No mentioning Jesus death in Nicene Creed

At the first ecumenical («world-wide») Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, 318 bishops from all over the Empire met together under supervision of Emperor Constantine the Great, to agree on a shared foundational doctrine for the Church. After some days of bitter arguments over the nature of God and the Carpenter's Son, the bishops finally agreed on the first document of doctrinal precedence within the Church, the first uniform profession of faith named Symbolum Nicaenum in Latin, or in Greek: Σύμβολον τῆς Νικαίας («Symbolon tes Nikaias») — The Creed of Nicaea. The English translation of the Creed is as below:

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, begotten of the Father
[the only-begotten; that is, of the essence 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 in heaven and on earth];

Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man;

He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven;

From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

And in the Holy Ghost.

And they added a disclaimer rant at the bottom:

[But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'— they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.]

As you can probably imagine, getting a mere two Christians to agree on something can be hard sometimes, much less 300 drunk and fat top-of-the-world bishops on their first real trip abroad, all eager to wear the funny hat and have their say be the Law to cut left and right. We know the presbyter of Alexandria named Arius was excommunicated over the subject of how Jesus' divinity was to be understood as compared to his Father, the so called Arian Controversy, and the filioque controversy, involving the words «and through the Son», and several other details of seemingly no importance, and there were also made preparations for developing an official uniform canon of scriptures of the Bible. Two other rebel bishops were banished to Illyria together with Arius for simply refusing to sign the final creed. In short, there were hefty discussions, some say even fights with fist in kisser and much pride and power at stake and the testosterone was flowing like a lesser deluge.

Read the text of the Creed again. Why is there no mentioning Jesus dying anywhere? It says that «He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven;» — the original text doesn't even mention the tomb, a detail that was added at the first council of Constantinople in 381. Plenty other stuff was added in 381 btw., but still no mentioning Jesus dying anywhere. Which is rather odd, for isn't it quite clear from our Bibles that Jesus died at Calvary? Actually, the texts of our four gospels only states that the Soldier claimed «Jesus had already died» as in «Jesus didn't have to die again» upon taking him down from the cross and piercing his chest to relieve him of pneumothorax and drain the chest of blood and condense. Odd thing is, the texts of the four canonical gospels fully support the idea that Jesus never died at Golgotha. That he had already died once before. By the hands of John the Baptist. Jesus and John were stars among the Roman soldiers. Every time Jesus is confronted by Roman soldiers, the soldiers always defend him. Something to think about.

The oddest thing about not mentioning Jesus' supposed death in the Nicene Creed— it doesn't seem to even having been up for discussion. They used a whole month to agree on the Creed above, and they couldn't agree whether Jesus died or not? Or what's more, didn't talk about it at all?

edit on 2-9-2015 by Utnapisjtim because: color tag; filioque

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Good thread.

They used a whole month to agree on the Creed above, and they couldn't agree whether Jesus died or not? Or what's more, didn't talk about it at all?

The "dying" of "Jesus" had nothing to do with the manufacturing of the Nicene Creed. (I believe they all KNEW it was a pack of lies, and just couldn't agree on how to define it. The council was held in order to 'package' a mutually agreeable definition of the myth that was already concocted. Like a group of writers of a movie who have to decide how to portray 'that one character's' development and history.) Just my opinion.

Organized religion is a huge fabrication.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Except mine .

a reply to: boymonkey74

Yeah, monkey religions are cool.
So is the United Church of Bacon.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Interesting. I've been lapsed for some years, but I thought I recalled death being in the Creed. Looking it up, sure enough... this is the Creed I remember from the Parish I attended in Tucson for 4 years:
www.usccb.org...

I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

(Emphasis mine)

I always assumed the profession of Faith was a Church universal.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

What ever happened to «Jesus died to atone for the sins of humankind?» Try to question that in front of a packed Easter Mass. You don't wanna do that. Trust me. I actually did that once. I could have been killed at the spot had not the priest managed to pull me out of their claws and escorted me out the back. Never saw such a face on a priest ever. Last time I show up pissed in the Catholic Church during the most important Mass of the year. Won't happen again! Promise.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

That's how I learned it, too.
And it's PRECISELY why I couldn't buy any of it when I became old enough to understand what was being said. I resented having to bow my head, on my knees, and recite such a load of nonsense. I couldn't understand how the adults were all bent over and humble and gravely reciting it like it was real.
And I was just a preteen.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

I believe I would have paid and suffered through a Catholic Easter mass to have seen that.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

The text in the OP is supposed to be the original text agreed upon in Nicaea 325 AD, the text of the «profession of faith» was then revised in 381 AD at the council in Constantinople, as well as a later Latin versions and various other versions and updates to the liturgical «profession of faith» text. The text used today is much more advanced than the text of the Nicene Creed. They may still refer to the modern text as the text from the Nicene Creed.

and there was the Filiochus-controversy involving the words «Son of God»

Do you mean the filioque controversy, involving the words "and through the Son?"

