No mentioning Jesus death in Nicene Creed

a reply to: Stormdancer777

No. And you refer to two seperate incidents. When I was sixteen, I weren't Christian. The two others were. Next story (the first I referred to) is in a Catholic Church during Easter Mass. I asked the priest in the middle of his woodoo session whether he was aware what he was doing, why he did it and how he was literally performing the torture of Christ in front of the whole church. I mean he was sticking needles into a Jesus effigy.

Obviously he wasn't dead then...what's your point? If you think you made one you did a poor job of forming your thoughts into text.

The incident you are referring to is after his supposed whole body resurrection.

a reply to: windword

a reply to: raymundoko

Oh? Are we pretending that the myth of his death is true? Because he shows up after reports of his death, that means he died and magically rose from the dead, 3 days later?

Occam's razor. He wasn't dead then, because he wasn't ever dead. He survived his ordeal. Even in the biblical narrative, Jesus says that it is he, in the flesh, that he's not spirit because spirits aren't made of flesh. Then he asks for something to eat, specifically, dead flesh and nectar stolen from insects.

What kind of holy, divine resurrection leaves a "god" lacking, lacking in nourishment and hungry for dead flesh and insect nectar? I can only assume that his dead flesh eating risen body also needed to poop afterwards too.

By the way, according to the Bible, Jesus wasn't the first to rise from the dead. There are several instances in the Old Testament, there's the famous story of Lazarus, and of course all those zombies that rose and walked about the day of the supposed crucifixion. Then of course, we have Paul claiming to have raised a young man from death.

Do you believe all of it?

The debate isn't whether it's true or not, the debate is whether the original text supports a death and resurrection or if that was created at the council. In this instance there is no debate as the canon supports a death and resurrection.

Also, what do others having supposedly having been resurrected have to do with Jesus? Hint, they don't. The resurrection wasn't the important part.

You're trying to devolve the conversation.

a reply to: windword

a reply to: raymundoko

But, the text, as I've shown you, doesn't support a resurrected Jesus, but a Jesus who survived his ordeal.

Incorrect. He appeared in several forms, many of them unrecognizable to even his own disciples.

a reply to: windword

a reply to: raymundoko

No. He was a wanted man using disguises to hide his identity. Even in the garden, according to the story, he was disguised as a gardener/bee keeper, wearing a veil to cover his face.

originally posted by: Murgatroid

"It is impossible that a being who had stolen half dead out of the sepulchre, who crept about weak and ill and wanting medical treatment... could have given the disciples the impression that he was a conqueror over death and the grave, the Prince of life: an impression that lay at the bottom of their future ministry."

The Swoon theory falls apart quickly when you consider that Jesus had undergone six trials, was beaten, then scourged with 39 lashes that left His back raw, exposed, and bloody. He had a crown of thorns forced upon His head, ripping His scalp.

He had been crucified with nails in the hands and feet, and He hung there for six hours bleeding and dehydrating. His spear-pierced side emitted blood and water. He was left in a tomb for three days and was tightly wrapped up. Was anyone in this condition able to revive, get himself out of the tight wrappings, and then walk on pierced feet?

Could He single-handedly move a large stone with hands that were unusable due to the wrist piercings which severed the median nerve and paralyzed them? Could He then somehow get by the armed guards given the charge of watching the grave-side? Are we to believe further that Jesus managed to walk a long distance on feet which had been pierced and then appear to the disciples as a victorious conqueror of death? It makes no sense. In fact, it would take more to believe this ridiculous conjecture than it would to believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

But literally none of that happened in reality.
There's zero evidence, it's a fabrication.
Actually talking about as if it's a real event is pure lunacy.
You can believe and have faith that these tales and myths are true and more power to you, but there's no truth in it and no evidence at all that it happened.

a reply to: stargatetravels

FYI, no one in the academic world has ever taken Acharya S. seriously...

Let me guess, you're boyfriend's a french model?

Guy: Where did you hear that?
Girl: The Internet.
Guy: And you believed it?
Girl: Yeah. They can't put anything on the Internet that isn't true.
Guy: Where did you hear that?
Girl: The Internet.

I'm an atheist, but I'll throw my two cents in here.

Maybe the fact that Jesus died was never under dispute, it was universally accepted by everyone.

Meaning that no discussion on the subject was needed ...... could be as simple as that.

a reply to: Murgatroid


Um - What?
Was there a question in there or a point other than the profession of my boyfriend?

Well that is certainly an interesting take. I'll research that aspect.

a reply to: windword

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: raymundoko

Oh? Are we pretending that the myth of his death is true? Because he shows up after reports of his death, that means he died and magically rose from the dead, 3 days later?

Occam's razor. He wasn't dead then, because he wasn't ever dead. He survived his ordeal. Even in the biblical narrative, Jesus says that it is he, in the flesh, that he's not spirit because spirits aren't made of flesh. Then he asks for something to eat, specifically, dead flesh and nectar stolen from insects.

What kind of holy, divine resurrection leaves a "god" lacking, lacking in nourishment and hungry for dead flesh and insect nectar? I can only assume that his dead flesh eating risen body also needed to poop afterwards too.

By the way, according to the Bible, Jesus wasn't the first to rise from the dead. There are several instances in the Old Testament, there's the famous story of Lazarus, and of course all those zombies that rose and walked about the day of the supposed crucifixion. Then of course, we have Paul claiming to have raised a young man from death.

Do you believe all of it?

