it formally is why the Minotaur cannot be just an idea (a glow to him) that the sophists delineate into a string like division as look-alike because they missed the glow on the way out looking for likes. And no, Plato is not trying to be insulting here but points at the re-emergence wherein only the einai (soul) can be found as 'open' now to welcome in . . . and thus Herod and Pilate became friends in the end.

Duvduv

Pilate (unlike Mary or the Virgin) did not get a place in a creed at all before 381. In 325 there was yet no dogma in the creed for crucifixion or virgin birth. No historical anchor at all.

andrewcriddle

What is normally called in church the Nicene creed is not the original declaration of 325 but an updated version (probably) composed at Constantinople in 381.

Some of the differences are theological but some result from the use of different local baptismal creeds as the bases for the 325 version and the 381 version.

Andrew Criddle