Read the text of the Creed again. Why is there no mentioning Jesus dying anywhere?

Creeds are formulated to provide definitive solutions to controversies. Jesus's death was not controversial. Whether or not he suffered was. It is meant to be read against patripassianism and docetism.

Which is rather odd, for isn't it quite clear from our Bibles that Jesus died at Calvary?

Yes, it is. He "gave up his spirit" (Mt, Jn) and "breathed his last" (Mk, Lk).

The existence of the Christian dogma is based on the resurrection of Jesus otherwise He was just another prophet. Christianity is based on that; that Jesus is God incarnated, that he suffered and die as sacrifice for our sins, resurrected and went to heaven promising to return back again.

So when they say: "He suffered" it means that He as Son of God suffered the physical pain and the experience of the dying physical body. But He (the entity) as Son of God cannot die.

reply to: Utnapisjtim
"Suffered" = "died".
That is why it is followed by "rose again on the third day".
Silly pointless quibble.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

When it says he suffered and he rose..... rose from what? The suffering? The death?

Like most texts, they can be interrupted many ways.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I was banished from my first church when I was sixteen. They said the music we played made them all wiggly and funny making them think forbidden thoughts, so they decided we were the devil and tossed the whole band out, cursing us banning us from ever returning. I was from another town so no big deal for me, but the other two were actually going there like every week, so for them it was pretty hairy afterwards. I don't think they were ever admitted back. So much for the Heavy Rock of Peter....

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

It would be nice to have a discussion about religion, any religion, sans charged rhetoric and what many believers would certainly consider insults to their intelligence. It's not for you, we get it, move on.

I don't find anything in the profession of Faith to be at all "nonsense." It's called "Faith" for exactly that reason... obviously, if you don't believe it, you lack this particular faith to profess and it's just not for you. Honestly the only portion of the profession I currently disagree with is "I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church." I can't lie and claim that sentiment is what I truly believe... I feel that the particular church that profession refers to has been co-opted by men and infiltrated by elements of evil to the point where it is merely another Earthly institution. I believe in everything else in the Creed, however.

If you get down to brass tacks, the Creed (aside from the Church line) is a pretty unique expedition into the only two conditions for salvation presented in the New Testament:
1. Accept Christ as the redeemer of sins.
2. Be baptised in His name.
That's essentially the core of Christianity. Not really sure where all the other stuff various churches wax poetic about fits in, except to say humans sure love to complicate even the simplest of ideas.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
Organized religion is a huge fabrication.

100% correct...

Which is why Jesus opposed religion and the religious people hated Him so fiercely.

IMHO God is NOT religious.

Nor is He the one behind religion.

"What if I told you Jesus came to abolish religion... just because you call some people blind doesn’t automatically give you vision..."

a reply to: burdman30ott6

ok.
Sorry. I'm bowing out now.

originally posted by: FurvusRexCaeli

and there was the Filiochus-controversy involving the words «Son of God»

Do you mean the filioque controversy, involving the words "and through the Son?"

Yes, naturally.

Jesus's death was not controversial. Whether or not he suffered was.

Bollocks! Had his suffering-or-not been controversial it would most likely NOT have been any references to it.

It is meant to be read against patripassianism and docetism.

The WHAT?

Yes, it [Jesus dying on Calvary] is [written in the Gospel]. He "gave up his spirit" (Mt, Jn) and "breathed his last" (Mk, Lk).

It doesn't say giving up his spirit. It says giving up his pnauma, his breath, his lungs stop working. I did that once meself actually. Had to go through the exact same procedure as Jesus too actually, but I am still alive. To stop breathing doesn't mean that you die. It means you stop breathing. Like I said, it happens, no death need apply.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Well, there's not even evidence of Jesus having ever existed anyway, no proof of a historic Jesus outside of the Bible.
(no eyewitnesses accounts at all, not from the alleged disciples, and not from other non-Biblical figures like Pliny, Josephus Flavius, etc, all hearsay).

Thanks for posting this, OP!

originally posted by: MamaJ
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

When it says he suffered and he rose..... rose from what? The suffering? The death?

Well, I weren't there obviously. That said, I rise from my bed every morning, if I ever died I certainly didn't notice much. You can rise again from quite a few things mate, but dying— by all due respect— just isn't one of them. When you're dead, you're dead, there's no way back. If you return to life the doctor pronouncing you dead was wrong and made a near-fatal mistake. It just doesn't happen that dead people come back to life. That's what dead means for heaven's sake. Finito. Jesus may have been pronounced dead according to medical practice and definitions back then (the text really doesn't say), but the only evidence provided is that Jesus stopped breathing for an undisclosed period of time.