I always take the view that all this really depends on how you view the bible. Literalist? A history book that is filled with fluff that must be ignored to see the pure history? A big book in genetics that simply traces the two competing blood lines of good and evil or in other words the start of this civilization that the bible covers (one of many). This would then trace two geanologies involving Adam, eve cain/Abel/Seth and of course God and Satan in the background. It's all made up doesn't matter? So problem one how do you view it?

Problem two, except if you believe that none of it matters. Word to mouth..how long before written down. Language translations is always an issue. Books and writings left out especially books referenced by the bible but not part of it, and additions that shouldn't be there. Here to me is one of the most fasinating " problems that may exist. Who edited the bible in the 1611 king James version? Sir Francis bacon. Who cares? What did this man invent in 1605 bacons cipher. Basically hiding messages in text. But did he have any other lesser known work like this? Might he have had an inside track to other information pertaining to religion? Just possibilities.

Problem three. Depends on who you talk to Jesus wasn't even a Christian. In his day there were various religious sects Pharisees, saducees, and essenes. Some say Jesus was in the third group and associated with the teachings of the Nazarene church. If this was known would if affect the way the Christian church thought about and portrayed Jesus?

What's this have to do with your story and point? The story of Lazarus. For a minute we view this from a historical perspective and accept certain mis translations. Also take into account the time, the power the religious leaders in the temples had because honestly the Roman soldiers were outnumbered and after the crap Pontius Pilate took from the way he squashed a Samaritan uprising he needed the leaders to help keep control. they had quite the free reign. Also looking into the gospel of Mark where the story comes from, apparently a bishop clement of Alexandria, made some changes to the gospel text. First time known to have happened 100 years after they were first written, and he even wrote a letter explaining these actions.

In the context of the original Mark text, Lazarus was portrayed in a state of excommunication: spiritual death by decree, not physical death. The account even had Lazarus and Jesus calling to each other before the tomb was opened. This defeated the bishops’ desire to portray the raising of Lazarus as a spiritual miracle, not as a simple release from excommunication. More importantly, it set the scene for the story of the Crucifixion of Jesus himself, whose own subsequent raising from spiritual death was determined by the same three-day rule that applied to Lazarus.

Jesus was raised (released or resurrected) from death by decree on the statutory third day. In the case of Lazarus, however, Jesus flouted the rules by raising his friend after the three-day period of symbolic sickness. At that point, civil death would have become absolute in the eyes of the legal elders. Lazarus would have been wrapped in sacking and buried alive. His crime was that he had led a violent people’s-revolt to safeguard the public water supply which had been diverted through a new Roman aqueduct in Jerusalem. But Jesus performed this release while not holding any priestly entitlement to do so. What happened was that Herod-Antipas of Galilee compelled the High Priest of Jerusalem to relent in favor of Jesus, and this was regarded as an unprecedented miracle!

Point is no matter what you believe about any of this or not at all, are you even so sure what you are saying to then make your point or support your view is accurate even a view of non belief? Is anyone's? Up to each person. Take all the views and issues and throw in non believers. You now have the current state of religion.. the only thing I do know is under no circumstance has God signed off on any of these priests, preachers, popes, etc to be the self proclaimed middlemen between God and the faithful. And considering all the various things to try and account for and try to determine truth, I doubt any are qualified to even be in that position. Crazy part is it is very apparent today and it was the church who put themselves in this position. Even if once again they were given some special place by God to act as mediators which they weren't and haven't been

a reply to: Reallyfolks

I always take the view that all this really depends on how you view the bible.

I view the Bible as mostly allegory. Adam and Eve, Noah, Moses, Jonah, Jesus, never existed. They're not real people and their stories were never meant to be taken literal.

We are all potential Jesuses. We all gave up our divinity to enter the flesh and ultimately sacrifice our earthly body for our efforts. We all overcome death of the flesh, because we are spiritual beings having a physical experience.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Reallyfolks

I always take the view that all this really depends on how you view the bible.

I view the Bible as mostly allegory. Adam and Eve, Noah, Moses, Jonah, Jesus, never existed. They're not real people and their stories were never meant to be taken literal.

We are all potential Jesuses. We all gave up our divinity to enter the flesh and ultimately sacrifice our earthly body for our efforts. We all overcome death of the flesh, because we are spiritual beings having a physical experience.

It's a personal choice. Make the best one for you.

a reply to: windword

I'm so sick of this kind of BS when it come to the fallacies of religion, and specifically, the resurrection of Jesus.

So you're like a cigarette smoker? One day it will make you sick and you will die.
But you just can't quit. Perhaps a patch will help but the resurrection making
you sick doesn't mean it didn't happen. Miracles don't depend on how you feel
about them. Besides they do make the world a lot more interesting.

a reply to: randyvs

I'm sick of intellectually dishonest claims like this:

The 'swoon' theory has been disregarded by almost all scholars.

When what he really meant is, "most intellectually dishonest, biased Christian Bible scholars disregard the "swoon" theory."

a reply to: stargatetravels

Somehow I get the impression that anything I say is going to be rather unpalatable...

"The truth tastes funny to those accustomed to a steady diet of lies." ~ Dave vonKleist

a reply to: windword

Well it really makes no sense when you break it down.
I mean it doesn't take a scholar to see that.

originally posted by: raymundoko
Incorrect. He appeared in several forms, many of them unrecognizable to even his own disciples.

In several forms? He was unrecognisable since they shaved off his hair and beard. He had to go incognito to avoid being caught by the Romans and crucified again. He was hiding. Would be pretty stupid to bail on your execution and then show up everywhere being recognisable, eh?